Last month, the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL) announced that the University of Delaware, on behalf of NIIMBL, has entered into a Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the FDA. Effective July 15, the agreement gave FDA and NIIMBL the ability to “collaborate in a pre-competitive environment to strengthen research, innovation, training, and collaboration in the biopharma manufacturing industry.”
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.
Because negative news and opinions seem to create greater waves, I thought I would take stock of the positive news that may not have come over your desks or (more realistically) cellphones in the past few weeks. While it’s easy to get bogged down by negative speculation, there’s progress being made and companies and experts fighting daily to keep this industry moving forward, even if it feels glacial.
Back in March, UPS and autonomous drone technology provider Matternet announced they had collectively begun delivering medical samples via unmanned drones at WakeMed’s flagship hospital and campus near Raleigh, N.C.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|