May 24, 2019
Authored and Edited by Linda A. Wadler; Kayvon Gayhoumi
On May 10, 2019, the FDA issued final Guidance titled, “Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product,” the purpose of which is to “assist sponsors in demonstrating that a proposed therapeutic protein product is interchangeable with a reference product for the purposes of submitting a marketing application or supplement.” This final Guidance builds on the FDA’s January 2017 draft guidance of the same name and public comments submitted in response to that draft Guidance. Analyses of the draft Guidance and comments can be found here and here, respectively.
To be interchangeable with a reference product under the BPCIA, the biological product must be (1) “biosimilar to the reference product” and (2) “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient.” Further, “for a biological product that is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product” cannot be “greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.” If deemed interchangeable, the approved biologic product “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.”
Like the 2017 draft, the final Guidance addresses the amount and type of data and information necessary to show interchangeability (including considerations relating to switching studies), the development of presentations for proposed interchangeable products, and postmarketing safety. The final Guidance, however, differs in several ways from the draft Guidance.
For example, the final Guidance no longer uses the term “fingerprint-like” to characterize the similarity between a proposed interchangeable product and its reference product. Instead, the FDA provided further detail in two examples to illustrate what data and information is likely to be needed to demonstrate interchangeability. Where the proposed interchangeable product and the reference product have relatively low structural complexity, the reference product has no history of inducing severe immune responses, and the proposed interchangeable product, in clinical studies, has a low incidence of serious adverse immunogenic events similar in nature and frequency to the reference product, then “sufficiently extensive comparative analytical data demonstrating high similarity to the reference product” and an “appropriately designed dedicated switching or integrated study” may be sufficient to demonstrate interchangeability. In contrast, additional postmarketing data for the product as a licensed biosimilar as well as a switching study may be required to demonstrate interchangeability where the proposed interchangeable product and the reference product have high structural complexity and the reference product has a history of rare, life-threatening adverse immunogenic events.
The draft and final Guidance also differ regarding the identity of the appropriate comparator reference product to use in switching studies. Previously, the draft Guidance stated that “using a non-U.S.-licensed comparator product generally would not be appropriate” and that the “FDA strongly recommends that sponsors use a U.S.-licensed reference product in a switching study.” The final Guidance now outlines a path for using non-U.S.-licensed comparator products in a switching study. Specifically, a sponsor may use a non-U.S.-licensed reference product so long as it can provide “adequate data and information to establish a ‘bridge’ between the non-U.S.-licensed comparator and the U.S.-licensed reference product” to justify the relevance of the data obtained to a demonstration of interchangeability. But the final Guidance cautions that the type and extent of such “bridging data” needed “may be different or more extensive than is needed in other contexts in which a non-U.S.-licensed comparator is used.” The FDA indicated that multiple exposures to each product in a switching study “may potentially prime the immune system to recognize subtle differences in structural features between products,” potentially increasing an overall immune response.
Regardless of the choice of comparator, for products intended to be administered to an individual more than once, the FDA views a switching study or studies as necessary in most instances to demonstrate interchangeable status. Both the draft Guidance and final Guidance are similar in this regard, with the final Guidance including an illustrative example of a switching study design. The Agency also provided more detailed information with respect to the safety and immunogenicity assessments that should be evaluated in a switching study.
The final Guidance also omits several sections of the draft Guidance directed towards considerations for developing container closure systems and delivery device constituent parts for proposed interchangeable products found in the earlier draft, including draft guidance on threshold analyses and comparative use human factor studies.
A more in-depth analysis of the FDA’s final guidance can be found here. Readers also are encouraged to read the final Guidance, also available on FDA’s website.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), FDA Guidance, Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), abbreviated biologic license application (aBLA), Biologic License Application (BLA)
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
16th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation & Enforcement
May 29-30, 2024
Washington
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
S.D.Tex. Finds Tequila Marks CASA AZUL and CLASE AZUL Not Confusingly Similar
May 17, 2024
IP Updates
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.