In light of BioApproval's Chris Webster’s recent publication and future presentation at the upcoming DIA Biosimilars conference, I spoke with him to learn more about the "Confirmation of Sufficient Likeness" approach and the scientific evidence that has informed this proposed biosimilar regulatory paradigm shift away from Totality of Evidence.
Though it’s only natural to expect animated scientific discussion between the FDA and USP which have long been partners-in-science, I found myself caught off-guard by just how firmly the FDA has been putting its foot down and making its thoughts known on the role certain standards — in particular, USP monographs — should (or should not play) in biologics development.
In this first of what will be a two-part article, USP's Fouad Atouf highlights the challenges presented by the FDA’s newest guidance while remaining optimistic that the large amount of data recommended today will open doors to more efficient development in the (hopefully) near future.
Despite the importance of the process the FDA is outlining in the guidance, I’ve surprisingly heard little chatter — positive or negative — about what the agency is now outlining and what this may mean for biosimilars and the biosimilar regulatory paradigm moving forward. Here are a couple of the biggest takeaways to note.
Though there is a large handful of countries that, to date, don’t have biosimilar pathways established, a few countries have been slowly gearing up to be leaders in paving the way for biologics and biosimilars. In this article, I’ll discuss the potential of these three markets, as well as the business considerations Challand highlighted for companies considering entering the MENA region.
Throughout her presentation, Challand gave us a good look at the current state of the biologics market in MENA and the ongoing educational and collaborative efforts that could help shape the markets in this region. She also shared several important considerations for regulators and biosimilar companies looking to expand their business to MENA.
Virtual pharmaceutical/biotech companies often receive conflicting advice regarding the need to establish an internal cGMP quality system. Either they’re told “you need an extensive set of cGMP SOPs” or “you don’t need any cGMP SOPs at all.” Which advice is correct?
This is Part 1 of a two-part article discussing important areas to consider when developing devices for combination products — and why they need to be addressed early in development.
If the activity happening in state legislatures across the country heralds change at the federal level — and it likely does — pharmaceutical manufacturers ought to buckle their seatbelts.
Delivering cell and gene therapies is an expensive and highly complex process, and there are a number of critical metrics that manufacturers should consider when selecting treatment sites. Subsequent activities — preparing sites to receive and initiate therapy, and managing site training and ongoing certification — can be equally, if not more, challenging.
An FDA inspection is very different than an ISO certification or surveillance audit — too often, organizations “prepare” for scheduled ISO audits by playing catch-up on activities that have been neglected or otherwise overlooked. The catch-up strategy will be problematic for FDA inspections and will generally result in inspectional observations.
We seem to be buried in standard operating procedures (SOPs). So how the heck are companies supposed to make the SOP mountain smaller through harmonization?
As follow-on biologics litigation expands, and the FDA provides additional information on the approval process for follow-on biologics, industry and observers are gaining clarity on how the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) functions in practice. This article provides insight into two recent developments that will impact strategic and economic considerations for biologics developers.
The industry has made unprecedented progress and addressed several challenges to ensure compliance with global pharmaceutical serialization and traceability requirements. While these requirements contain further regulatory milestones on the horizon, manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and other parties in the pharmaceutical supply chain must systematically adopt serialization in their normal business operations.
This article discusses four topics related to single-use bioprocessing which are commonly cited by end users as amenable to future development.
A guide for today’s biopharma executives seeking to navigate through the important considerations necessary to successfully build their own cGMP biomanufacturing facility.
Organizations recognize the growing need for control of the entire cold chain as the changing global scenario requires highly efficient processes and flexibility.
This paper delves deeper into aseptic sampling devices to explain how they offer superior performance in the effort to control contamination.
Biopharma R&D teams everywhere face the same dilemma in the development of biologics and vaccines: Increase productivity to meet strict budgets and deadlines, while maintaining or improving data accuracy.
Bioprocessing has been used for decades for the industrial production of beverages and for the production and preservation of food and feed ingredients.
Learn how to employ science-, risk-, and statistics-based approaches to cleaning and cleaning validation at your facility with this free, 100-page e-book, written by a global team of cleaning validation experts, pharmaceutical toxicologists, statisticians, and Six Sigma professionals.
