1
|
Shi J, Chen X, Hu H, Ung COL. Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice, and Recommendations. Int J Health Policy Manag 2023; 12:8100. [PMID: 38618782 PMCID: PMC10699822 DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/30/2023] [Indexed: 04/16/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Benchmarking has been increasingly used on drug regulatory systems to achieve sustainable pharmaceutical system strengthening. This study aimed to identify the scope, tools and benefits of benchmarking regulatory capacities and the most recent development in such phenomenon. Method: This study employed an integrative and critical review of the literature and documents on benchmarking drug regulatory capacities identified from 6 databases and 5 websites of related organizations and government agencies in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS Forty-three studies and 6 documents about regulatory benchmarking published between 2005 and 2022 were included in this review. Five benchmarking assessment tools or programmes recommended or adopted by international organizations or government agencies had been identified, which collectively covered 12 major regulatory functions (4 at system level and 8 at operational level) involving 9 indicator categories and 382 sub-indicators. Benchmarking drug regulatory systems was reportedly employed at national, regional and international levels for either internal assessment (mostly on regulatory system establishment, drug review process and post marketing surveillance) or external evaluation (mostly on regulatory standards, drug review process and pharmacovigilance systems) to assess current status, monitor performance, determine major challenges and inform actions for capacity building. Priority of actions in areas such as regulatory process, resources allocation, cooperation and communication, and stakeholder engagement have been suggested for strengthening drug regulatory systems. Nevertheless, the evidence about benchmarking in optimizing regulatory capacities remained underreported. CONCLUSION This integrative review depicted a framework for decision-makers about why and how benchmarking drug regulatory systems should be undertaken. For effective benchmarking, well-informed decisions about the goals, the scope, the choice of reference points and benchmarking tools are essential to guide the implementation strategies. Further studies about the positive effects of regulatory benchmarking are warranted to engage continuous commitment to the practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Junnan Shi
- State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
| | - Xianwen Chen
- State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
| | - Hao Hu
- State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
- Centre for Pharmaceutical Regulatory Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
- Department of Public Health and Medicinal Administration, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
| | - Carolina Oi Lam Ung
- State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicine, Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
- Centre for Pharmaceutical Regulatory Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
- Department of Public Health and Medicinal Administration, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Macau, Macao SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Machado FLDS, Cañás M, Doubova SV, Urtasun MA, Marín GH, Osorio-de-Castro CGS, Albuquerque FC, Ribeiro TB, Pont L, Crisóstomo Landeros J, Roldán Saelzer J, Sepúlveda Viveros D, Acosta A, Machado Beltrán MA, Gordillo Alas LI, Orellana Tablas LA, Benko R, Convertino I, Bonaso M, Tuccori M, Kirchmayer U, Contreras Sánchez SE, Rodríguez-Tanta LY, Gutierrez Aures Y, Lin B, Alipour-Haris G, Eworuke E, Lopes LC. Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2023; 144:105485. [PMID: 37659711 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105485] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Revised: 08/21/2023] [Accepted: 08/23/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023]
Abstract
Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernanda Lacerda da Silva Machado
- Instituto de Ciências Farmacêuticas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Macaé, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Sorocaba University, Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Martín Cañás
- Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche-FEMEBA, La Plata, Argentina
| | - Svetlana V Doubova
- Epidemiology and Health Services Research Unit, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Martín A Urtasun
- Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche-FEMEBA, La Plata, Argentina
| | - Gustavo H Marín
- Universidad Nacional de La Plata-CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
| | | | | | - Tatiane Bonfim Ribeiro
- Post Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Lisa Pont
- University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | | | | | | | - Angela Acosta
- Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Departamento de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Universidad ICESI, Cali, Colombia
| | | | - Lily Iracema Gordillo Alas
- Department of Regulation and Control of Pharmaceutical and Related Products, Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, Guatemala City, Guatemala
| | - Lourdes Abigail Orellana Tablas
- Department of Regulation and Control of Pharmaceutical and Related Products, Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance, Guatemala City, Guatemala
| | - Ria Benko
- Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
| | | | | | | | - Ursula Kirchmayer
- Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy
| | - Saúl E Contreras Sánchez
- Epidemiology and Health Services Research Unit, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - L Yesenia Rodríguez-Tanta
- Carrera de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú
| | | | - Boya Lin
- University of Florida, United States
| | | | - Efe Eworuke
- Epidemiology and Drug Safety Team, Real World Solutions, IQVIA, United States
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Patil SA, Bhat S, Limdi JK, Farraye FA, Cross RK. The Sincerest Form of Flattery? Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2022; 28:1915-1923. [PMID: 35353189 DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izac048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Lay Summary
Biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of treatment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Observational studies have shown similar efficacy and safety of biosimilars to biologic reference products. Shared decision-making is crucial to the successful implementation of these agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seema A Patil
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 685 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 8-00, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA
| | - Shubha Bhat
- Departments of Pharmacy and Gastroenterology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
| | - Jimmy K Limdi
- Division of Gastroenterology-Section of IBD, The Northern Care Alliance Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences, University of Manchester, 2.41 Fairfield House, Manchester, BL9 7TD, UK
| | - Francis A Farraye
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA
| | - Raymond K Cross
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 685 W. Baltimore Street, Suite 8-00, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rahalkar H, Sheppard A, Salek S. Biosimilar development and review process in the BRICS-TM countries: proposal for a standardized model to improve regulatory performance. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2022; 15:215-236. [PMID: 35078378 DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2022.2034498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The current study is aimed at proposing a standardized regulatory model for biosimilar development and approval for adoption by BRICS-TM agencies, based on evaluation of regulatory guidelines and potential solutions to challenges. METHODS An established validated questionnaire was used and the recommendations were collated. Propositions deemed critical for improving the regulatory pathway for biosimilar development were synthesized to design a new regulatory model. RESULTS The key areas for improvement in BRICS-TM countries were: effective implementation of a step-wise approach; adoption of science-based regulatory evaluation for clinical efficacy studies and acceptance of analytical comparability studies in lieu of confirmatory clinical trials; a streamlined biosimilar development program for RBP sourcing; regulatory reliance for joint or shared review of the applications; and enhanced transparency and communication between the regulatory agencies and biosimilar developers. Based on these identified critical aspects, a simplified and standard regulatory model was developed to enable standardization of biosimilar guidelines across BRICS-TM countries for a common development program. CONCLUSIONS Effective implementation of the proposed standardized model for biosimilar development and approval processes across the BRICS-TM agencies will eliminate unwarranted studies, reduce the development costs and enhance process efficiency thereby expediting patients' access to new affordable biosimilar medicines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hasumati Rahalkar
- Metina PharmConsulting Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.,School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | | | - Sam Salek
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.,Institute of Medicines Development, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rahalkar H, Sheppard A, Santos GML, Dasgupta C, Perez-Tapia SM, Lopez-Morales CA, Salek S. Current Regulatory Requirements for Biosimilars in Six Member Countries of BRICS-TM: Challenges and Opportunities. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8:726660. [PMID: 34568384 PMCID: PMC8458962 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.726660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to identify, interpret, and compare the current perspectives of regulatory agencies in six member countries of BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, and Mexico) on the different criteria used for biosimilar development and marketing authorisation process. Methods: A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed covering the organisation of agency, biosimilar development criteria and marketing authorisation process and sent to seven regulatory agencies covering the BRICS-TM countries. All data was kept anonymous and confidential. Data processing and analysis was carried out; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis was employed to generate themes for qualitative data. Results: Out of the seven regulatory agencies included in the study, six representatives provided the responses. The perspectives of these six regulatory agencies varied on a number of aspects relating to the review criteria for biosimilar development and licencing process. The most prevalent model for data assessment is the “full review” of a marketing authorisation application. There is lack of a standard approach across the agencies on sourcing of the reference biological product, in vivo toxicity studies and confirmatory clinical studies. Most agencies restrict interaction with biosimilar developers and any scientific advice is non-binding. The marketing authorisation approval depends on scientific assessment of the dossier, sample analysis and GMP certification. The agencies do not issue any public assessment report specifying the summary basis of biosimilar approval. Conclusion: Regulatory agencies across the six emerging economies are steadily improving the regulatory mechanism in the area of biosimilars. However, there remains scope for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes by encouraging open and transparent interaction with developers, adopting a flexible approach toward accepting advanced analytical data in lieu of clinical studies and enhancing regulatory reliance amongst agencies. This will help to simplify the new biosimilar development programmes and make them more cost-effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hasumati Rahalkar
- Metina PharmConsulting Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai, India.,School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Sonia Mayra Perez-Tapia
- Unidad de Desarrollo e Investigación en Bioprocesos, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Carlos A Lopez-Morales
- Unidad de Desarrollo e Investigación en Bioprocesos, Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Sam Salek
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom.,Institute of Medicines Development, Cardiff, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|