Streamlined approval of biosimilars: moving on from the confirmatory efficacy trial.

Licensing of biosimilars is essential to promote patient access to 21st-century biological medicines. Regulatory approval of biosimilars is based on the totality of evidence from a head-to-head comparison with reference products (RPs). A clinical efficacy trial is usually required, but this is increasingly questioned. Based on a thorough review of biosimilar applications in the European Union (EU), we conclude that in-depth knowledge of the reference product, allied with high-performing analytical tools, largely predicts clinical comparability, subject to confirmation by a comparative pharmacokinetic (PK) trial. We provide a blueprint for a biosimilar pathway that reduces the need for clinical efficacy trials in exceptional cases, together with qualifying criteria and requirements for streamlined assessment to expedite wider access to affordable biological medicines.

Early communication of drug safety concerns: a feasibility study on enhancing interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and regulators.

PURPOSE: The responsibility for monitoring the safety of marketed medicines is shared between regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry and is underpinned by legal obligations on both sides. Both marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) and regulators initially evaluate and investigate potential safety concerns, and then work together on further review as appropriate. We wanted to test the feasibility of enhanced interaction between MAH and regulator via a regular monthly, two-way communication of potential safety concerns between the MAHs and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It was envisaged that such a process would aid prioritisation and planning by both parties, avoid duplication of effort and support a collaborative approach for decision making. METHODS: Four MAHs took part in the pilot, which was conducted between July 2007 and June 2008. Potential safety concerns were exchanged on a monthly basis. The MAH/MHRA proposed a timeline for evaluation of each potential safety concern. The pilot did not include serious public health issues which are immediately reported to regulatory authorities. RESULTS: During the pilot, 136 potential safety concerns were exchanged. Thirteen per cent of these resulted in a change to product information for health professionals and patients. There was concurrence between the MAHs and MHRA on timelines proposed for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot proved feasible for the companies involved and indicated potential benefits of a system for avoiding duplication of effort and supporting a collaborative approach to planning and prioritisation of investigation of potential safety concerns between pharmaceutical industry and regulatory authorities.