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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mielke, Johanna, Jilma, Bernd, Jones, Byron, Koenig, Franz
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