Optimizing biosimilar development: current approaches to demonstrating pharmacokinetic and analytical similarity and a proposal for a single reference approach.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-07 DOI:10.1080/14712598.2025.2476030
Peter Kiely, David Murray
{"title":"Optimizing biosimilar development: current approaches to demonstrating pharmacokinetic and analytical similarity and a proposal for a single reference approach.","authors":"Peter Kiely, David Murray","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2476030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Many biosimilars have been approved in both the United States of America (U.S.A.) and European Union (EU). We aim to highlight how regulatory challenges and divergent requirements between both agencies exist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive review of biosimilars approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was conducted. We aimed to highlight similarities and differences in approaches taken by the agencies regarding the use of non-local (i.e. non -US and non-EU) reference medicinal products in biosimilar development. A search of the six most frequent classes of biosimilars authorized (cutoff date: 12 June 2024) by these agencies were identified and their public assessment reports reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review highlighted that pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence studies are often replicated, the current process is inefficient and not entirely necessary when critical quality attributes are considered.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This article provides a comparative analysis of biosimilar approvals in EU and US regulatory agencies, focusing on non-local reference medicinal product (RMP) utilization and bioequivalence demonstration. The findings contribute to literature on biosimilar development and regulatory considerations, enhancing understanding of harmonization opportunities in biosimilar approval processes, potentially improving global access to high-quality, cost-effective biosimilars.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"447-454"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2476030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Many biosimilars have been approved in both the United States of America (U.S.A.) and European Union (EU). We aim to highlight how regulatory challenges and divergent requirements between both agencies exist.

Methods: A comprehensive review of biosimilars approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was conducted. We aimed to highlight similarities and differences in approaches taken by the agencies regarding the use of non-local (i.e. non -US and non-EU) reference medicinal products in biosimilar development. A search of the six most frequent classes of biosimilars authorized (cutoff date: 12 June 2024) by these agencies were identified and their public assessment reports reviewed.

Results: The review highlighted that pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence studies are often replicated, the current process is inefficient and not entirely necessary when critical quality attributes are considered.

Conclusion: This article provides a comparative analysis of biosimilar approvals in EU and US regulatory agencies, focusing on non-local reference medicinal product (RMP) utilization and bioequivalence demonstration. The findings contribute to literature on biosimilar development and regulatory considerations, enhancing understanding of harmonization opportunities in biosimilar approval processes, potentially improving global access to high-quality, cost-effective biosimilars.

优化生物类似药开发:目前证明药代动力学和分析相似性的方法,以及单一参考方法的建议。
目的:许多生物仿制药已经在美国和欧盟获得批准。我们的目标是强调两个机构之间存在的监管挑战和不同的要求。方法:对美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)和欧洲药品管理局(EMA)批准的生物仿制药进行综合评价。我们的目的是强调各机构在生物类似药开发中使用非本地(即非美国和非欧盟)参考药物时所采取的方法的异同。检索了这些机构批准的六种最常见的生物仿制药类别(截止日期:2024年6月12日),并审查了其公共评估报告。结果:该综述强调,药代动力学(PK)生物等效性研究经常被重复,当前的过程是低效的,当考虑到关键的质量属性时,并不完全必要。结论:本文对欧盟和美国生物仿制药审批情况进行了比较分析,重点关注非本地参考药品(RMP)的利用和生物等效性论证。这些发现有助于对生物类似药开发和监管考虑的文献,加强对生物类似药审批过程中协调机会的理解,潜在地改善全球获得高质量,具有成本效益的生物类似药。
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
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 医学-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development. The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease. The journal welcomes: Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results; Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
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