Cargando…
An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe
AIM: Sponsors and regulators have more than 10 years of experience with the development of biosimilars in Europe. However, the regulatory pathway is still evolving. The present article provides an update on biosimilar development in practice by reviewing the clinical development programmes of recent...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29575017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13586 |
_version_ | 1783332716188532736 |
---|---|
author | Mielke, Johanna Jilma, Bernd Jones, Byron Koenig, Franz |
author_facet | Mielke, Johanna Jilma, Bernd Jones, Byron Koenig, Franz |
author_sort | Mielke, Johanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Sponsors and regulators have more than 10 years of experience with the development of biosimilars in Europe. However, the regulatory pathway is still evolving. The present article provides an update on biosimilar development in practice by reviewing the clinical development programmes of recently approved biosimilars in Europe. METHODS: We used the European public assessment reports (EPARs) which are published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for a comparison of the clinical development programmes of the 37 approved biosimilars in Europe. Here, we present novel strategies in the development of biosimilars by focusing specifically on the 17 biosimilars that have gained approval in the last year, but we also compare additional key characteristics for all approved biosimilars. RESULTS: The high variability of the clinical development strategies that we found previously was confirmed in the present analysis. Compared with earlier biosimilar applications, more nonstandard development strategies have been used recently. This includes, for example, applications without any studies in patients, and more complex study designs. During this study, we found that the EPARs for biosimilars seem to be improving; however, we identified important details which were still often missing. We provide a proposal for a checklist of the minimum information that should be included in biosimilar EPARs for giving the general public insights into the rationale for the approval of biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: European regulators still seem to be open to consider approaches that differ from the guidelines or previous applications, as long as justification is provided. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6005614 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60056142018-06-26 An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe Mielke, Johanna Jilma, Bernd Jones, Byron Koenig, Franz Br J Clin Pharmacol Systematic Review and Meta–Analysis AIM: Sponsors and regulators have more than 10 years of experience with the development of biosimilars in Europe. However, the regulatory pathway is still evolving. The present article provides an update on biosimilar development in practice by reviewing the clinical development programmes of recently approved biosimilars in Europe. METHODS: We used the European public assessment reports (EPARs) which are published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for a comparison of the clinical development programmes of the 37 approved biosimilars in Europe. Here, we present novel strategies in the development of biosimilars by focusing specifically on the 17 biosimilars that have gained approval in the last year, but we also compare additional key characteristics for all approved biosimilars. RESULTS: The high variability of the clinical development strategies that we found previously was confirmed in the present analysis. Compared with earlier biosimilar applications, more nonstandard development strategies have been used recently. This includes, for example, applications without any studies in patients, and more complex study designs. During this study, we found that the EPARs for biosimilars seem to be improving; however, we identified important details which were still often missing. We provide a proposal for a checklist of the minimum information that should be included in biosimilar EPARs for giving the general public insights into the rationale for the approval of biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: European regulators still seem to be open to consider approaches that differ from the guidelines or previous applications, as long as justification is provided. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-04-27 2018-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6005614/ /pubmed/29575017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13586 Text en © 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review and Meta–Analysis Mielke, Johanna Jilma, Bernd Jones, Byron Koenig, Franz An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title | An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title_full | An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title_fullStr | An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title_full_unstemmed | An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title_short | An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe |
title_sort | update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in europe |
topic | Systematic Review and Meta–Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6005614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29575017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13586 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mielkejohanna anupdateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT jilmabernd anupdateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT jonesbyron anupdateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT koenigfranz anupdateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT mielkejohanna updateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT jilmabernd updateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT jonesbyron updateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope AT koenigfranz updateontheclinicalevidencethatsupportsbiosimilarapprovalsineurope |