生物仿制药审批途径:比较五个药品监管机构的作用。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2024-09-13 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsae020
Ryan P Knox, Vineet Desai, Ameet Sarpatwari
{"title":"生物仿制药审批途径:比较五个药品监管机构的作用。","authors":"Ryan P Knox, Vineet Desai, Ameet Sarpatwari","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsae020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars-drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics-is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction's laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"11 2","pages":"lsae020"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11398902/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan P Knox, Vineet Desai, Ameet Sarpatwari\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsae020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars-drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics-is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction's laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"lsae020\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11398902/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物制剂在全球医疗保健领域发挥着越来越重要的作用,但也给支付者带来了沉重的负担。生物仿制药--与原研生物制剂高度相似且无临床意义差异的药物--的开发对于提高这些药物的可负担性和可获得性至关重要。然而,迄今为止,药品监管机构在生物仿制药方面取得了不同程度的成功。我们研究了澳大利亚、加拿大、欧盟、英国和美国与生物仿制药相关的机构指导文件、同行评议文章和灰色文献,以评估这些国家的药品监管机构在生物仿制药审批方法上的差异。我们发现,药品监管机构对生物仿制药的审批采取了类似的方法,但它们的政策和辖区内有关测试要求、适应症外推法、排他性和替代品的法律存在差异,这可能是导致生物仿制药取得不同成功的原因。支持特定产品指导、外推、缩短专属期和替代品的政策与生物仿制药更成功的批准和吸收相关。在药品监管机构努力推广生物仿制药的过程中,了解这些法律和政策的影响至关重要。与这些政策相一致的改革可以创造更有利于生物仿制药审批的监管环境,促进全球患者获得可负担得起的生物制剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.

Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars-drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics-is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction's laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
How do we justify research into enhanced warfighters? The new EU-US data protection framework's implications for healthcare. The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection. Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue. Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1