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.
Though the FDA has taken great efforts in the past year to stand up for biosimilars and establish the BAP, one expert argues the agency can do more to confidently and simply underscore the quality of biosimilar products and to reconsider the need for the additional studies required of biosimilars, especially — but not just limited to — clinical studies.
I sat down with Kate Hammeke, VP of Industry Standard Research to discuss the biggest surprises or takeaways from this year’s report about the industry’s biologics and biosimilars manufacturing goals. But the conversation also evolved to some of the larger trends Hammeke expects to see impacting the biosimilar players in the future.
Since last year's feature article celebrating Samsung Bioepis' fifth anniversary, the company has seen a number of approvals and launches and has established a novel biologics development partnership. As such, I jumped on the opportunity to learn more about the company's ongoing efforts to realize a lower COGS, speed production, and manage risk in biosimilar and biologics development.
There has not been much discussion about how biosimilars contribute to or will impact innovation — outside of helping the healthcare system afford costly novel therapies. I found my interest in this question sparked upon reading a recent headline, "Biosimilars: The Cure for Sky-High Drug Prices Or A Stake In The Heart Of Innovation?"
Last week, I published the first installment of a three-part roundtable discussion highlighting which 2017 trends/occurrences were most notable to the members of Biosimilar Development’s editorial advisory board. In addition to discussing 2017’s impact on the future of the industry, these experts also shared their thoughts on what to expect in 2018.
