Next Article in Journal
Modification of Bacteriophages to Increase Their Association with Lung Epithelium Cells In Vitro
Next Article in Special Issue
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Products in Spain in the Period 2009–2019
Previous Article in Journal
Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Dementia: The Role of Ginkgo biloba (EGb 761®)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Barriers to Biosimilar Prescribing Incentives in the Context of Clinical Governance in Spain
Article

Analysis of the Regulatory Science Applied to a Single Portfolio of Eight Biosimilar Product Approvals by Four Key Regulatory Authorities

1
Pfizer Inc., Andover, MA 01810, USA
2
Pfizer Inc., Walton Oaks, Surrey KT20 7NS, UK
3
Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT 06340, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Arnold G. Vulto, Steven Simoens and Isabelle Huys
Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14(4), 306; https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14040306
Received: 18 December 2020 / Revised: 19 March 2021 / Accepted: 25 March 2021 / Published: 1 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biosimilars in Europe)
Slow uptake of biosimilars in some regions is often attributed to a lack of knowledge combined with concerns about safety and efficacy. To alleviate physician and patient apprehensions, regulatory reviews from four major regulatory authorities (RAs) (European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada, and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Authority) across a portfolio of eight biosimilars were analyzed to provide insight into RA review focus and approach. RA queries were evaluated in an unbiased and systematic manner by major classification (Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls [CMC], nonclinical, clinical or regulatory) and then via detailed sub-classification. There was a consistent, predominant focus on CMC from all RAs. The review focus based on sub-classification of clinical and regulatory queries was influenced by molecular complexity, with significant differences between categories (monoclonal antibody or protein) in the distribution of query topics; specifically, bioanalytical (p = 0.023), comparative safety and efficacy (p = 0.023), and statutory (including the justification of extrapolation) (p = 0.00033). Each biosimilar had a distinct distribution of clinical query topics, tailored to product-specific data. This analysis elucidated areas of heightened RA interest, and validated their application of regulatory science in the evaluation of biosimilar safety and efficacy. View Full-Text
Keywords: biosimilars; regulatory; review; approval; clinical; queries; regulatory science biosimilars; regulatory; review; approval; clinical; queries; regulatory science
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Ingram, B.; Lumsden, R.S.; Radosavljevic, A.; Kobryn, C. Analysis of the Regulatory Science Applied to a Single Portfolio of Eight Biosimilar Product Approvals by Four Key Regulatory Authorities. Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14040306

AMA Style

Ingram B, Lumsden RS, Radosavljevic A, Kobryn C. Analysis of the Regulatory Science Applied to a Single Portfolio of Eight Biosimilar Product Approvals by Four Key Regulatory Authorities. Pharmaceuticals. 2021; 14(4):306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14040306

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ingram, Beverly, Rebecca S. Lumsden, Adriana Radosavljevic, and Christine Kobryn. 2021. "Analysis of the Regulatory Science Applied to a Single Portfolio of Eight Biosimilar Product Approvals by Four Key Regulatory Authorities" Pharmaceuticals 14, no. 4: 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14040306

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop