Subscribe or Manage Preferences
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2015 Vol 3 No 6 - Biosimilars
Chase Doyle

Bellevue, WA—Although biologics have been a potent addition to the rheumatologist’s armamentarium, they come with complications, too, including high costs and regulatory confusion. In other words, their complexity extends far beyond the manufacturing process.

At the National Organization of Rheumatology Managers 2015 annual meeting, Jerry D. Clewell, PharmD, Associate Scientific Director of Biotherapeutics Strategy at AbbVie, offered an overview of these complicated products and their even-more-confusing “offspring”—biosimilars.

1 Biosimilars are not generic biologic products.

Unlike small molecules, such as aspirin or antibiotics, biologics are created from living cells. Very precisely assembled proteins comprise their structure, which is highly sensitive to the environment. In addition, biologics cannot be copied exactly, which is why new versions of “innovator” products are called “biosimilars,” not generics.

“Biosimilars are not made from a clinical recipe, so to speak,” said Dr Clewell. “If you think about conventional small drugs, which have no amino acids and are not made up of proteins…it’s like comparing a bicycle to a space shuttle.”

Thus, biologics are thousands of times larger and more complex than traditional therapies, and to complicate matters further, biologics are delivered by unique infusion systems, the alteration of which can dramatically affect outcomes.

“We cannot treat these products the same in any respect,” said Dr Clewell.

By the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) definition, biosimilars must be highly similar to the reference product, with no clinically meaningful difference in terms of safety, purity, or potency. Clinical trials will thus play a critical role in determining similarity, but the question becomes, how much can these clinical trials be minimized (to save costs) while still maintaining acceptable risk before release?

2 Biosimilarity does not imply interchangeability.

According to the FDA definition, a biologic product is interchangeable if it meets the standard of (1) being biosimilar and (2) being expected to produce the same clinical result as the FDA-approved reference product in any given patient.

Whereas interchangeability is decided by the FDA, substitution is decided by each state.

“The FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine or pharmacists,” Dr Clewell said. “That’s regulated at each state level by boards of medicine and boards of pharmacists.”

If the FDA determines that a product is interchangeable based on its assessment of the product, officials of each state still have to decide whether to accept that level of interchangeability and how its pharmacists should deal with substituting a product when presented with a prescription.

“The FDA has yet to provide clear guidance,” said Dr Clewell. “We are still waiting to hear from the FDA about the requirements to justify interchangeability.”

3 Science must lead policy, not the other way around.

The World Health Organization, Dr Clewell noted, discourages switching among biologic products for scientific reasons of immunogenicity and unknowns about what will happen when that occurs.

The decision to substitute a biosimilar product needs to be between the provider and the patient, not the payer, said Dr Clewell, who also encouraged patients to make sure that their voices are heard at the state and national levels.

“We aren’t quite there yet in fully understanding all of the science and all of the nuances,” he concluded. “But one thing is certain: We absolutely must make sure that the science is leading the policy and not the other way around.”

Related Items
FDA Provides Further Guidance on Biosimilars and Biologics
Sophie Granger
Rheumatology Practice Management February 2017 Vol 5 No 1 published on March 2, 2017 in Biosimilars
Referring Radical Prostatectomies to High-Volume Providers Could Save Millions
Chase Doyle
Urology Practice Management - August 2016, Vol 5, No 4 published on August 15, 2016 in Prostate Cancer
Measuring Outcomes to Improve Quality
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management April 2016 Vol 4 No 2 published on May 18, 2016 in Reimbursement
From MACRA to MIPS: The New Incentives System for Providers
Chase Doyle
Urology Practice Management - April 2016, Vol 5, No 2 published on May 4, 2016 in Reimbursement
From MACRA to MIPS: The Impact of New Payment Systems on Providers
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management February 2016 Vol 4 No 1 published on March 10, 2016 in Payment Models
Mastering the Crucial Conversation
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management December 2015 Vol 3 No 6 published on January 18, 2016 in Leadership
Addressing Fertility Issues in Younger Women with Breast Cancer
Chase Doyle
Oncology Practice Management - December 2015, Vol 5, No 9 published on December 22, 2015 in Survivorship
From Volume to Value: The Changing Economics and Regulations of Healthcare
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management October 2015 Vol 3 No 5 published on November 2, 2015 in NORM Highlights
Assessment and Renegotiation of Payer Contracts
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management October 2015 Vol 3 No 5 published on November 2, 2015 in NORM Highlights
The Impact of New Payment Systems on Rheumatology Practices
Chase Doyle
Rheumatology Practice Management October 2015 Vol 3 No 5 published on November 2, 2015 in NORM Highlights
Last modified: February 19, 2016
  • American Health and Drug Benefits
  • Lynx CME
  • Value Based Care in Rheumatology
  • Oncology Practice Management
  • Urology Practice Management

Search