EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM A BIOSIMILARS IN RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
BOSTON (FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS) – Biosimilar drugs are not identical twins of original biologic agents, but there are very strong family ties, and the newcomer is expected to look and behave very much like its older relative, said Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.
Although biosimilars differ from generic, small-molecule drugs, concerns about the development of biosimilars mirrors the kerfuffle over generic drugs surrounding the passage of the Hatch-Waxman (Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration) Act in 1984.
“The clinical community was highly suspicious of generics,” Dr. Woodcock said at a biosimilars symposium sponsored by Corrona, a business providing registry data and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies. “Today, almost 90% of almost all dispensed outpatient prescriptions are generics in the United States,” she said.
She noted that clinicians today are asking the same questions about biosimilars that were asked about generics three decades ago:
“In certain specialties, this skepticism has persisted to this very day,” she said.
ACA mandate
Biosimilars owe their existence in large measure to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 ( BPCI ), passed as a part of the Affordable Care Act and signed into law by President Obama in 2010.
The act created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biologic products that can be shown to be either biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference drug.
A biosimilar is defined as a biological product that is highly similar to the reference product “notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components,” and with no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product in terms of purity, safety, and potency.
To be interchangeable, a biosimilar must be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference drug in any given patient, and “for a product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the product and its reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.”
The definition of interchangeability includes the understanding that the prescriber’s approval is not necessary for substitution of a biosimilar for its reference product.
“If we’re going to have that kind of switching, if they are going to be interchangeable, then we have to have a very high bar,” Dr. Woodcock said.
She added that “any pressure people are feeling to push their patients to biosimilars is from the reimbursement system. There is no non-prescriber switching allowed currently; however, that doesn’t say there isn’t pressure on prescribers to write a different prescription.”
Faster track and bridge to approval
The biosimilar development and approval requires only convincing demonstration of biosimilarity to an existing agent, rather than an independent finding of safety or effectiveness, and the purpose of clinical studies in this case is to address “residual uncertainties,” Dr. Woodcock said.
Drug developers and regulatory authorities alike “are having trouble getting their mind around this concept,” she said.
The FDA requires manufacturers to provide data in their biosimilar drug license applications demonstrating biosimilarity based on analytical studies, animal studies that include toxicity assessments, and one or more clinical studies that include information on immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics (PD) that is sufficient to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the candidate biosimilar.
The FDA is also allowing manufacturers to submit data from animal studies and specified clinical studies comparing a proposed biosimilar product with a product not licensed in the United States, “as long as we are convinced that the reference product is equivalent to the U.S. product,” Dr. Woodcock said.
This “analytical bridge” process was requested by manufacturers who began development of biosimilars in Europe. The European Medicines Agency approved a biosimilar process in 2005, and gave the nod to the first biosimilar agents to existing erythropoietin products in 2007.
Current and pending
As of early October 2016, 66 programs were enrolled in FDA’s Biosimilar Product Development Program, and CDER has received requests for meetings with manufacturers to discuss what tests and documents are required for the development of biosimilars to 20 different reference products.
The FDA is prohibited from publicly discussing the existence of a pending application unless it has been previously disclosed or acknowledged publicly with the manufacturer’s permission, Dr. Woodcock noted, but as of Oct. 10, 2016, seven companies have announced a total of 10 biologic license applications for biosimilars to etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), epoetin alfa (Epogen/Procrit), filgrastim (Neupogen), and infliximab (Remicade).
The FDA has granted licenses to four biosimilars to date (the four-letter suffix is intended to differentiate biosimilars agents from other biosimilars to the same reference product):
Physician perspective
“Everything I have heard suggests that biosimilars will be useful, but the scientist in me is a skeptic,” commented Donald Massenburg, MD, PhD , a rheumatologist at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare in Franklin, Wisc., in an interview.
“I feel better now after learning that current biosimilars are not considered interchangeable, meaning that there can’t be substitutions made without the treating physician’s consent,” he said.
He acknowledged that “I wouldn’t be that excited” if a specific biosimilar was approved for interchangeability and was given to his patients without his knowledge.
Dr. Massenburg pointed to data from the NOR-SWITCH trial comparing the biosimilar Remsima to the reference product Remicade for treatment of rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease. The trial showed that Remsima was noninferior to the reference product.
But as noted at the symposium by Paul W. Tebbey, PhD , of the Medical Affairs Division of AbbVie, maker of the innovator biologic Humira, 26.2% of all patients on Remicade in the NOR-SWITCH trial had disease worsening on study, compared with 29.6% of those the biosimilar Remsima. Disease worsening among patients with psoriatic arthritis was seen in 53.8% of those on the reference drug vs. 61.5% of those on the biosimilar.
“I would like to be able to say whether a patient should be switched to a biosimilar or not just because of that potential risk,” Dr. Massenburg said.
A rheumatologist in private practice in New England said that what’s really needed in rheumatology is not the availability of more drugs that act like other drugs, but innovative research into therapies with better targeted mechanism of action.
“We’ve been through the ‘me-too’ hype; we did that with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” said J. Scott Toder, MD , director of the Toder Rheumatology and Osteoporosis Center, Providence, R.I.
“I think we need to concentrate on innovative therapies, and we may be able to do something about the escalating price of the biologics on the market by creating drugs with new mechanism of action to actually increase competition and hopefully control prices. I don’t think that having multiple drugs with the same mechanism of action is in the best interest of our patients,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Woodcock, Dr. Massenburg, and Dr. Toder reported having no relevant disclosures.
