Friday, 19 Jul 2019

You are here

FDA Final Guidance on Interchangeability with Biosimilars

The FDA has published an industry guidance document to define interchangeability as regards to biosimilar use in the United States under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)). 

The 351(k) pathway defines the abbreviated process of approving a biosimilar agent based on a previously approved biologic or reference product.  For instance, this rule would govern the switching from the reference product (Enbrel) to its biosimilar (Erelzi) and then back to either Enbrel or another biosimilar (Eticovo, AKA Benepali) of Enbrel without concern for immunogenicity, safety or loss of efficacy.

The term interchangeable or interchangeability states that a new biological product has been shown to meet the standards ob biosimilarity and that “the biological product may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.”

interchangeable product must “ expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient.”  A designation of interchangeability will allow a product to be substituted for its reference at the pharmacy level in the United States.

To date, the FDA has already licensed 19 biosimilar products, and there are currently seven biosimilar versions of currently marketed TNF inhibitors; and none of these had clinical trial data that would allow them to claim "interchangeability".

To be an interchangeable product, the required data may include:

  • Identification and analysis of critical quality attributes
  • Identification of analytical differences and an analysis of the potential clinical impact of such differences
  • An analysis of the mechanism of action in each condition of use
  • An analysis of differences in expected pharmacokinetics (PK) and biodistribution in different patient populations
  • An analysis of differences in expected immunogenicity risk
  • An analysis of differences in expected toxicity
  • Information on factors that could affect safety or efficacy

According to the guidance, data and information under the “can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient” legal standard are not likely to involve additional clinical studies (other than those that support other elements of demonstrating interchangeability).

As is the case for demonstrating biosimilarity, the manufacturer does not have to seek interchangeability for all indications of the reference product, yet the FDA suggests there are instances when this would be preferred. To be extrapolated to additional indications, the sponsor will need to provide justification that addresses the mechanism of action, differences in expected PK or biodistribution, differences in expected immunogenicity, differences in expected toxicity, or other factors that could affect safety and efficacy.

Interchangeability applications will not all be the same and may result in negotiated planning with the FDA to gain "interchangeability".  

Switching studies will be the benchmark required to support interchangeability and should evaluate changes in treatment that arise after 2 or more alternating switch intervals.

The primary endpoint of the switching study should assess the impact of alternating between the products on clinical PK and PD, immunogenicity, efficacy and safety. Retrospective data will not suffice as evidence in an interchangeability application.







The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this subject

Add new comment

More Like This

Rituximab Safety Concerns when Used in anti-TNF Refractory RA

The SUNSTONE study evaluated the long‐term safety of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) previously exposed to ≥1 anti–tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and showed a stable, but high, rate of serious infections, opportunistic infections and an overall higher mortality rate.

No Difference Among Biologics in Arthroplasty Infectious Risk

A large administrative claims analysis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients undergoing arthroplasty has shown no difference among biologics with regard to the risk of infections, but corticosteroid use was associated with a dose dependent risk of infection. 

The Annals of Internal Medicine has published an analysis of peri- and postoperative infectious risk among RA patients receiving biologics or glucocorticoids.

Is Methotrexate Necessary with Tofacitinib?

Rheumatoid arthritis patients taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz) plus methotrexate who achieved low disease activity (LDA) may be able to withdraw from the latter agent without significant worsening of disease activity, a researcher reported at EULAR 2019 in Madrid.

Upadacitinib Monotherapy in MTX-IR Rheumatoid Arthritis

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, selective JAK1-selective inhibitor being developed for use in rheumatoid arthritis patients; Lancet has reported the SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial showing that UPA is safe and effective in RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

This multicenter study randomized 648 patients, of whom 598 (92%) completed week 14.  

At week 14, an ACR20 responses were:

Predictors of Serious Infections with Rituximab

The risk of serious infectious events (SIE) with rituximab (RTX) is similar to that seen in other biologics (e.g., RA: 2% or 4.3/100PY), but with prolonged use the risk may change. Recent research says that low IgG levels, RTX induced neutropenia, prior SIE and comorbidities can significantly augment this risk. A retrospective longitudinal single center study of 700 rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) treated monitored serum immunoglobulins (at baseline and 4–6 months after each cycle), clinical outcomes and SIE over time.