Translating European regulatory approval into healthcare uptake for biosimilars: the second translational gap

ABSTRACT With 15 biosimilar molecules in 9 different molecular classes and currently marketed under 23 distinct brands, the European pathway for regulatory approval of biosimilars has been demonstrably tried and tested. The gap that now remains is the translation from regulatory assessment and approval to incorporation of biosimilars within our healthcare systems in Europe. Despite many efforts by regulators to reach out to clinicians, there remains a translational gap for biosimilars which need to be incorporated in healthcare pathways and understood by clinicians and patients. Only by bridging this gap will biosimilars fully play their role in healthcare for Europe.

[1]  David Power,et al.  Biological Drugs and the Coming of Biosimilars , 2008 .

[2]  Safaraz K. Niazi.  Comparability of Biotechnological/Biological Products Subject to Changes in Their Manufacturing Process , 2016, Handbook of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Formulations, Second Edition.

[3]  I. Olivieri,et al.  The use of biosimilars in immune-mediated disease: A joint Italian Society of Rheumatology (SIR), Italian Society of Dermatology (SIDeMaST), and Italian Group of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) position paper. , 2014, Autoimmunity reviews.

[4]  David E. Golan,et al.  Protein therapeutics: a summary and pharmacological classification , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[5]  John R. Engen,et al.  Analytical tools for characterizing biopharmaceuticals and the implications for biosimilars , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[6]  H. Grabowski,et al.  Generic Competition in the US Pharmaceutical Industry , 2006 .

[7]  Henry G. Grabowski,et al.  Generic competition and market exclusivity periods in pharmaceuticals , 2007 .

[8]  M. Wadhwa,et al.  WHO/KFDA joint workshop on implementing WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products, Seoul, Republic of Korea 24-26 August, 2010. , 2011, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[9]  F. Pimentel-Santos,et al.  The Portuguese Society of Rheumatology position paper on the use of biosimilars. , 2014, Acta reumatologica portuguesa.

[10]  H. Grabowski,et al.  Biosimilar competition: lessons from Europe , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[11]  J. Trouvin,et al.  Biosimilars and the European experience: implications for the United States. , 2013, Health affairs.

[12]  Generic Drug Industry Dynamics , 2002 .

[13]  V. Acha,et al.  Tell me the whole story: the role of product labelling in building user confidence in biosimilars in Europe , 2014 .

[14]  C. Schneider,et al.  Toward biosimilar monoclonal antibodies , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  Richard M. Johnson.  Guideline on similar biological medicinal products , 2010 .

[16]  R. Janknegt,et al.  How to select a biosimilar , 2013 .

[17]  C. Schneider,et al.  Setting the stage for biosimilar monoclonal antibodies , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[18]  English Only,et al.  GUIDELINES ON EVALUATION OF SIMILAR BIOTHERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS (SBPs) , 2009 .

[19]  A. Towse,et al.  Biosimilars: How Can Payers Get Long-Term Savings? , 2016, PharmacoEconomics.

[20]  J. Miletich,et al.  Guiding principles for a global "patients first" standard , 2011 .

[21]  J. Fuhr,et al.  Innovation and Competition: Will Biosimilars Succeed?: The creation of an FDA approval pathway for biosimilars is complex and fraught with hazard. Yes, innovation and market competition are at stake. But so are efficacy and patient safety. , 2012, Biotechnology healthcare.

[22]  Michael R. Ward,et al.  Generic Drug Industry Dynamics , 2002, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[23]  D. Skingle.  Biosimilars: what do patients need to consider? , 2015, RMD Open.

[24]  A. Bosi,et al.  Key concepts and critical issues on epoetin and filgrastim biosimilars. A position paper from the Italian Society of Hematology, Italian Society of Experimental Hematology, and Italian Group for Bone Marrow Transplantation , 2011, Haematologica.

[25]  Martina Weise,et al.  Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation. , 2014, Blood.

[26]  J. Litten,et al.  Comparability and biosimilarity: considerations for the healthcare provider , 2012, Current medical research and opinion.

[27]  Farah Huzair,et al.  Biosimilars and the long game. , 2015, Trends in biotechnology.

[28]  K. Weick,et al.  Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking , 2005 .

[29]  M. Schiestl.  A biosimilar industry view on the implementation of the WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products. , 2011, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[30]  S. Herrera.  Biogenerics standoff , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[31]  K. Weick.  Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies , 1990 .

[32]  Richard O Dolinar,et al.  Biosimilars naming, label transparency and authority of choice – survey findings among European physicians , 2014 .

[33]  R. Thorpe,et al.  In support of the European Union biosimilar framework , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[34]  H. Canhão,et al.  The Portuguese Society of Rheumatology position paper on the use of biosimilars - 2017 update. , 2017, Acta reumatologica portuguesa.

[35]  S. Danese,et al.  ECCO position statement: the use of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). , 2013, Journal of Crohn's & colitis.

[36]  M. Mccamish,et al.  Worldwide experience with biosimilar development , 2011, mAbs.

[37]  I. Knezevic,et al.  Case studies on clinical evaluation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody: scientific considerations for regulatory approval. , 2015, Biologicals : journal of the International Association of Biological Standardization.

[38]  Gustavo Grampp,et al.  Drift, Evolution, and Divergence in Biologics and Biosimilars Manufacturing , 2014, BioDrugs.

[39]  M. Wadhwa,et al.  Biosimilars: what clinicians should know. , 2012, Blood.