Biosimilars

Barriers to the market access of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 25/08/2017

In September 2013, the first biosimilar monoclonal antibody (mAb) was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), i.e. biosimilar infliximab (Inflectra/Remsima). These products entered the European market in 2015, after expiry of patent and other exclusivity rights of the innovator medicine Remicade. With the ever-increasing cost of health care and the economic pressure to reduce or sustain healthcare expenses, biosimilars could be instrumental in reducing cost for medication and increasing patient access to treatment. Although exclusivity rights of multiple mAbs are expired (rituximab in 2013, trastuzumab in 2014), only recently biosimilar mAbs other than infliximab are receiving marketing authorization (rituximab, adalimumab). Furthermore, earlier biosimilars have seen slow uptake in European markets. This may imply that several barriers hinder market access of biosimilar mAbs.

Adello Biologics starts phase I trial for pegfilgrastim biosimilar

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 25/08/2017

US-based biosimilars specialist Adello Biologics has started a phase I clinical trial for a biosimilar version of Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim).

Biosimilar pegfilgrastim highly similar to Neulasta

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 18/08/2017

Canada-based Apobiologix published analytical results demonstrating the similarity of their pegfilgrastim product to the US reference product, Amgen’s Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) [1].

Biosimilars of insulin lispro

Biosimilars/General | Posted 18/08/2017

Last update: 26 January 2018

Insulin lispro is a fast acting insulin analogue used to treat people living with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. Insulin lispro has one primary advantage over regular insulin for postprandial glucose control. It has a shortened delay of onset, allowing slightly more flexibility than regular insulin, which requires a longer waiting period before starting a meal after injection. Both types should be used in combination with a longer acting insulin for good glycaemic control.

Real-life data supports efficacy and safety of biosimilar filgrastim

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 18/08/2017

Biosimilars of filgrastim are widely used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy‐induced (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). However, there are limited observational data on the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G‐CSF) in non‐Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and its aggressive subtypes including diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Biocad’s rituximab ‘similar biologic’ recommended for approval in India

Biosimilars/News | Posted 18/08/2017

Russian biotechnology company Biocad announced on 4 July 2017 that it would ‘soon’ receive marketing approval for its rituximab ‘similar biologic’ in India under the trade name Acellbia.

FDA accepts application for Celltrion/Teva’s rituximab biosimilar

Biosimilars/News | Posted 11/08/2017

South Korean biotechnology company Celltrion and partner Israeli generics giant Teva Pharmaceuticals (Teva) announced on 29 June 2017 that the regulatory submission for their proposed rituximab biosimilar (CT‑P10) had been accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Biosimilar trastuzumab candidate shows ‘similarity’ to Herceptin

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 11/08/2017

Results of a phase III clinical study of Celltrion’s biosimilar trastuzumab candidate CT‑P6 demonstrated the ‘similarity’ of the efficacy and safety compared to the originator biological (Herceptin) in patients with HER2+ breast cancer [1].

Setback in Biocon/Mylan’s biosimilar programme after GMP inspection

Biosimilars/General | Posted 11/08/2017

Biocon/Mylan’s biosimilar programme has hit a stumbling block after failing an inspection by the French inspecting authority (L’Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé: ANSM).

US prescribers’ views on the naming and labelling of biologicals

Biosimilars/Research | Posted 14/07/2017

The Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines (ASBM) has published the results of a survey in which they asked 400 US physicians for their views on the labelling of biosimilar medicines, and a separate survey in which they asked another 400 US physicians for their views on the naming of biosimilar medicines [1]. All those surveyed were prescribers of biological medicines. The surveys were carried out in the run up to the release of guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the non-proprietary naming of biological products.