• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

IP Update

Summary of Final Guidance on Interchangeability of Biosimilars With Reference Products

May 28, 2019

By Linda A. Wadler

On May 10, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released nonbinding final Guidance for Industry, Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product, that is intended 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.”  With the exception of some modifications discussed below, the final Guidance largely tracks the recommendations of the FDA’s proposed draft Guidance on interchangeability, released January 17, 2017.

An interchangeable product, under the BPCIA, 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.”  In addition, “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.”

Conditions of Use

The final Guidance notes the FDA’s expectation that “sponsors will submit data and information to support a showing that the proposed interchangeable product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in all of the reference product’s licensed conditions of use,” and recommends that sponsors “seek licensure for all of the reference product’s licensed conditions of use when possible.” (Emphasis added.)  As in the draft Guidance, the final Guidance continues to permit sponsors to provide justification of interchangeability of multiple indications from extrapolated data, provided that the risk of safety or diminished efficacy in the alternating products can be assessed.

Data and Considerations Supporting Interchangeability

The final Guidance addresses the following areas in a therapeutic protein interchangeable development program:  (1) “data and information needed to support a demonstration of interchangeability”; (2) “considerations for the design and analysis of a switching study or studies”; (3) “considerations regarding the comparator product in a switching study or studies”; and (4) “abbreviated considerations for developing presentations, container closure systems, and delivery device constituent parts.” 

The final Guidance first discusses the totality of factors impacting the type and amount of data and information needed for demonstrating interchangeability. These factors include structural complexity, the extent of structural and functional characterization, product-specific risks, and biosimilar post-marketing data.  As with a biosimilarity determination, the FDA’s evaluation of these factors will determine the amount of additional evidence necessary.  For those products that have already been licensed as biosimilar, “that licensure may be referenced to support a showing for this statutory criterion for demonstrating interchangeability.”  Additionally, the Agency currently believes that meeting the “expected to produce the same clinical result” requirement “will likely not involve additional clinical studies other than those necessary to support other elements of demonstrating interchangeability.” (Emphasis added.)  

Unlike the draft Guidance, 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 the data and information likely required to demonstrate interchangeability.  In the first example, 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 that are similar in nature and frequency to those observed with the reference product.  In this first situation, “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, 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, postmarketing data in addition to a switching study may be required to demonstrate interchangeability.

Switching Studies

Interchangeable applications for a biological product that is administered more than once to an individual generally will be expected to “include data from a switching study or studies in one or more appropriate conditions of use” to show that “the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.”  The final Guidance provides new, additional information with respect to the safety and immunogenicity assessments that should be evaluated in a switching study.

 The draft and final Guidance further differ in their discussions of the appropriate comparator reference product for use in interchangeable switching studies. Previously, the draft Guidance emphasized that “using a non-U.S.-licensed comparator product generally would not be appropriate” and strongly recommended the use of a U.S.-licensed reference product in a switching study.  The final Guidance softens this position by specifically contemplating the use of a non-U.S.-licensed comparator products in switching studies where “adequate data and information to establish a ‘bridge’ between the non-U.S.-licensed comparator and the U.S.-licensed reference product” is provided.  That being said, 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 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.

Readers are encouraged to read the final Guidance, also available on the FDA’s website. 

Tags

Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), FDA Guidance, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Biologics

Related Professionals

Linda_Wadler
Linda A. Wadler
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4037
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Webinar

Patenting Pharmaceutical Drug Formulations: Withstanding Litigation and PTAB Challenges

February 16, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Building Company Value With Cybersecurity Patents

February 8, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Comparison of EPO Oppositions and USPTO PTAB Proceedings

January 28, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Sanofi, Vanda, and GSK, a New Year Voyage through the Land of Induced Infringement

January 21, 2021

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Disavowal of Infringement Case Eliminates Article III Standing for Appeal of IPR

January 13, 2021

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure

January 12, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

Balancing Cost and Enforcement

January 11, 2021

AIA Blog

USPTO Issues Memorandum Aligning Indefiniteness Standard with District Court

January 11, 2021

AIA Blog

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in October and November 2020

January 8, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently 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.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP