MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963888310 · doi:10.18745/th.25348

Evaluation of the Regulatory Requirements for Development and Approval of Biosimilar Medicines in the BRICS-TM Countries: Improving Patients' Access

2021· other· en· W6963888310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosimilarInnovatorBenchmarkingScope (computer science)Process (computing)Market accessTransparency (behavior)New product development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biosimilars are affordable medicines of the original innovator biologic products that has the potential to improve access and create valuable savings for patients and the overall healthcare systems. Biosimilars are expected to emerge as a rapidly growing segment in emerging economies, as the treatment rates with biologics are low in these economies combined with constraints on affordability. However, unlike small molecule generics, biosimilars are complex molecules and have high associated cost of development. The biosimilar industry faces multiple challenges and obstacles in developing and marketing these complex products. While a common regulatory framework has been proposed by World Health Organisation (WHO), countries have only partially adopted them. Regulatory principles governing biosimilars in emerging economies like BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico) are still in an evolving stage. There is differing regulatory guidelines for biosimilar development and registration in these countries; hence there remains scope for improving transparency in the national regulatory frameworks and aligning regulatory standards among these countries. Standardisation of regulatory requirements would assist in the common biosimilar development process across these economies. Comparisons of the regulatory requirements with mature regulatory agencies of countries such as Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland (ACSS consortium) will facilitate benchmarking best practices leading to convergence of regulatory processes in BRICS-TM countries. This would impact the overall review and approval process as well as enabling a common development programme across these countries. Also, biosimilars are similar but not identical to the innovator product and therefore prescribers are sometimes unsure about the safety and efficacy profile of these medicines. Due to such roadblocks, the healthcare system and patients are yet to realize the full benefits of biosimilars. The aim of the research study was to explore, identify and evaluate the biosimilar regulatory framework in terms of resources in biosimilar domain, biosimilar development criteria i.e., biosimilarity principle, comparative studies including physicochemical characterisation, non-clinical studies, clinical studies and biosimilar marketing authorisation approval pathway, of regulatory agencies in BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico) countries. This was achieved by identifying and comparing the regulatory requirements of the selected emerging economies with those of mature agencies to understand the differing regulatory expectations for biosimilar development and approval process. The study also focused on understanding the perspectives of different stakeholders like industry, regulators, physicians and patients on the challenges for the development and uptake of biosimilars in these emerging economies. The outcome from the assessment of the challenges faced by the stakeholders, biosimilar development criteria, content of the marketing authorization application and approval pathway were likely to form the basis of a proposed standardized model for the BRICS-TM countries. The research programme considered various methodologies for determining the appropriate study design including a combination of self-administered questionnaires and interviews to achieve the study objectives. A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed covering the different criteria used in biosimilar development and registration process. Eleven regulatory agencies from BRICS-TM and ACSS countries were invited to take part in the study. Similarly, another semi-quantitative questionnaire was designed based on secondary research for the representatives from biopharmaceutical industry specifically to understand the perceptions of industry on the barriers faced by them in terms of complexity, costs for biosimilar development and time-to-market of biosimilar product. Following completion of the questionnaires, interviews were carried out and recorded verbatim to exclude any misinterpretations. Another set of questionnaires were prepared for the physicians and patients to identify challenges to the uptake of biosimilar medicines by physicians and patients in the developing countries. The results indicated that the perspectives of the BRICS-TM regulatory agencies varied on a number of aspects relating to the review criteria for biosimilar development and licensing process. The most prevalent model for data assessment was the ‘full review’ of a marketing authorisation application and absence or partial reliance approach across most of these economies. The biggest hurdles in the development of biosimilar product were the sourcing of the reference biological product (RBP); there was lack of a standard approach or flexibility in the regulatory standards across the BRICS-TM agencies on sourcing of the reference biological product and hence posed as key concern for facilitating cost-effective development of biosimilar products. Despite alignment over biosimilarity, the mandate for in vivo non-clinical studies and additional local clinical studies in some of the BRICS-TM countries illustrated a lack of effective implementation of a step-wise approach. Most agencies limited interaction with biosimilar developers and any scientific advice was non-binding. The marketing authorisation approval was dependent on scientific assessment of the dossier, sample analysis and GMP certification. The BRICS-TM agencies except ANVISA (Brazil), did not issue any public assessment report specifying the summary basis of biosimilar approval. The results also revealed that physicians have significant knowledge gaps in the area of biosimilar medicines. While they understand the importance of improving patients’ access to biological therapies, they expect to gain complete confidence in the quality, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of these medicines to underpin their decision to prescribe them. For the patients, access to affordable biosimilar medicines was the single biggest factor that greatly influenced their wider adoption. The findings from this study indicated the scale of the challenges that could exist across the emerging economies (i.e. BRICS-TM), the need for fresh perspectives in guidelines and policies facilitating wider adoption of biosimilars as well as improved patients’ access. The outcomes from these studies formed the basis of a proposed standardized model for the BRICS-TM countries. This proposed regulatory model is likely to simplify new biosimilar development programmes and pave the way for patients’ access to quality and affordable biosimilar medicines. It is hoped that the outcomes of this study will help in streamlining of the regulatory standards in these countries, leading to improved patient access to affordable medicines without compromising their quality, safety, or efficacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire)Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207