Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators

• Published in: Journal of law and the biosciences 2024-07, Vol.11 (2), p.lsae020
• Main Authors: Knox, Ryan P, Desai, Vineet, Sarpatwari, Ameet
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 2053-9711; 2053-9711
• DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsae020

Abstract Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars—drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics—is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction’s laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.