WHO/KFDA joint workshop on implementing WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products, Seoul, Republic of Korea 24-26 August, 2010
ABSTRACT In August 2010, the World Health Organization and the Korea Food & Drug Administration jointly organized the first implementation workshop of WHO guidelines on evaluating similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) at the global level. The objective of the Workshop was to facilitate implementation of the newly adopted WHO Guidelines into the practice of national regulatory authorities (NRAs). WHO Guidelines were recognized by the workshop participants as a tool for harmonizing regulatory requirements worldwide. By reviewing and practicing several case studies, better understanding and consensus on the principles of clinical trial designs were reached. However, variations in terms of the national requirements for quality, safety and efficacy of these products revealed diversity in the regulatory expectations in different countries and regions. In addition, lack of terminology for the products developed as copy products (so called "me too" products) with a partial comparability to an RBP, led to a great diversity in evaluating as well as naming these products. The workshop participants proposed the following actions: a) NRAs should make efforts to build their capacities for regulation of SBPs; b) WHO should revise WHO Guidelines for assuring the quality of products prepared by recombinant DNA technology (WHO TRS 814) and continue monitoring progress with the implementation of the Guidelines on evaluating SBPs. Publication of the outcome of the Workshop was recognized as another action that WHO should coordinate.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to provide considerations based on comprehensive case studies important for regulatory evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) with a special emphasis on clinical aspects. Scientific principles from WHO Guidelines on SBPs were used as a basis for the exercise. Working groups consisted of regulators, manufacturers and academia. The following topics were discussed by the working groups: clinical criteria for biosimilarity, extrapolation approach and the overall regulatory decision making process.In order to determine typical pitfalls in the design of a SBP clinical programme and evaluate the gap of knowledge, amongst different industry and regulatory stakeholders on the appraisal of the data arising from SBP clinical studies, we have presented two fictional but realistic clinical case studies. The first case consists of the fictional development programme for an infliximab SBP candidate. The second case describes clinical studies proposed for a fictional rituximab SBP candidate. In the first scenario a highly similar quality profile has been taken forward into clinical studies whereas there was an important residual difference in functional attributes for the rituximab SBP candidate.These case studies were presented at the WHO implementation workshop for the WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in May 2014. The goal was to illustrate the interpretation of the clinical data arising from studies with SBP candidates and elicit knowledge gaps in clinical assessment. This paper reflects the outcome of the exercise and discussions held in Seoul and offers an analysis of the case studies as a learning opportunity on clinical development and evaluation of SBPs.Biologicals 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.biologicals.2014.11.002 · 1.41 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In May 2012, Health Canada and other participants held a National Summit on Subsequent Entry Biologics (SEBs). Health Canada released a guidance document in March 2010 describing policy positions and data requirements for approval of SEBs. While Health Canada and health agencies in other regulatory jurisdictions are aligned on many scientific principles related to biosimilar drugs, Health Canada's specific requirements may not be widely understood by many Canadian stakeholders. The Summit provided an opportunity for education and dialog among physicians who prescribe biologics, provincial payers, and industry on the following topics: preclinical and clinical comparability studies; manufacturing and other product differences; extrapolation of indications; substitution and interchangeability of SEBs with reference biologic drugs in clinical practice; payers' current perspective; pharmacovigilance and naming. It is anticipated that the consensus reached at this meeting will further educate Canadian healthcare professionals, provincial payers, and insurers about the appropriate use of SEBs, and may be of general interest to others internationally.Biologicals 10/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.biologicals.2012.09.010 · 1.41 Impact Factor
DARU-JOURNAL OF FACULTY OF PHARMACY 01/2012; 20(1):35. DOI:10.1186/2008-2231-20-35 · 1.11 Impact Factor