The Global Landscape of Manufacturers of Follow-on Biologics: An Overview of Five Major Biosimilar Markets and 15 Countries

BACKGROUND

Current knowledge is limited about which manufacturers are active in the global field of biopharmaceutical product development and how many unique follow-on biologics are approved in global markets.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide a cross-sectional overview of manufacturers of follow-on biologics approved in 15 large countries from different regions of the world, as well as in five major biosimilar markets with long established biosimilar frameworks.

METHODS

We screened national drug databases to identify follow-on biologics and their manufacturers approved in 15 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the rest of the world, as well as five major biosimilar markets: the European Union (including the UK), USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

RESULTS

This study identified a total of 304 follow-on biologics from different manufacturers for 18 active substance classes included in the analysis. Of these, 67 products are approved as biosimilars in at least one of the five major biosimilar markets. A total of 140 (46%) follow-on biologics are manufactured in India or China, of which only eight (seven from India and one from China) are approved as biosimilars in any of the five major biosimilar markets. This study found that the majority of follow-on biologics are only approved in the respective country of manufacturing. A small number of manufacturers, primarily from India and Argentina, supply their products to other regions in the world. As some countries have less stringent regulatory approaches for biosimilars, or have only recently implemented biosimilar guidance in line with World Health Organization standards, follow-on biologics could have been approved that would not be considered biosimilars according to the World Health Organization standards.

CONCLUSIONS

With this study, we try to contribute to discussions on creating more transparency about global approvals of follow-on biologics and promoting access to high-quality biosimilars in countries around the world.

Understanding US Physician and Pharmacist Attitudes Toward Biosimilar Products: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars account for 30-40% of biologic medications dispensed in the United States (US), yet healthcare providers in relevant medical specialties have limited awareness of biosimilars and their characteristics. Likewise, many providers perceive biosimilars as less safe and effective than original biologics and are more comfortable prescribing original biologics to patients.

METHODS

We conducted in-person focus groups at three clinical sites in California and Texas (n = 49) to explore the reasons behind US healthcare providers' limited understanding of, cautious attitudes toward, and reluctance to prescribe biosimilars. We conducted thematic analysis by having three researchers independently analyze verbatim transcripts and identify patterns in provider responses.

RESULTS

Providers' limited knowledge of and cautious attitudes toward biosimilars are driven by uncertainty about how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized as well as negative past experiences with generic drugs that did not perform as well as branded counterparts. Additionally, healthcare providers are unfamiliar with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval pathway for biosimilars and are skeptical that an abbreviated approval process is rigorous enough to ensure biosimilars deliver the same efficacy and have the same side effect profiles as original biologics. Physicians also expressed concerns about pharmacy substitution of biosimilars and interchangeables, explaining they would be unaware of which medication was ultimately given to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating physicians and pharmacists about biosimilars-including how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized, the structure of the biosimilar approval process, and how analytical data can ensure biosimilar safety and efficacy-will be important for reducing healthcare providers' concerns and increasing biosimilar adoption in the US.

WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products, virtual meeting, 30 June – 2 July 2021

The WHO informal consultation was held to promote the revision of WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. It was agreed in the past consultations that the evaluation principles in the guidelines are still valid, but a review was recommended to provide more clarity and case-by-case flexibility. The opportunity was therefore taken to review the experience and identify areas where the current guidance could be more permissive without compromising its basic principles, and where additional explanation could be provided regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of data needed for regulatory approval. The meeting participants applauded the leading role taken by the WHO in providing a much-needed streamlined approach for development and evaluation of SBPs which will provide efficient and cost-effective product development and increase patient access to treatments. It was recognized that the principles as currently described in the draft WHO guidelines are based on sound science and experience gained over the last fifteen years of biosimilar approvals. However, since these guidelines when finalised will constitute the global standard for biosimilar evaluation and assist national regulatory authorities in establishing revised guidance and regulatory practice in this complex area, it was felt that further revision and clarity on certain perspectives in specific areas was necessary to dispel uncertainties arising in the current revised version. This report describes the principles in the draft guidelines, including topics discussed and consensus reached.

•

WHO guidelines serve as a basis for the development of national regulatory framework for biosimilars.

•

Revision of guidelines is to provide more flexibility and clarification on data required for regulatory approval.

•

Revised guidelines would contribute to improving consistency on regulatory decision and patient access to treatments.