Policy considerations for originator and similar biotherapeutic products

G. Grampp, R. Kozak, Thomas Schreitmueller
{"title":"Policy considerations for originator and similar biotherapeutic products","authors":"G. Grampp, R. Kozak, Thomas Schreitmueller","doi":"10.3233/PPL-160438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biotherapeutic products (BTPs), also known as biotherapeutic medicines, contain structurally complex active substances produced by living organisms. Due to their complexity and method of manufacture BTPs require distinct regulatory approval standards relative to chemically-synthesized small molecule medicines. This is also relevant for licensing copied versions of a BTP, or similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) made by a different manufacturer where regulatory concepts developed for generics should not have been applied. In all these licensing scenarios regulators need to evaluate the results of comparability exercises, including sensitive head-to-head analytical, pre-clinical and clinical comparisons with the original product as a basis for approval. SBPs do not contain chemically identical active substances, and may have slightly different benefit-risk profiles, therefore it is necessary to monitor post-approval safety on a product-specific basis. Policymakers may therefore emphasize the need for product-specific identification in patient records and safety reports using either a unique trade name or a distinguishable non-proprietary naming system. The unique nature of BTPs also informs the nature and degree of interchangeability between the originator and SBPs versions. Many policymakers also emphasize that switching between SBPs should only occur with the involvement of the prescriber. It is recommended that pharmacy substitution would only be appropriate when there is a robust framework for a competent authority to assess product-specific evidence of interchangeability. Another challenge is posed by the historical existence in some jurisdictions of copy BTPs that were not assessed according to current regulatory standards. To address this situation the World Health Organization has proposed a regulatory assessment framework wherein the status of such products can be normalized via the orderly submission and review of supplementary data.","PeriodicalId":348240,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceuticals, policy and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/PPL-160438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Biotherapeutic products (BTPs), also known as biotherapeutic medicines, contain structurally complex active substances produced by living organisms. Due to their complexity and method of manufacture BTPs require distinct regulatory approval standards relative to chemically-synthesized small molecule medicines. This is also relevant for licensing copied versions of a BTP, or similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) made by a different manufacturer where regulatory concepts developed for generics should not have been applied. In all these licensing scenarios regulators need to evaluate the results of comparability exercises, including sensitive head-to-head analytical, pre-clinical and clinical comparisons with the original product as a basis for approval. SBPs do not contain chemically identical active substances, and may have slightly different benefit-risk profiles, therefore it is necessary to monitor post-approval safety on a product-specific basis. Policymakers may therefore emphasize the need for product-specific identification in patient records and safety reports using either a unique trade name or a distinguishable non-proprietary naming system. The unique nature of BTPs also informs the nature and degree of interchangeability between the originator and SBPs versions. Many policymakers also emphasize that switching between SBPs should only occur with the involvement of the prescriber. It is recommended that pharmacy substitution would only be appropriate when there is a robust framework for a competent authority to assess product-specific evidence of interchangeability. Another challenge is posed by the historical existence in some jurisdictions of copy BTPs that were not assessed according to current regulatory standards. To address this situation the World Health Organization has proposed a regulatory assessment framework wherein the status of such products can be normalized via the orderly submission and review of supplementary data.
原研药和类似生物治疗制剂的政策考虑
生物治疗产品(BTPs),也称为生物治疗药物,含有由生物体产生的结构复杂的活性物质。由于其复杂性和制造方法,相对于化学合成的小分子药物,btp需要不同的监管批准标准。这也适用于由不同制造商生产的仿制BTP或类似生物治疗产品(sbp)的许可,这些仿制药不应适用为仿制药制定的监管概念。在所有这些许可情况下,监管机构需要评估可比性练习的结果,包括敏感的头对头分析,与原始产品的临床前和临床比较,作为批准的基础。SBPs不包含化学上相同的活性物质,并且可能具有略微不同的利益-风险概况,因此有必要在特定产品的基础上监测批准后的安全性。因此,政策制定者可能会强调在患者记录和安全报告中使用唯一的商品名称或可区分的非专有命名系统进行产品特定标识的必要性。btp的独特性质也决定了原始版本和sbp版本之间可互换的性质和程度。许多政策制定者还强调,只有在开处方者参与的情况下,才能在SBPs之间进行转换。建议只有当主管当局有一个健全的框架来评估产品特定的可互换性证据时,药房替代才是合适的。另一个挑战是,在一些司法管辖区存在未按现行监管标准评估的复制btp。为了解决这一问题,世界卫生组织提出了一个监管评估框架,其中可以通过有序提交和审查补充数据使此类产品的状况正常化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信