Elif Car, Liese Barbier, Isabelle Huys, Steven Simoens, Arnold G Vulto
{"title":"Evolving global regulatory landscape for approval of biosimilars: current challenges and opportunities for convergence.","authors":"Elif Car, Liese Barbier, Isabelle Huys, Steven Simoens, Arnold G Vulto","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2507832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biosimilars promote price competition, improving affordability and access to biologics without compromising on quality, efficacy, and safety. Biosimilar approvals initially followed a cautious approach, with regulatory requirements developed independently across jurisdictions, complicating global development and increasing costs. Advancements in analytical sciences and two decades of accumulated experience with biosimilar approvals offer an opportunity to reevaluate regulatory requirements.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>A structured literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, to identify challenges related to biosimilarity demonstration, offer a comprehensive understanding of regulatory requirements for biosimilars globally, and identify opportunities for regulatory convergence. Following title, abstract and full-text screening, 61 articles were included.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Biosimilar guidelines from stringent regulatory authorities such as EMA and USFDA are robust, yet further alignment of regulatory standards in the US and EU is possible to reflect scientific progress and clinical experience. Regulatory requirements for biosimilars in emerging markets appear to be disproportionate to scientific advancements and accumulated knowledge with biosimilars approval and clinical experience. Global harmonization of biosimilar guidelines, based on gained developments and regulatory experience, could accelerate development and approval process. This would facilitate earlier and enhanced access to safe and affordable biologics.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","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/10.1080/14712598.2025.2507832","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Biosimilars promote price competition, improving affordability and access to biologics without compromising on quality, efficacy, and safety. Biosimilar approvals initially followed a cautious approach, with regulatory requirements developed independently across jurisdictions, complicating global development and increasing costs. Advancements in analytical sciences and two decades of accumulated experience with biosimilar approvals offer an opportunity to reevaluate regulatory requirements.
Areas covered: A structured literature review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, to identify challenges related to biosimilarity demonstration, offer a comprehensive understanding of regulatory requirements for biosimilars globally, and identify opportunities for regulatory convergence. Following title, abstract and full-text screening, 61 articles were included.
Expert opinion: Biosimilar guidelines from stringent regulatory authorities such as EMA and USFDA are robust, yet further alignment of regulatory standards in the US and EU is possible to reflect scientific progress and clinical experience. Regulatory requirements for biosimilars in emerging markets appear to be disproportionate to scientific advancements and accumulated knowledge with biosimilars approval and clinical experience. Global harmonization of biosimilar guidelines, based on gained developments and regulatory experience, could accelerate development and approval process. This would facilitate earlier and enhanced access to safe and affordable biologics.
生物仿制药促进了价格竞争,在不影响质量、疗效和安全性的情况下提高了生物制剂的可负担性和可及性。生物仿制药审批最初采取了谨慎的方法,各个司法管辖区独立制定了监管要求,使全球开发复杂化并增加了成本。分析科学的进步和20年来积累的生物类似药审批经验为重新评估监管要求提供了机会。涵盖领域:使用PubMed、Embase和Web of Science进行了结构化的文献综述,以确定与生物仿制药论证相关的挑战,全面了解全球生物仿制药的监管要求,并确定监管趋同的机会。按照标题、摘要和全文筛选,共纳入61篇文章。专家意见:EMA和USFDA等严格监管机构的生物仿制药指南是强有力的,但美国和欧盟的监管标准进一步协调是可能的,以反映科学进步和临床经验。新兴市场对生物仿制药的监管要求似乎与科学进步和积累的生物仿制药批准知识和临床经验不成比例。基于获得的发展和监管经验,生物类似药指南的全球统一可以加速开发和批准过程。这将有助于更早和更多地获得安全和负担得起的生物制剂。
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.