BIO's response to proposed FDA guidelines is covered nicely in the Patent Docs blog.
BIO asks FDA to publish specific statistics and/or ranges acceptable for a determination of biosimilarity following the European model. BIO advocates for a more extensive clinical trial requirement to establish biosimilarity, including animal toxicity and human clinical trials. BIO also suggests a "cautious approach" to the extrapolation of data to other indications and patient populations without trials. BIO also asks for prominent labeling of the biosimilar to highight differences in route of adminsitration, presentations and conditions of use (presumably will inhibit switching) between biosimilar and reference product.
BIO also had comments related to quality and access to confidential information. On the quality front, BIO aks that any intentional differences from the biosimilar in host cell type, primary structure, formulation, or immediate package from the reference product result in immediate need to follow the BLA pathway and not ABLA. BIO cites patient safety as the reason for this standard.
BIO requested explicit acknowledgement from the FDA that certain information within the reference BLA, including manufacturing facilities, be treated as confidential (see Abbott response to FDA in earlier blog post). BIO disfavors comparison of a biosimilar to a non-US licensed product but wants to be particularly protective of manufacturing information in this instance. Trade secrets from all BLA must be protected from disclosure in biosimilar application process. The ABLA must stand on its own merit, supplemented with only public information.
In general, BIO suggests changes that will make it more difficult to gain ABLA (abbreviated biosimilar) approval. These would appear to enhance patient safety and to also protect the competitive advantage of its BLA holder members.
Posted by Bruce Lehr Apr 26th 2012
Comments