蒲公英 - 制药技术的传播者 GMP理论的实践者

搜索
查看: 1282|回复: 2
收起左侧

[行业动态] FDA生物类似药行动计划(2018.07)

[复制链接]
药士
发表于 2018-7-20 19:47:38 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

欢迎您注册蒲公英

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
BIOSIMILARS ACTION PLAN: Balancing Innovation and Competition
July 2018
11项关键行动:4项生物类似药行动计划关键要素

3.png
1.png
2.png

biosimilars action plan.pdf

449.44 KB, 下载次数: 21, 下载积分: 金币 -1

回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2018-7-20 19:52:11 | 显示全部楼层
FDA’s New Biosimilar Action Plan Represents the Next Step for Improving Drug Competition

Thursday, July 19, 2018

On July 18, 2018, after months of alluding to the various aspects of an upcoming “Biosimilar Action Plan” as another prong within FDA’s broader Drug Competition Action Plan (DCAP), FDA finally unveiled its plan for stimulating and improving the marketplace for biosimilars in the U.S. The newly released Biosimilar Action Plan(BAP) is a 9-page, easy-to-read document. As Commissioner Gottlieb indicated in his statement about the release, the BAP is “is aimed at promoting competition and affordability across the market for biologics and biosimilar products.”

As we’ve previously discussed on this blog (see here, here, and here), the Food and Drug Administration under Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has been at the forefront of efforts to “Tackle Drug Competition to Improve Patient Access” – as per a June 27, 2017 FDA press release related to Dr. Gottlieb’s multi-pronged DCAP. In the absence of direct authority over pricing-related issues, as the Commissioner regularly mentions in his public appearances, Dr. Gottlieb and his leadership team nonetheless have demonstrated creativity and commitment towards improving various FDA-related bottlenecks for drugs and biologics – for players in both the innovator and follow-on product environments.

The BAP begins by summarizing the tension between the different statutory mandates that apply to new drugs/biologics and to the follow-on drug/biosimilar products that are intended to increase patients’ access to those medical advances. The BAP goes on to address the Agency’s obligations to ensure the continued viability of the “virtuous cycle of innovation and competition.”

The July 18th BAP is focused on four key areas:

  • improving efficiency of the product development and approval process;
  • maximizing scientific and regulatory clarity;
  • developing effective communications aimed at improving understanding of biosimilars; and
  • supporting market competition, notably by “reducing gaming of FDA requirements or other attempts to unfairly delay competition.”

Although these four key areas can be viewed as representing existing FDA initiatives, both under the DCAP and under ongoing educational efforts specific to biosimilars, responses to the Biosimilar Action Plan generally have been positive. Biosimilar stakeholders appear be to encouraged by the high-profile nature of the BAP roll-out and the message it sends to the public and policymakers that patient access and reducing costs are being amplified by Dr. Gottlieb with FDA’s overall mandate.

“Priority Deliverables” under BAP Likely to Be the Primary Driver of Reforms…  

The BAP also lays out a series of specific “priority deliverables” in each of the four key areas.

First, to improve efficiency of the review process, one of the priority deliverables is the development of specific templates for 351(k) Biologics License Applications (aBLAs, used for biosimilar biological products). The templates would be aimed at streamlining the review process and enhancing public information about the FDA’s evaluation of biosimilar and interchangeable products. Another deliverable under this key area is the development of more information resources and tools “that can assist biosimilar sponsors in developing high quality biosimilar and interchangeable products using state of the art techniques.” A specific example given in the BAP is the development of an “index of critical quality attributes for use in comparing proposed biosimilars to certain reference products.” The objective of such a resource would be to clarify how the FDA evaluates data from comparative analytical studies that are used to support a showing of “biosimilarity” to the reference product.

Second, there are several priority deliverables under the goal of maximizing scientific and regulatory clarity. The strategic deliverables for this key objective include developing an enhanced Purple Book that will include more information about approved products (all parties frequently lament how thin the current Purple Book is), and “supporting a global market for biosimilars” by harmonizing international requirements for product development and sharing regulatory experience. For example, the latter could include strengthening FDA partnerships with regulatory authorities in Europe, Japan, and Canada through specific initiatives such as data sharing agreements. In some cases, the BAP suggests, it also may be appropriate to use a non-U.S. licensed comparator product to support a new 351(k) aBLA application.

As we previously noted, the BAP was expected to at least include changes to the Draft Guidance on Demonstrating Interchangeability that was issued in January 2017, in the waning days of the Obama Administration. And although the release of the BAP did not coincide with the release of revisions to that guidance document, the reference to use of a non-U.S. comparator stems specifically from industry comments on the Draft Guidance on Interchangeability. Accordingly, also included among the deliverables is the development of final or revised guidance on demonstrating interchangeability with a reference product, as well as a number of other important topics to developers of both biosimilars and reference products, such as the guidance on Reference Product Exclusivity and the so-called “deemed to be a license” provision in the law that created the 351(k) biosimilar pathway. On this point, it is worth noting that FDA had already committed to issue many of those guidance documents as part of its commitments to regulated industry under the Biosimilar User Fee Act reauthorization enacted by Congress in 2017.

Third, in the area of developing effective communications to improve understanding of biologics, the BPA highlights a number of educational and outreach campaigns already undertaken by the FDA and notes that they will be expanded.

Finally, in the area of supporting market competition – long a target of Commissioner Gottlieb who has famously called out “gaming” and “shenanigans” by companies seeking to block competition from follow-on products – the priority deliverables include clarifying the FDA’s position on issues affecting reference product exclusivity. The BAP also promises that the Agency “will take action, whenever necessary, to reduce gaming of current FDA requirements, and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to address anti-competitive behavior” as well as working with legislators “to close any loopholes that may effectively delay biosimilar competition beyond the exclusivity envisioned by Congress.”

…And Biosimilar Actions Are Going to Pick Up Across the Board

Dr. Gottlieb spoke at a think tank event in conjunction with the public release of the BAP, and his prepared remarks were also posted on the Agency website. Notably, he discussed many of the payment and reimbursement pressures on biological products, issues not within FDA’s purview, opining that: “An ideal system would reimburse biologics in a competitively bid scheme, where we could take full advantage of the multi-source competition.” The Commissioner also made news by calling competition in the current biosimilar market “anemic” and referring to the current situation as “Groundhog Day” in which the same story is being played out for biologics following the script used in the 1980s for generic drugs following enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act. His remarks were forceful and direct. We should expect significant follow-through by the Trump Administration in general on Commissioner Gottlieb’s promises, and by the FDA in particular within the context of the BAP and the broader DCAP.

Previously, on June 18, 2018, FDA released a finalized version of a 2016 draft guidance on Labeling for Biosimilar Products (we blogged about the draft version here). The most significant request from the biosimilar industry in response to the draft policy was that FDA not require the inclusion of a “biosimilarity statement” as part of the prescriber labeling. The Final Guidance on Labeling for Biosimilar Products does not change course on this requirement. As Dr. Gottlieb noted in his remarks, “The FDA wants to make sure that biosimilar products have labeling that allows health care practitioners to make informed prescribing decisions for their patients,” and ensuring that those prescribers know that a product has been approved via an aBLA (as compared to a full BLA required for non-biosimilar products) is an important piece of that goal.

In the coming weeks, we will be further analyzing the components of the BAP and related Agency activities related to enhancing competition in the marketplace for biosimilars and biologics. And we’ll be keeping track of new guidance documents, a state-of-the-art Purple Book, and other pieces of this biosimilar plan as they are released. Stay tuned for more!


©1994-2018 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.


回复

使用道具 举报

药士
 楼主| 发表于 2018-7-27 10:33:51 | 显示全部楼层
FDA Plans Hearing on Biosimilar Competition, Development




Posted 25 July 2018 | By Michael Mezher


One week after releasing its 11-part biosimilar action plan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it will hold a public hearing to gather input on how it can facilitate the development of biosimilars and ensure they enter the market in a timely fashion.


At the hearing, set to take place on 4 September 2018 at FDA's White Oak headquarters, FDA will solicit input from stakeholders on nine questions on the scientific and legal challenges to bringing biosimilars to market and how to reduce barriers to competition once they are on the market.


While FDA has approved a total of 12 biosimilars since the creation of an abbreviated pathway for such products under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, only a fraction of them have seen commercial launches.


Despite the promise of biosimilars to provide lower cost competition to some of the top selling biologics on the market, legal challenges and hesitancy from insurers and healthcare providers have led biosimilars to make a relatively minor splash on the US market compared to Europe, where biosimilars have been available longer.


Some of the questions related to competition FDA hopes to gather input on include what the agency can do to help biosimilars and interchangeable products enter the market more quickly after approval, how the agency can promote confidence in biosimilars among patients and healthcare practitioners and whether "umbrella exclusivity" could be used to shield certain biologics from biosimilar competition.


The agency is also asking a blanket question addressing any other challenges that "have the potential to disrupt the balance between innovation and competition" for biologics and biosimilars, and what can be done to address those challenges.


On the scientific front, FDA is seeking insights on how it can facilitate biosimilar development programs that use non-US licensed biologics as comparators and whether the agency could lower the number of lots needed for analytical characterization of proposed biosimilars and their reference products without compromising its standards for approval.


However, David Rosen, a partner at Foley & Lardner and co-chair of the firm's life sciences industry team, told Focus that the legal issues delaying the launch of biosimilars are outside FDA's purview. "That's in the hands of the courts and the companies that are involved," he said.


Rosen also said that the savings offered by biosimilars might not be great enough to convince hospitals and formularies to switch and that the companies marketing the reference versions of these products are aggressively working to maintain their market share.


Instead, Rosen said FDA have a greater impact on competition by facilitating the development of more biosimilars, which in turn could lead to lower prices for products with multiple biosimilar competitors.


Federal Register Notice






回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

×发帖声明
1、本站为技术交流论坛,发帖的内容具有互动属性。您在本站发布的内容:
①在无人回复的情况下,可以通过自助删帖功能随时删除(自助删帖功能关闭期间,可以联系管理员微信:8542508 处理。)
②在有人回复和讨论的情况下,主题帖和回复内容已构成一个不可分割的整体,您将不能直接删除该帖。
2、禁止发布任何涉政、涉黄赌毒及其他违反国家相关法律、法规、及本站版规的内容,详情请参阅《蒲公英论坛总版规》。
3、您在本站发表、转载的任何作品仅代表您个人观点,不代表本站观点。不要盗用有版权要求的作品,转贴请注明来源,否则文责自负。
4、请认真阅读上述条款,您发帖即代表接受上述条款。

QQ|手机版|蒲公英|ouryao|蒲公英 ( (京)-非经营性-2014-0058 京ICP证150354号 京ICP备14042168号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-3-29 02:53

Powered by Discuz! X3.4运维单位:苏州豚鼠科技有限公司

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

声明:蒲公英网站所涉及的原创文章、文字内容、视频图片及首发资料,版权归作者及蒲公英网站所有,转载要在显著位置标明来源“蒲公英”;禁止任何形式的商业用途。违反上述声明的,本站及作者将追究法律责任。
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表