Optimizing biosimilar development: current approaches to demonstrating pharmacokinetic and analytical similarity and a proposal for a single reference approach.
{"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":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","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":"","PubModel":"","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.
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.