Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33830478›Full record

ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2021

Evolving Biosimilar Clinical Requirements: A Qualitative Interview Study with Industry Experts and European National Medicines Agency Regulators.

Louise C Druedahl, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong, Marco van de Weert, Marie Louise De Bruin, Hans Hoogland, Timo Minssen, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Louise C DruedahlCopenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark. louise.druedahl@jur.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8979-8666
Sofia Kälvemark SporrongSocial and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marco van de WeertDrug Delivery and Biophysics of Biopharmaceuticals, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marie Louise De BruinCopenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science (CORS), Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 2, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark.
Hans HooglandLEO Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark.
Timo MinssenCentre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anna Birna AlmarsdóttirSocial and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKLeo Pharma (Denmark) · DKUppsala University · SE

Funding

Novo Nordisk Fonden NNF17SA0027784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (reference product). The availability of biosimilars promotes competition and subsequently lower prices. Changing the current biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements may lead to lower biosimilar development costs that potentially could increase patients' access to biologics.

objectiveThe aim was to determine the perceptions of industry and medicines agency regulators regarding the value, necessity, and future developments of the European biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements for establishing biosimilarity.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with eight European national medicines agency regulators and 17 pharmaceutical company employees or consultants with experience in biologics between September 2018 and August 2019. Data were subjected to content analysis.

resultsIn general, the participants expected that clinical comparability trial requirements will continue to be reduced, in particular based on advancements in analytical testing and knowledge generated from prior biosimilar approvals. However, there are also competing issues at play, such as competition, physician's trust, and ethical considerations. Participants also reported that any new initiative to reduce or waive biosimilar clinical requirements needs to be scientifically sound and could potentially lower biosimilar development costs.

conclusionThe main findings are that biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements are likely to change in the near future. Clarity is needed on how to ensure adequate correlation between physicochemical data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, and the drugs' performance in the clinic, as well as how to continue sufficient immunogenicity assessment. Obtaining this clarity can facilitate regulatory assessment of the next biosimilars.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsClinical Trials as TopicDrug ApprovalHumansBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID33830478
OpenAlexW3151780220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.