FDA Bounces A Biologic, But No Trials Required
2 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // September 30th, 2010 // 1:14 pm
One of the big questions about establishing a regulatory pathway for approving biologics is the extent to which the FDA will require clinical trials to prove a biosimilar is equivalent to the original brand medicine. This is what is called the great unknown. But the FDA may have sent a signal about its thinking with a decision concerning a Teva Pharmaceutical drug.
The FDA issued a Complete Response Letter to Teva, which has been seeking approval to sell a version of Amgen’s Neupogen, a med used to treat infections in people with certain types of cancer. In its press release, Teva notes the FDA “does not require additional pre-marketing clinical trials to complete the review” of the application.
This is the part that is interesting, since Teva had submitted its application to the FDA before the approval process has been sorted out. Yet as EyeOnFDA points out, the agency has just offered up an instance in which additional trials will not be necessary. This is the second time in recent months when the FDA has surprised everyone by not requiring as much clinical work as expected. The other instance involved a version of Lovenox (see here).
One additional point worth noting: the Teva drug has already been approved by the European Union, which is ahead of the US in establishing a regulatory pathway for endorsing biologics. Whether this suggests the FDA was looking toward their counterparts across the pond in this instance, however, is not clear. Meanwhile, the agency will hold a two-day meeting about similars in November.
sven
This is a stretch with your analysis. The company did plenty of trials already and is not seeking any “interchangeability” decision, which would be the equivalent of a generic biologic. Looking at this as to how fda will proceed with biosimilars is short-sighted my friend. Oh yea… I’m sure FDA is also saying well if it’s approved in Europe then we’ll need less data here…(ever heard of thalidomide).
Ed Silverman
Hi Sven,
Thanks for the note. And you raise a valid point. I was simply trying to note that it may yield some clues into FDA thinking and factor into the mix. But as I also noted, there is that meeting next month, so a lot more will be hashed over. And it’s also true that the FDA took a different tack with Avandia than the EMA just the other day. If nothing else, though, this could be fodder for some discussion.
Regards,
Ed