amgen/media/supporting documents/t… · amgen inc. is pleased to respond to the fda's draft...
Post on 29-Aug-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Submitted on the following website: http://www.regulations.gov
16 April 2012
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administrat ion 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville , MD 20852
AMGEN
Paul R. Eisenberg, M.D., M.P.H. F.A.C.P., F.A.C.C. Senior Vice President
Global Regulatory Affa irs and Safety
Amgen Inc
One Arngen Center Onve Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 805.4474632 - Telephone 805.3757374 - Fax
Reference: Docket No. FDA·2011-D-0602, Draft Guidance for Industry on Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Bios imilarity to a Reference Protein Product; Availability
Reference: Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0605, Draft Guidance for Industry on Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product; Availability
Reference: Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0611 , Draft Guidance for Industry on Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009
Dear sir or madam:
Amgen Inc. is pleased to respond to the FDA's draft guidance documents on the im plementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) as presented in the February 15, 2012 Federal Register Notices [Docket Nos. FDA-20 11-D-0602, FDA-2011-D-0605, and FDA-201 1-D-061 11 .
As one of the world 's leading innovative biotechnology companies and a future manufacturer of high quality biosimilar medicines, Amgen can offer a unique and valuable perspective on what is required to develop and manufacture safe and effective biolog ic drugs. Amgen 's innovative biologic therapeutics have helped millions of people around the world in the fight against cancer, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis , and other serious illnesses.
The attached document supplements Amgen 's 2010 comments on implementation of the biosimilar pathway and the testimony that was presented by Dr. Joseph Miletich at the November 3, 2010 public hearing. Amgen looks forward to participating in the May 11 , 2012 hearing on the draft guidances and recommendations for future biosimilar guidances.
Should you need any additional information regarding this submission, please contact Kimberly Greco by telephone at 202-585-9619 or by email at kgreco@amgen com
Sincerely,
Paul R. Eisenberg, M.D., M.P.H.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 1 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW ................................................................. 6
3. COMPLEXITIES OF PROTEIN PRODUCTS ............................................................... 9
3.1 Nature of Protein Products and Related Scientific Considerations .............................. 9
3.2 Manufacturing Process Considerations ...................................................................... 10
4. US –LICENSED REFERENCE PRODUCT AND OTHER COMPARATORS ........... 11
5. APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE BIOSIMILARITY ............................................................................ 15
5.1 Using a Stepwise Approach to Demonstrate Biosimilarity .......................................... 15
5.2 Using a Totality-of-the-Evidence Approach to Assess a Demonstration of Biosimilarity ................................................................................................................. 15
6. DEMONSTRATING BIOSIMILARITY ........................................................................ 16
6.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Structural Analysis ...................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Animal Data ................................................................................................................. 17
6.4 Clinical Studies ............................................................................................................ 18
6.4.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 18
6.4.2 Human Pharmacology Data ........................................................................................ 18
6.4.3 Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment.......................................................................... 19
6.4.4 Clinical Safety and Effectiveness Data ....................................................................... 21
6.4.5 Extrapolation of Clinical Data Across Indications ....................................................... 25
6.4.6 Maintaining Biosimilarity ............................................................................................. 26
6.4.7 Class-Specific Guidances ........................................................................................... 26
7. POSTMARKET SAFETY MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS ................................. 28
7.1 Biosimilar Labeling ...................................................................................................... 28
7.2 The Need for Accurate Attribution of Adverse Events and Distinguishable Names ......................................................................................................................... 30
7.2.1 Special Considerations for Pharmacovigilance in the Biologics Context .................... 30
7.2.2 Suggested FDA Actions .............................................................................................. 33
8. OTHER ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 35
8.1 Publicly Available Information ..................................................................................... 35
8.2 Interchangeability ........................................................................................................ 36
8.3 Sample Retention ........................................................................................................ 38
8.4 Reference Product Exclusivity .................................................................................... 39
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 2 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
8.5 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 41
8.5.1 Protein ......................................................................................................................... 41
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 42
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 3 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
1. INTRODUCTION
Amgen Inc. (Amgen) welcomes the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) release in
February of three draft guidance documents on the regulation of biosimilars.1
As one of the world’s first biotechnology companies, Amgen has helped millions of
people around the world in the fight against cancer, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis,
and other serious illnesses, and are committed to putting patients first in everything we
do. Our comments on the draft biosimilar guidances are informed by Amgen’s 30 years
of experience discovering, developing and manufacturing biologics and our more recent
engagement in the process of developing biosimilars of non-Amgen products.
We
appreciate FDA’s commitment to working with stakeholders in a transparent guidance
development process to facilitate implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and
Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA).
Amgen’s longstanding support for a biosimilar pathway has been premised on three
fundamental principles that have also guided our evaluation of the Agency’s draft
Scientific, Quality, and Question and Answer Guidance documents. These are: patient
safety, sound science, and incentives for innovation. While we agree with much of the
content in these draft guidance documents, we believe certain changes are necessary to
advance patient safety and to promote confidence in biosimilars marketed in the United
States (US).
Amgen remains grounded in both our innovative and biosimilars development by a series
of scientific realities that – while sometimes demanding in terms of rigor, time and
resources – must underpin patient-focused biologic development programs and inform
the nature and extent of scientific evaluation. All biosimilars development programs will
grapple with some or all of these challenges and FDA should candidly communicate its
expectations in guidance.
I. Biosimilars are rDNA protein biologic medicines. In contrast to traditional
chemical drugs, rDNA protein biologics are very large molecules that often have
the potential to rely on multiple mechanisms of action enabled by one or more
1 “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product” [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0605] (“draft Scientific Considerations Guidance”); “Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product” [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0602] (“draft Quality Considerations Guidance”); and “Q & As Regarding Implementation of the BPCI Act of 2009” [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0611] (“draft Q&A Guidance”).
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 4 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
aspects of their structure. They are a heterogeneous mixture of related proteins,
rather than a homogenous collection of identical molecules; hence biosimilars are
neither expected nor required to be the same as the reference product. These
remarkable medicines facilitate important clinical benefits for patients, however,
the molecular size of these medicines makes them recognizable by a patient’s
immune system and thus they have a propensity to elicit an immune response
that could limit efficacy and/or present a safety concern in some patients. The
specific structural features of a molecule that cause immunogenicity are largely
unknown.
II. Biosimilars are not generic drugs. Biologics are typically much more complex
than chemical drugs and cannot be completely characterized even with today’s
scientific capabilities. Unlike generic drugs, biosimilars will be allowed to exhibit
some structural differences from their reference product in addition to using
different formulations, devices, and perhaps expression systems. However, to be
considered “highly similar”, the primary amino acid sequence of a proposed
biosimilar and its reference product should be the same.
III. Scientific understanding of reference products is often incomplete.
Analytics of protein biologics are improving; however, the understanding of the
relationship of molecular structure to clinical function may not be complete.
Increased understanding is possible through orthogonal interrogations and
biologic assays, however, both can be imprecise and leave factors unmeasured.
Although innovative manufacturers seek to characterize structural attributes that
are believed to be critical to safety and efficacy before products are licensed,
after licensure they regularly identify new critical quality attributes or combinations
of attributes that may affect the clinical profile.
IV. The “highly similar” standard for biosimilarity is burdened with uncertainty.
The uncertainty associated with biosimilarity can exist in two ways depending on
the approach a sponsor pursues. Where the sponsor purports to have matched
the attributes of the reference product, this approach is only as certain as the
knowledge of the reference product’s critical quality attributes is complete.
Alternatively, where a sponsor seeks to justify subtle differences between the
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 5 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
biosimilar and the reference product, the definition of an acceptable range of
differences that are not clinically meaningful is also uncertain.
V. Clinical testing of biosimilars will be needed for the foreseeable future. The
purpose of clinical testing is to demonstrate equivalent efficacy, safety, and
immunogenicity profiles of a biosimilar when investigated in parallel with the
reference product. Such clinical testing is neither intended nor designed to
establish de novo the complete safety or efficacy profile. Omission of
comparative clinical studies evaluating safety and efficacy will be appropriate only
if a biosimilar applicant can ensure, through other premarket testing, that there
are no clinically meaningful differences between the products’ clinical profiles. A
clinical evaluation of immunogenicity will always be essential.
VI. Accurate attribution of adverse events is essential to patient safety. Biologics are often highly sensitive to the changes in the manufacturing process
and the environment and structural alterations can result. Even minor structural
differences can have an important clinical effect on patients. FDA should ensure
effective pharmacovigilance for all protein products. In particular, the agency
should require measures that enable pharmacists, physicians, patients, health
authorities, and manufacturers to attribute adverse events to the appropriate
biologic (whether a biosimilar or a reference product). The agency should expect
manufacturers to employ multiple, redundant means of product identification.
Requiring biosimilars to bear distinguishable nonproprietary names is an efficient
means of facilitating accurate attribution of adverse events and product
traceability.
In the next section we provide an executive summary of our recommendations. In
subsequent sections we provide more detailed comments on the specific areas
addressed by the draft guidances. Amgen’s comments address the issues collectively,
although they appeared in more than one of the draft guidances. Thus, Amgen has
submitted a duplicate copy of these comments to each of the dockets established for the
three draft guidances.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 6 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
Amgen commends the work of the FDA in drafting guidances that address many of the
issues important to implementation of the U.S. biosimilar approval pathway. With some
key modifications and additions, these will be useful resources for companies planning to
develop and manufacture biosimilars and for patients and physicians who will ultimately
determine the success of the new approval pathway. The following is an overview of our
recommendations for the three biosimilar draft guidances:
• Acknowledge what we know today and what we do not yet know. The science of
biotechnology has come a very long way in three decades but it would be
detrimental to patient safety and undermine the goal of achieving a successful
approval pathway if policy decisions were premised on aspirations rather than
achievements.
• Use more precise language in the final guidance documents, whenever feasible.
We recognize that regulatory standards and expectations must be flexible
enough to accommodate the uniqueness of each biologic and to adapt to
scientific and technical advances. The wide degree of flexibility and lack of clarity
reflected in the draft guidances, however, risk undermining the objective of
providing meaningful guidance to industry. Enhancing the specificity of the final
guidances would improve transparency and facilitate the timely development of
safe, pure, and potent biosimilars. We therefore recommend that the final
guidance documents address the following points:
Define ambiguous terms;
Discuss concepts with greater specificity (eg, more discussion of agency
expectations and examples); and
Acknowledge and address current technical and scientific limitations
related to regulatory advice or requirements, and expressly note the
challenges presented in evaluating the biosimilarity of proposed
biosimilars.
• Make clear that clinical studies will be necessary for the foreseeable future due to
the complexity and diversity of human biology and the limits of scientific
knowledge today. At the same time, it is appropriate for the agency to
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 7 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
acknowledge that analytical studies will increasingly facilitate reduction in the size
and scope of clinical studies needed.
• Permit a biosimilar sponsor to use data derived from a study conducted with a
foreign comparator to address components of statutory requirements if the
foreign comparator product can be determined to be fully representative of the
US licensed reference product. As the information relevant to demonstrating this
may be held confidential by the reference product sponsor, FDA should specify
that foreign comparator product data can be used if two criteria are satisfied: first,
a single company manufactures and distributes both the US licensed and foreign
comparator product and, second, the biosimilar applicant establishes a scientific
basis for relying on comparative data involving the foreign product.
• Acknowledge biosimilars as stand-alone products for purposes of ongoing
regulation once they have been approved as safe and effective. A requirement to
maintain biosimilarity between the biosimilar and the reference product would
unnecessarily complicate the regulatory process without providing meaningful
benefit to patients and be likely to increase both regulatory and manufacturing
costs.
• Commit to publishing class-specific guidance that discusses the approval
standards and other key implementation issues for particular product classes.
Class-specific guidance will provide the most meaningful guidance for
manufacturers and will foster the confidence in biosimilars needed for physician
and patient acceptance of this new class of product.
• Require all biological products to have a distinguishable nonproprietary name in
order to facilitate accurate attribution of adverse events. The distinguishable
name could consist of a common root and unique suffix, such as a Greek letter or
the manufacturer’s name, to enable identification of the product and manufacturer
as well as to provide clear class affiliation.
• Specify that biosimilar product labeling must provide all information necessary for
physicians and patients to make informed choices. This includes a standard
biosimilar label format as well as key biosimilar and reference product data,
clearly labeled as such.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 8 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
• Make clear that the agency is committed and fully intends to respect and enforce
protections against disclosure of trade secret and commercial confidential
information.
• Address the key issues of drift and attribution of adverse events following product
switching before designating any product as interchangeable. Interchangeability
is a higher standard of approval than biosimilarity and presents a complex set of
regulatory challenges that should be addressed fully in a separate guidance.
• Adopt separate regulations, via notice and comment rulemaking, regarding the
retention of reserve samples rather than simply “recommending” reliance on the
long-standing requirements for ANDA sponsors. Unique considerations relating
to recombinant biological products make this necessary.
• Clearly acknowledge that reference product exclusivity is presumptively granted
by the law and the requirement for proof arises only to the extent a product could
be considered a subsequent generation product. It would be contrary to the plain
language of the statute to shift the burden of proof to the applicant to “make its
case” for exclusivity when the applicant files a stand-alone BLA filed under
351(a). Uncertainty about whether a product will be eligible for data protection
will severely impede biotech development and will significantly deter investments
that improve products and therefore medical advances for patients.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 9 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
3. COMPLEXITIES OF PROTEIN PRODUCTS
3.1 Nature of Protein Products and Related Scientific Considerations
As FDA correctly notes in the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance (lines 156 - 158),
“analytical methodologies have increasingly improved the ability to identify and
characterize not only the drug substance of a protein product, but also excipients and
product- and process-related impurities.” The draft also correctly acknowledges that
“current analytical methodology may not be able to detect all relevant structural and
functional differences between two proteins” (lines 160 - 162). We believe it is critically
important that FDA acknowledge that the inherent uncertainties and challenges
associated with demonstrating biosimilarity are not purely – or even largely – related to
the sensitivity and specificity of characterization methods. Rather, one of the primary
challenges in assessing biosimilarity is knowing which structural attributes contribute
meaningfully to product safety and efficacy.
The fundamental assumption underlying reliance upon analytical and nonclinical
comparison must be that the sponsor and regulator know the precise relationship
between structural attributes and the clinical performance of the medicine and have the
ability to design the appropriate assays to mimic all in vivo effects in humans. Today,
this is a flawed assumption in terms of predicting the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity
of protein medicines. While our collective knowledge of the structure-function
relationship may well improve over time – perhaps even through biosimilars development
– we need to be candid about the current state of science while not excluding future
development.
The Agency states that “data derived from analytical studies, animal studies, and a
clinical study or studies are required to demonstrate biosimilarity unless FDA determines
an element unnecessary,” (lines 162 – 164) but the guidance documents offer few
insights into the circumstances where these waivers may be justified. Amgen believes
FDA should clarify that waivers should be sought only in those circumstances where
equivalent efficacy and non-inferior safety and immunogenicity can be assured through
other means before approval. Given that even seemingly minor modifications may exert
unintended clinical effects – especially given a protein’s propensity to change
conformation in vivo and elicit unexpected immunological events – Amgen cannot
contemplate circumstances in which clinical studies would not be needed today and in
the foreseeable future in order to assure an absence of clinically meaningful differences.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 10 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
3.2 Manufacturing Process Considerations
We agree with the statement in the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance that
“demonstrating that a proposed product is biosimilar to a reference product typically will
be more complex than assessing the comparability of a product before and after
manufacturing changes made by the same manufacturer” (lines 181-183). As both an
innovative product sponsor and a biosimilar developer, Amgen has extensive knowledge
of the differences between these two scientific exercises. These include differences in
the sponsor’s clinical experience concerning the relevant product, knowledge of the
structure-function relationship of the product, and access to historical data for the
product.
Because of changes an innovative product sponsor may make to its manufacturing
process, a reference product studied in a biosimilar development program may change
(either during or after product development) in subtle ways that are unknown to the
biosimilar applicant. To address this concern, FDA should recommend that a biosimilar
applicant conduct its analytical, nonclinical, and clinical comparisons during a limited
period of time and then establish an internal reference standard. Neither the biosimilar
nor the reference product should be constrained from improving their processes and
complying with cGMP following approval of a biosimilar product. The biosimilar and
reference products should be treated as independent products, each standing on their
own merits for future manufacturing changes and quality evaluations. To do otherwise
would unduly constrain manufacturing improvements across the industry. The sensitivity
of biologics to the manufacturing process is an issue FDA will have to address prior to
designating one biologic product to be interchangeable with another. Additional
considerations related to changes in attributes of the proposed biosimilar or the
reference product due to manufacturing changes are discussed in greater detail in
Section 6.5.6, below.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 11 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
4. US –LICENSED REFERENCE PRODUCT AND OTHER COMPARATORS
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance states that “[t]o obtain licensure of a
proposed product under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, a
sponsor must demonstrate that the proposed product is biosimilar to a single reference
product that previously has been licensed by FDA… However, under certain
circumstances, a sponsor may seek to use data derived from animal or clinical studies
comparing a proposed product with a non-U.S.-licensed product to address, in part, the
requirements under section 351(k)(2)(A) of the PHS Act” (lines 197 - 199, 204 - 206)
(emphasis added). See also draft Q&A Guidance § A.I.8. Where a foreign comparator
product can be determined to be fully representative of the US licensed reference
product, Amgen believes that a sponsor should be allowed to use data derived from a
study conducted with this foreign comparator to address components of the statutory
requirements. However, the assessment of whether a foreign comparator product can
be shown to be fully representative of the US licensed reference product is – in and of
itself – a complex challenge.
• The challenge - Foreign versions of US-licensed reference products can significantly
vary in the extent to which they are similar to the US product. In some cases, a
single manufacturer may release the same drug product (with differences only in
packaging and labeling) from the same manufacturing plant(s) into both the US and
ex-US markets. In other cases, products intended for different markets may be
manufactured independently or comply with locally-specific quality or pharmacopeial
standards. Where products are manufactured by more than one entity, two products
that were once related may have diverged from each other over time in subtle but
important ways. Moreover, some innovative products manufactured abroad may
have even more fundamental differences from the products intended for marketing in
the US, for example due to the use of different cell lines, formulations, container
closure, or shipping methods. In light of the many ways in which foreign versions of
US-licensed reference products can resemble or differ from the US version of the
product, Amgen urges FDA to take a highly cautious approach to relying on
comparative data involving a foreign comparator product to support the
demonstration of biosimilarity to a US-licensed reference product.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 12 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
• The standard - Amgen believes it is scientifically appropriate, and consistent with
FDA’s authority under the statute, to permit reliance on a foreign comparator product
when it is the same as the US licensed product but for regionally-specific packaging
or label (ie, fully representative of the product US patients currently receive including
use of the same nonclinical and clinical data supporting licensure). We recognize
that this information may be held as trade secret or confidential commercial
information and believe protection of this information is both appropriate and
important. Therefore, we suggest that the final biosimilar guidance specify two
criteria that biosimilar applicants must address to demonstrate that the foreign
comparator product is fully representative of the US-licensed reference product.
• The proposed policy - First, if available evidence indicates that a single innovator
company manufactures (directly or by a subsidiary or contract manufacturing
organization under the supervision of the BLA holder’s quality unit) the innovative
product and distributes it globally (including in the US), it is possible that the foreign
comparator product purchased outside the US could be fully representative of the
US-licensed reference product. Thus, reliance on comparative data involving this
foreign product may in some cases be scientifically appropriate, if the applicant
provides adequate scientific justification (as discussed in the second criteria below).
• In contrast, if a foreign product were manufactured by an entity other than the US
license holder, it would be unlikely that the foreign product could be fully
representative of the US-licensed product. Therefore, data concerning this product
should not be used to demonstrate biosimilarity.
• Second, even if the foreign product is manufactured by the US-license holder or
supervised subsidiary, the applicant must bear the burden of establishing a scientific
basis for relying on comparative data involving the foreign product given the
attendant potential for regionally distinct products. We suggest that FDA require the
applicant to make the following showings, at a minimum, to permit reliance on data
involving a foreign comparator product:
1. The biosimilar applicant must be able to fully characterize the two innovative
products and execute the testing necessary to detect differences between the
products, including designing and executing appropriate assays and studies and
appropriately identifying the limitations of the sampling and analytical
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 13 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
methodology. The analytical comparison bridging the products must be
representative of products used in the clinical confirmatory study. This should not
be an exercise of historical controls or reference but actual side-by-side testing
relevant to the pertinent confirmatory clinical study.
2. The manufacturing facilities for the foreign comparator product are in compliance
with current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) and are licensed by and
subject to regularly scheduled inspections by FDA or equivalent regulatory
agency. This showing should be made with respect to both the drug substance
and the drug product. If information about the specific facility in which the foreign
comparator product is manufactured is unavailable, we believe that ensuring that
the two innovative products have the same license holder may in some cases
serve as a surrogate, in conjunction with the additional factors below, for showing
compliance with cGMPs and regularly scheduled inspections for the specific
facility in which the foreign comparator product was manufactured.
3. Chemical, analytical, pharmacology, and clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) data
demonstrate that the foreign comparator product and US-licensed reference
product – both drug product and drug substance, where feasible – are fully
representative of each other (ie, structural properties and quality attributes are
practically indistinguishable other than differences attributed to the variability of
the test methods or lot-to-lot variability of the US-licensed reference product).
4. The foreign comparator product has the same formulation as the US-licensed
reference product.
5. The foreign comparator product has the same container closure system as the
US reference product, or if differences exist the applicant bears the burden of
showing that the reference drug product and foreign comparator are the same
irrespective of any difference in the container closure system.
6. The foreign comparator product is approved and has been widely marketed for
an appropriate length of time in a region with a similarly robust, International
Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory regime comparable to FDA. In
particular, FDA should seek assurance that the relevant regulatory authority has
adverse event reporting requirements and a postmarket surveillance system at
least as robust as those in the US.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 14 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
Amgen believes that if a biosimilar applicant makes these showings with respect to a
foreign comparator product and provides adequate scientific justification, it will be
appropriate for FDA to consider accepting for review the data obtained from comparing
the proposed biosimilar to the foreign comparator product.
In summary, if a reference biological product is manufactured by the US license holder
for distribution in multiple regions such that a foreign comparator product can be shown
to be fully representative of the US reference product by the above criteria, then the
agency may consider comparative nonclinical or clinical studies using the foreign
comparator product to be supportive of a demonstration of biosimilarity. In these limited
circumstances it would be reasonable for FDA to consider permitting the use of such
comparative studies in lieu of repeating nonclinical or clinical studies using the US-
licensed reference product.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 15 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
5. APPROACHES TO DEVELOPING AND ASSESSING EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE BIOSIMILARITY
5.1 Using a Stepwise Approach to Demonstrate Biosimilarity
An assessment of biosimilarity based on a stepwise comparison of the proposed
biosimilar and the US-licensed reference product must include certain basic
components. We believe that a biosimilar development program should include, at a
minimum, side-by-side analytical evaluations as well as comparative nonclinical studies
(in vitro and/or in vivo), comparative human PK and pharmacodynamic (PD) studies
(when relevant response-marker exists), and a comparative clinical study addressing
safety and efficacy separately or jointly.
5.2 Using a Totality-of-the-Evidence Approach to Assess a Demonstration of Biosimilarity
The concept of a totality-of-the-evidence approach can serve as an appropriate and
efficient approach to demonstrating biosimilarity. FDA should adopt the following
specific principles, however, to ensure that a biosimilar development program meets the
statutory standards for approval:
• Studies should be conducted with appropriate temporal boundaries. The
assessments should use state-of-the-art methods, consistent test material and
reference product, consistent reagents, and sensitive assays.
• Safety and immunogenicity should be evaluated in appropriate preapproval
clinical studies and, where appropriate, postmarketing studies of sufficient
duration to detect and assess differences in a sensitive population. Population
models or other assumptions should be used only when validated by applicant-
derived data concerning both the reference product and the proposed biosimilar.
• Biosimilar applicants and the agency should take robust and transparent
measures to ensure that trade secret and confidential commercial information is
appropriately protected.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 16 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
6. DEMONSTRATING BIOSIMILARITY
6.1 General
A biosimilar product must have an identical amino acid sequence and must be highly
similar to the reference product in multiple higher order structural and functional
attributes. This is critical because differences in protein folding, cross-linking, or subunit
association patterns could affect the functionality, immunogenicity, stability, and/or PK of
the biological product. Given the highly complex and heterogeneous nature of biologics,
existence of lot-lot variation, and distinctive degradation profiles, Amgen recommends
that FDA articulate a clear, statistically rigorous model for a biosimilar sponsor to sample
and evaluate the appropriate number of lots of the reference product and proposed
biosimilar product while ensuring a representative sampling across the shelf life.
Sampling plans may well need to account for variability on an attribute by attribute basis.
6.2 Structural Analysis
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance (lines 323 - 325) and draft Quality
Considerations Guidance (lines 369 - 371) imply that in some circumstances, the amino-
acid sequence of a biosimilar and its reference product may be different. We
recommend that, at a minimum, the amino acid sequence (primary structure) of the
biosimilar must be identical to that of the reference product, notwithstanding minor
differences in the extent of N-terminal or C-terminal processing. Neither by negligence
nor design should primary structure differences exist. Other minor sequence variants
comprising low prevalence gene sequence mutations or errors in translation are
sometimes evident and their impact on safety and efficacy must be assessed. FDA
should clarify the extent to which sequence variants exist within the concept of
biosimilarity. Not only is this appropriate as a scientific matter, but we believe the BPCIA
prohibits virtually all differences in amino acid sequence.
Section 351(k)(2)(A)(i)(I)(aa) requires that a biosimilar application be supported by data
from “analytical studies that demonstrate that the biologic is highly similar to the
reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components”
(unless waived by FDA). We believe that a difference in amino-acid sequence beyond
terminal truncations would necessarily preclude a finding that two products were “highly
similar” and that such a difference would not constitute “minor differences in clinically
inactive components.” Further, the applicant should bear the burden of conclusively
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 17 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
establishing that terminal truncations have no impact on efficacy, safety and
immunogenicity.
6.3 Animal Data
Amgen agrees that a nonclinical in vivo safety evaluation of a biosimilar should generally
be conducted before clinical studies. We suggest that FDA provide greater clarity with
regard to when animal toxicity studies will be appropriate to help inform biosimilar
development program planning. We believe it would also be helpful for FDA to address
this issue in class-specific guidance.
However, Amgen suggests strengthening the statement in the draft Scientific
Considerations Guidance that “animal toxicity studies are generally not useful if there is
no animal species that can provide pharmacologically relevant data” (lines 404 - 405).
We suggest that the final guidance provide that toxicity studies in a nonrelevant species
are not warranted and should not be conducted. Additionally, since some monoclonal
antibody product sponsors have historically used the chimpanzee as the only
pharmacologically relevant nonclinical species, we ask that FDA clarify that it
discourages the use of chimpanzees for the evaluation of biosimilars for ethical reasons.
In support of replacing, refining, and reducing animal testing (3Rs), FDA should clarify
the minimum expected study design for animal toxicity studies. The PHS Act states that
an application must include information demonstrating that the biologic is biosimilar to a
reference product based upon data derived from animal studies (including the
assessment of toxicity), suggesting that the toxicology study should be designed to
compare the two products (not re-establish the toxicity profile of the reference product).
Accordingly, the final guidance should address whether a toxicity study design may use
one dose level, may use one gender, may omit a recovery group, or may omit a vehicle
control group. For example, Amgen suggests that evaluation of a single gender in the
toxicity study may be sufficient to characterize the biosimilar if the more sensitive gender
is selected, if there are no gender differences in effects, or if the reference product is
primarily used in only one gender (eg, trastuzumab [Herceptin®]). Also, in the case of
biologics for which more than one species is pharmacologically relevant, Amgen believes
it would be sufficient to evaluate a single species. If more than one species is equally
sensitive, the lowest order species should be used.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 18 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
Amgen agrees that nonclinical safety pharmacology, reproductive and developmental
toxicity, and carcinogenicity studies usually will not be warranted. Because ICH
Guideline S6(R1) states that tissue cross-reactivity studies are not recommended for
assessing comparability of the test article as a result of process changes, Amgen
suggests noting that evaluating “tissue cross-reactivity” also is not warranted.
6.4 Clinical Studies
6.4.1 General
Amgen recommends that the final guidance documents discuss with greater specificity
FDA’s expectations about the nature and extent of clinical studies needed to
demonstrate biosimilarity. We suggest that applicants be expected to provide, at a
minimum, comparative PK data, comparative PD data (where relevant dynamic markers
exist), comparative immunogenicity data, and comparative efficacy and safety data in
one or more conditions of use for which the reference product is licensed. The nature of
the proposed biosimilar product or its class may in some cases permit an applicant to
deviate from this general expectation.
6.4.2 Human Pharmacology Data
Amgen agrees with the recommendation in the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance
that an applicant should use a population PK modelling approach to explore potential
variability in PK (lines 700 – 707). If, as expected, only a few clinical studies evaluating
the proposed biosimilar will be conducted, it would not be possible to conduct an
extensive evaluation of the covariates in a population PK model, as is recommended in
FDA guidance. See FDA Population Pharmacokinetics Guidance, 1999. Any use of
population PK models should be scientifically justified by the applicant on the basis of
current, side-by-side scientific data using state-of-the-art methods.
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance also provides that establishing a similar
human PK and PD profile may provide a basis for a selective and targeted approach to
subsequent clinical testing (lines 516 - 518). We suggest that the final guidance more
clearly explain the expected role of PK and PD data. Although the real value of PK and
PD data will depend on the product class and data generated by the biosimilar applicant,
the final guidance should nevertheless establish general expectations about the nature
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 19 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
and extent of clinical studies beyond PK and PD data that will be required to support
biosimilar approval.
6.4.3 Clinical Immunogenicity Assessment
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance appropriately emphasizes the importance
of clinical immunogenicity assessments to establishing biosimilarity (lines 540 - 542).
Post-translational modifications are frequently dependent on manufacturing process and
therefore could contribute to an alteration in the immunogenicity of the biosimilar
compared to the reference product. Even advanced analytical techniques may not
detect differences between proteins that could affect the rate or nature of immunogenic
reactions. Predictive immunogenicity models are promising but not currently validated.
In addition, nonclinical models do not reliably predict immunogenicity. Clinical studies
are therefore necessary to assess immunogenicity, and the resulting data in turn are
necessary for the assessment of biosimilarity. Because anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may
affect PK, PD, and product safety parameters, their potential effect should be evaluated
in a sufficiently powered preapproval study.
We suggest that FDA define “immunogenicity” and “immune response” and make clear
that they are not synonymous. The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance, for
example, inappropriately suggests that a “cytokine response” may be due to
immunogenicity (see lines 584 - 587) rather than an immune response. We further
recommend that the term “immunogenicity” be used to refer to the potential of a product
to generate ADA. We recommend that the final guidance documents use the phrase
“immune response” to refer to immune reactions such as cytokine release or
hypersensitivity reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions, for example, can occur
spontaneously and/or indicate the presence of a pre-existing specific or cross-reacting
antibody or a nonspecific reaction.
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance states that if immune response to the
reference product is rare, two studies may be needed to evaluate immunogenicity: (1) a
premarket study to detect major differences in responses; and (2) a postmarket study to
detect subtle differences (lines 555 - 559). We suggest that FDA explain what types of
differences in ADA generally would constitute a major difference. Additional guidance on
the types of differences in ADA that would constitute a major difference could be
provided in class-specific guidances.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 20 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
We agree with the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance’s recommended use of a
comparative parallel design (ie, a head-to-head) study to assess potential differences in
immunogenicity risk (lines 562 - 564). We also agree that the products should be
assessed in the same assay with the same patient sera whenever possible (lines 612 -
613). Even if a biosimilar applicant attempts to standardize the assays, cross-study ADA
incidence rates cannot be fully compared between different assays due to the
dependence of detection on both antibody affinity and concentration. Analytical
advances have improved immunogenicity assay performance over time, making it
difficult to compare immunogenicity incidence rates measured using different methods.
Therefore, it is essential for an applicant to test both products in the same assay at the
same time.
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance states that the selection of clinical
immunogenicity endpoints or PD measures should take into consideration
immunogenicity issues associated with the reference product (lines 584 - 590). For
some innovative products, however, the incidence of immunogenicity, or the correlation
between immunogenicity and clinical events, may not be well known. We suggest that
FDA provide additional information about the endpoints to be used in these cases, as
well as examples of criteria for determining acceptable immunogenicity endpoints.
A follow-up period (lines 592 - 599) is important to appropriately characterize the time
course of immunogenicity (eg, as pre-existing or developing after treatment). We
recommend that subjects positive for ADA at the end of the study be followed for at least
one year after the last administration of either the biosimilar or the reference product.
We also recommend that it state that the sampling frequency for chronically administered
products should be at least every three months during the study and follow-up periods.
We agree that characterization of the incidence and severity of ADA is necessary to
understand immunogenicity elicited by both products (Scientific Considerations guidance
lines 535 - 537). We recommend that FDA explain when such characterization is
necessary. Specifically, we recommend that subjects who are positive for ADA be
characterized for antibody titer when a clinical effect (such as loss of efficacy) has been
identified. The Agency should note that specificity characterization is needed when the
proposed product contains multiple domains that may have differential effects. Further, it
should state that isotype characterization will be expected when transient ADA (possible
IgM) or hypersensitivity reactions (possible IgE) are observed.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 21 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
We agree with the statement in the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance that to
permit extrapolation of immunogenicity data from evaluation of the proposed biosimilar
product in one indication to support the product’s licensure for another, a sensitive
population should be studied (lines 576 - 582). At a minimum, the population studied
should be immunocompetent (if there is such a population for the approved use).
6.4.4 Clinical Safety and Effectiveness Data
General Considerations
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance states that comparative clinical safety and
effectiveness data are necessary if there are “residual uncertainties” about biosimilarity
based on structural and functional characterization, animal testing, human PK and PD
data, and a clinical immunogenicity assessment (lines 620 - 623). We believe that at
least one clinical study evaluating safety and effectiveness will be needed in every case
to establish an absence of clinically meaningful differences between the reference
product and the proposed biosimilar. A biosimilar development program that relies on
only analytical and nonclinical comparisons would depend on the assumption that the
biosimilar sponsor knows all structural attributes that may affect the clinical performance
of the reference product and the proposed biosimilar. It would also depend on the
assumption that the biosimilar sponsor is able to design appropriate nonclinical assays
that identify all aspects of the product’s clinical profile.
Given the current state of science, these assumptions are not warranted and they raise
patient safety risks including that the molecule may have different efficacy. Even
seemingly minor modifications in the structure of a biologic, its manufacturing process, or
other product characteristics may result in unintended clinical effects. This is particularly
true given a protein’s propensity to change conformation in vivo and to elicit unexpected
immunological events. Although the general scientific community’s understanding of the
relationship between a particular protein’s structure and its function may improve over
time, this potential for future scientific advancement does not justify the use of
inappropriately abbreviated biosimilar development programs today. Accordingly, given
current limitations of the science, FDA should require at least one clinical study
evaluating safety and effectiveness, including immunogenicity.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 22 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
Statistical Considerations
Equivalence should be the base expectation for clinical efficacy studies unless the
applicant can justify the use of a one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test. We note that FDA
highlights the fact that an NI design could be advantageous as it would allow for a
smaller sample size than an equivalence design. We believe that it is important for FDA
to remove the term “advantageous” as for fixed margin designs; the sample size required
for an NI design (1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and with at least 80% power) is no more
than 10% less than that of an equivalence design. The advantage in terms of sample
size is therefore relatively minor and so it should not be stated by FDA as an advantage
and nor should the smaller sample size be positioned as one that has any bearing on
decision making when it comes to study design. In the event that NI is considered, the
applicant should address not only the efficacy considerations but also the potential for
increased toxicity that may be associated with higher potency/effect that is not formally
evaluated in an NI study.
It is stated clearly in the guidance that clinical studies should be designed such that they
can demonstrate the proposed product has neither decreased nor increased activity
compared to the reference product, (ie, they should be equivalence trials). If the
proposed product has superior efficacy than the reference product, then it must be
treated as a distinct product and follow the appropriate licensure pathway section 351(a)
of the PHS act. The circumstances where a noninferiority study for efficacy may be
scientifically appropriate, as discussed in the guidance, seem to be rare. As a practical
matter, it is unlikely that such a study can provide sufficient evidence to meet the
statutory requirement for showing an absence of clinically meaningful differences. A
noninferiority assessment leaves open more uncertainty and hence extrapolation to other
indications with this increased uncertainty would be inappropriate. Therefore, we
recommend a showing of equivalent efficacy as a prerequisite for biosimilarity.
For equivalence trials, the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance states that the most
straightforward study design is a two-sided test in which the null hypothesis is that either
(1) the proposed product is inferior to the reference product or (2) the proposed product
is superior to the reference product based on pre-specified equivalence margins (lines
665 – 669). The guidance further suggests that a different upper and lower margin may
be appropriate. We agree with the Agency’s consideration in maintaining equivalence in
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 23 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
principle, but with potential flexibility on the superiority side. Along the same line of
thinking, we suggest considering asymmetric Type 1 errors.
Criteria for biosimilarity are not defined in the guidance for any of the steps in the
stepwise approach or for the totality-of-the-evidence. Five example factors listed in
VII.D.3 are listed for determination of the equivalence margins in the comparative clinical
studies. We agree and believe that the characteristics, including an allowance for
accurately assessed variability of the reference product (ie, not due to limited nature or
other insufficiency of sampling program) are essential in setting the criteria for
biosimilarity (and/or interchangeability) in all the steps in the stepwise approach and for
the totality-of-the-evidence. The draft guidance does not address the appropriate
number of lots for adequate sampling to assess lot-lot variability of the biosimilar and
reference product, nor the appropriate sourcing model for clinical trials.
Other Design Considerations
We believe that biosimilar applicants should be required to provide data from a
randomized head-to-head clinical study(s) (confirming clinical biosimilarity with the US-
licensed reference product) in a sensitive population to demonstrate biosimilarity. The
Agency should note that in some cases evaluation of more than one sensitive population
may be necessary. In addition, an applicant should be required to justify the clinical
endpoints used. We believe that although the endpoints may be the same as those
studied by the innovator, surrogate endpoints may be considered on a case-by-case
basis. We also recommend that the clinical trials be powered to demonstrate equivalent
efficacy and (even if not powered for statistical significance) should be able to describe
noninferior safety outcomes.
In addition to specific safety and efficacy endpoints, PK studies should be required
before licensure of all biologics. Because rare and important immunologic outcomes are
sometimes not observed in the prelicensure setting we acknowledge the limitation of
preapproval data particularly in the event of approved indications without clinical data
(extrapolated indications). And while we support continued and careful analysis of
immunologic parameters within the sponsors’ clinical study program, we emphasize the
importance of careful pharmacovigilance in the postmarketing environment allowing
traceability of any adverse event to the level of the product, manufacturer and lot of the
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 24 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
medicine the patient received. The rationale for this is demonstrated by Europe’s
experience with pure red cell aplasia (PRCA), as discussed in Section 7.2.1below.
Safety considerations
The draft Scientific Considerations Guidance describes FDA’s expectations with regard
to the analysis and comparison of the efficacy and immunogenicity profiles of the
proposed biosimilar and its reference product. We recommend that FDA also describe
how data concerning the safety profiles of the products should be assembled and
compared and how a biosimilar applicant should demonstrate that there are no clinically
meaningful differences between the products’ safety profiles. FDA should clarify how an
applicant may demonstrate the similarity of both: (1) the incidence rates of “common”
adverse events that may be nonspecific (eg, injection site reactions) or mechanism
based (eg, dermatologic reactions to epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies); and
(2) rare serious adverse events (eg, lymphoma with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors) that
may or may not be mechanism-based. Comparing product safety profiles with regard to
rare serious adverse events, for example, would be extremely challenging; a very large
or long-duration study would be anticipated to detect a single event, let alone
differentiate between the adverse event profiles of two products.
We believe that although clinical studies will not necessarily be designed or powered to
detect statistically significant differences in safety profiles, a proposed biosimilar’s
preapproval safety database should be sufficiently robust to exclude important
differences in known adverse events associated with the reference product. It will be
possible for an applicant to determine a proposed biosimilar’s risk for common adverse
events relative to that of the reference product based on the historically reported
incidence rates of adverse events associated with the reference product. A sample size
calculation could then determine detectable differences between the safety profiles of the
two products.
As an example, Table 1 below demonstrates how such a calculation could be conducted
with a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar. Table 1 describes the
number of study subjects needed to determine whether a proposed biosimilar G-CSF
product is associated with increased risk for adverse events commonly reported in
G-CSF clinical trials (where the risk is a 2-, 3-, or 4- fold increase compared to that of the
reference product). In general, we would consider a 2-fold increase of risk (relative risk =
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 25 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
2) clinically meaningful for most adverse events. Of the events reported in Table 1, the
most clinically important are bone and musculoskeletal pain. These are the events that
should determine the size of the safety database. In this case, about 150 patients
treated with the biosimilar G-CSF (and 150 patients treated with the reference product)
would be needed to exclude a 2-fold increase in incidence of bone and musculoskeletal
pain. This sample size would thus enable reasonable conclusions to be drawn about the
similarity of the general (ie, common adverse event) safety profiles of the two products.
Table 1. Sample Size Estimation for Different Background Rate and Relative Risk Based on Observed Incidence Rates of Common AEs from G-CSF Clinical Study
Adverse Events Reported Incidence Rate for G-CSF (%)
Sample Size in Each Study Arm for Various Relative Risk Level
RR=2.0 RR=3.0 RR=4.0
Bone Pain 30 141 55 35
Abnormal Labs 3 829 281 159
Nervous System Events 16 199 72 43
Headache or Respiratory
8 341 119 69
Tiredness or Chest Pain 6 438 151 87
Musculoskeletal Pain 44 133 55 36 Note: All estimations are based on two side test, α = 0.05, Power (1-β) = 80%
The biosimilar’s labeling should indicate the 95% confidence limits for the point estimates
of rates of adverse events observed in clinical trials. If the difference in rates of adverse
events is notable but the biosimilarity standard is nevertheless deemed satisfied,
however, the labeling should identify the fold increase in risk of adverse events excluded
at a 95% confidence level.
A similar approach could be taken for other products or classes.
6.4.5 Extrapolation of Clinical Data Across Indications
Amgen agrees that a biosimilar applicant should scientifically justify the extrapolation of
clinical data to support a determination of biosimilarity for each condition of use of the
reference product for which licensure is sought. Draft Scientific Considerations
Guidance lines 765 - 767 and draft Q&A Guidance § A.I.11. We agree that clinical data
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 26 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
may be extrapolated to support licensure of other indications only if the data were
sufficient to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the biosimilar in the indication
studied clinically. Draft Scientific Considerations Guidance lines 760 -7 64 and draft
Q&A Guidance § A.I.11. Extrapolation would be inappropriate without this foundation.
We also support the list of factors in the draft Scientific Considerations Guidance (lines
769 - 795) that the scientific justification for extrapolation should address.
6.4.6 Maintaining Biosimilarity
The draft guidance documents do not address considerations related to demonstrating
that biosimilarity is maintained after approval. We recommend that the final guidance
documents note that there is no statutory requirement that biosimilarity be maintained
after licensure and that neither the biosimilar sponsor nor the reference product sponsor
is constrained from improving its manufacturing process in compliance with cGMPs.
Requiring the maintenance of biosimilarity over time would inhibit manufacturing and
quality improvements and unduly burden industry without benefiting patients. Amgen
believes that FDA’s finding of biosimilarity at a specific point in time provides a sufficient
basis for the products to be considered as “stand alone” products thereafter. Biosimilar
applicants should be expected to establish an internal reference standard to facilitate all
postapproval comparability exercises performed by a biosimilar sponsor before and after
any manufacturing change that it makes.
6.4.7 Class-Specific Guidances
We strongly encourage FDA to develop, on a timely basis, class-specific biosimilars
guidance, akin to those developed by the European Medicines Agency. We believe FDA
should prioritize classes that contain products near patent expiry. Class-specific
guidances are vital to transparency. By providing greater specificity about regulatory
standards and expectations than do the draft overarching guidance documents, class-
specific guidance will promote more productive interaction between applicants and
reviewers. They will help conserve biosimilar applicant resources and agency review
resources and facilitate consistent treatment of biosimilar applicants. In addition, the
process of developing these guidances will itself promote public understanding of the
approval process, physician education, and confidence in licensed biosimilars.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 27 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
Specifically, we recommend that the regulatory expectations for technical areas such as
the following topics be defined by the Agency (in consultation with industry and the
scientific community) in product class specific guidances:
1. Define the nonclinical studies that would be considered necessary to precede
clinical studies. This is of particular value in the context of defining the nature
and extent of animal studies and potentially whether such studies, for a precise
product/class would be necessary.
2. Define the endpoints for PK and PD studies recommended by the agency and
provide guidance on the design of such studies. This is of particular value in
defining the ultimate value of PD studies in the context of supporting the
establishment of equivalent efficacy to that of the reference product.
3. Based on the current level of scientific understanding, a biosimilar sponsor will
need to establish equivalent efficacy and noninferior safety in a formal clinical
study(s), beyond PK and PD. Define the patient population that is considered
most sensitive for detecting clinically meaningful differences in safety, efficacy
and immunogenicity. In some cases this can be one population, in other cases
two or more populations may need to be considered.
4. Define the design considerations for the safety/efficacy study(s), including the
endpoint(s) to be evaluated, duration of treatment, duration of follow-up and
statistical consideration for establishing biosimilarity.
5. In terms of safety, define the safety events of interest where differences in
severity or frequency may be considered clinically meaningful.
6. In terms of immunogenicity, address the patient population, duration of treatment
and antibody testing strategy that would be necessary to provide evidence of no
worse immunogenicity.
7. Finally, as the pre-approval studies are by nature limited and without prejudice to
approval of a biosimilar by the Agency, define clinical events to be followed
during formal post approval commitments, including the precise clinical events
and suggestion of how they would be evaluated (passive pharmacovigilance,
postapproval studies, registries etc) and where case-by-case consideration
comes into the decision.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 28 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
7. POSTMARKET SAFETY MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Biosimilar Labeling
Amgen agrees that biosimilar labeling “should include all the information necessary for a
health professional to make prescribing decisions,” as noted in the draft Scientific
Considerations Guidance (lines 821 - 822). In addition to noting whether a biosimilar has
been deemed interchangeable (lines 826 - 827), the labeling should:
• Include data from studies of both the reference product and the biosimilar product
(where applicable), on an indication-by-indication basis, and distinguish the
studies conducted with the biosimilar from those conducted with the reference
product;
• Reflect the outcomes of postmarket commitments and any subsequent clinical
studies, as this information becomes available; and
• Adhere to a standard format.
First, FDA should not simply use the reference product labeling for the biosimilar, as it
does for generic drugs.2
Moreover, these data should be presented on an indication-by-indication basis, so that
prescribers can understand the relevance of available data to the patient population at
issue. This transparency will allow the physician to make an informed choice for each
patient based on his or her particular medical condition, history, and life circumstances.
Instead, biosimilar labeling should include reference product
data and biosimilar data (to help the prescriber understand the database supporting
approval of the biosimilar). The source of the data should be transparent to promote
understanding of the relationship between the products and the available data.
Second, it is essential that biosimilar labeling be kept current. As explained below,
postmarket data will likely be an important source of product safety and efficacy data for
biosimilars. This is because these products are expected to be approved based on
fewer clinical data than their reference products and because premarket clinical trials are
unlikely to study all indications or be able to detect rare adverse events. To ensure that
prescribers have the most up-to-date, comprehensive information about a biosimilar’s
2 FDA’s approach to generic drug labeling is also inapposite for another reason. There is no statutory “same labeling” requirement for biosimilars as there is for generic drugs.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 29 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
safety and efficacy, postmarket data should be promptly added to the labeling as it
becomes available.
Third, Amgen agrees with FDA’s statement in the draft Scientific Considerations
Guidance that biosimilar labeling should note whether FDA has deemed the biosimilar to
be interchangeable with its reference product (lines 821 – 827). This is an essential fact
that could have implications for patient safety, and we support FDA’s plan to clearly
convey this information to both providers and patients. This information will also help
communicate that non-interchangeable biosimilars are not generic products and are not
substitutable for their reference products. We note that it is inconsistent with the concept
of interchangeability, inconsistent with the statutory requirement of “the same expected
result in any given patient” – and impractical for purposes of implementation – to
designate a product interchangeable for less than all indications and routes of
administration.
Finally, FDA should adopt a standard approach to the content and format for biosimilar
labeling. A standard approach will ensure that prescribers can readily locate key
information.
A description of the pivotal study(s) used for the approval of the biosimilar or
interchangeable product should be included in the “Clinical Studies” section of the
prescribing information, along with information on the clinical studies supporting approval
of the reference product. This section should clearly identify the product(s) involved in
each study described. The labeling should cite the safety profile of the reference product
when appropriate, and explicitly acknowledge differences between the profiles of the
biosimilar and reference products when supported by an adequately designed study
(recognizing that the differences should not be clinically meaningful at the time of
biosimilar approval in order to fit within the statutory definition of biosimilarity).
In the adverse event section, the biosimilar labeling should appropriately highlight any
notable adverse events that occur with the biosimilar product but not the reference
product (recognizing that the differences should not be clinically meaningful at the time of
biosimilar approval in order to fit within the statutory definition of biosimilarity), and this
labeling should not suggest a class effect (unless warranted). The “Indications and
Usage” and the “Warnings and Precautions” sections should include only those
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 30 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
indications for which the biosimilar has been approved. No reference should be made to
indications that have not been approved or evaluated for approval.
7.2 The Need for Accurate Attribution of Adverse Events and Distinguishable Names
Amgen agrees that there is a pressing need for a robust postmarket safety monitoring
system that distinguishes adverse events associated with the biosimilar from those
associated with the reference product in order to permit detection and assessment of
product-specific safety signals (draft Scientific Considerations Guidance lines 809 - 813).
We encourage FDA to issue guidance on pharmacovigilance issues for biosimilar
products. This guidance should provide recommendations for effective
pharmacovigilance. We strongly recommend that it also state that FDA will require
biosimilars to bear distinguishable nonproprietary names. Because nonproprietary
names may be assigned to proposed biosimilars long before the corresponding
marketing applications are submitted, FDA should make guidance on this topic a high
priority.
7.2.1 Special Considerations for Pharmacovigilance in the Biologics Context
For three reasons, effective pharmacovigilance is particularly important in the biologics
context. First, due to the complexity of these products and the limitations of current
scientific methods, at the time of initial approval manufacturers and regulators often have
incomplete knowledge of a product’s distinguishing quality attributes. They also have
limited knowledge of the relationship between these attributes and a product’s safety
profile. Key safety attributes often must be discerned through postmarket surveillance or
postmarket studies. For example, rare but significant immunologic effects may not be
detected in conventionally sized premarket clinical trials. Moreover, small postmarket
process changes may have significant safety implications, increasing the need for a
pharmacovigilance system that covers the entire product life cycle.
The European experience with Eprex (epotein alfa) and incidences of pure red cell
aplasia (PRCA), discussed in our 2010 comments to FDA, illustrates these features of
biologics and highlights the importance of an effective pharmacovigilance system. In
that case, an unexpected number of cases of a severe immunogenic effect known as
PRCA were reported. Even with only three erythropoiesis-stimulating agents approved
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 31 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
in Europe at the time, traceability to the responsible product took months of forensic
research. As a result of this research, the increased rate of PRCA was eventually
attributed to a formulation change for that product (ie, replacing human serum albumin
with sorbitol-80 as a stabilizer) (Kuhlmann et al, 2010). With the arrival of biosimilars,
there will be more products per class on the market, and more challenge in assuring
accurate attribution of events.
Second, biosimilars will inevitably differ from their reference products, and these
differences may have significant safety implications. For example, differences in quality
attributes may lead to differences between products with regard to dose, PK,
immunogenicity, and adverse events (including both serious adverse events, such as
formation of neutralizing antibodies to endogenous mediators (eg, PRCA) and targets,
and less serious adverse events, such as local irritation). Although premarket testing
may help elucidate these differences, some differences will not be detected until after
approval. The Avonex® (interferon β1a) example illustrates this point. In this case,
Bioferon produced the drug used in clinical trials. Bioferon ceased manufacturing for
financial reasons and its partner, Biogen, subsequently began manufacture of the
product using a different cell line.
Biogen sought approval based on the clinical study data generated with the Bioferon
product and a demonstration that the two products were comparable. After two
attempts, Biogen was able to show its product was comparable with the Bioferon
product. Physiochemical testing showed that the products' structures were similar,
multiple bioassays indicated that the products had comparable bioactivity, and PK data
indicated that their distribution and clearance were comparable. FDA therefore approved
Avonex®. Post approval, however, an immunogenicity study showed that the Biogen
product was less immunogenic, indicating that the two products were not as similar as
originally thought (Woodcock et al, 2007). Even though decreased immunogenicity was
advantageous, it represented an unanticipated change not predicted from analytical
tests, bioassay tests, and PK tests.
Third, switching patients between biosimilars and reference products presents special,
as yet not fully understood, challenges. As noted in our 2010 comments, such switching
may cause adverse reactions, particularly immunogenic reactions. In general,
immunogenic responses to biologics are complex and may vary widely with regard to
timing and mode of expression following initiation of treatment. They can range from
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 32 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
acute anaphylactoid infusion reactions to delayed development of neutralizing
antibodies. Switching or alternating a patient between a reference product and biosimilar
versions increases concerns regarding the potential for immunogenic side effects. As
Dr. Woodcock has stated, “there is a significant potential for repeated switches between
[proteins] to have a negative impact on [product] safety and/or effectiveness.”
(Woodcock, 2007). Switching also may complicate identification of the causative agent
for a particular adverse reaction for the following reasons:
• Adverse reactions may occur months (or longer) after initiation of treatment with a
biologic, thus making it difficult to attribute a single adverse event to the proper
biologic. Timely reporting of these events, accurate attribution, and signal
detection analyses are critical to effective attribution.
• Infusion reactions can manifest in differing patterns. In some cases, severe
reactions occur initially and then wane with repeated doses. In other cases,
hypersensitivity may manifest after several doses. Because adverse events may
manifest after a latency period, switching may complicate proper attribution.
• An “anamnestic” antibody response to a biologic based on prior exposure may
occur long after the causative agent was administered and only on re-
administration of the product or administration of a biosimilar.
• Due to the nature of an immune response, a stimulus provoked by one biologic
may manifest as a more severe reaction to another, subsequently administered
pharmacologically similar biologic.
For these three reasons, adverse events must be accurately linked to the correct
product, manufacturer, and lot number. A lack of traceability at best leaves unanswered
questions about product safety and at worst misrepresents the safety profile of multiple
products (Miletich, 2010). Unless an adverse event report notes the precise product
involved, adverse events associated with different products will be pooled, potentially
masking problems associated with a particular product and delaying or precluding
appropriate action by regulators and manufacturers.
Designation of a product as interchangeable will create additional challenges for tracking
and tracing and will make accurate attribution of adverse events more important.
Products deemed interchangeable are, by virtue of the designation, more likely to be
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 33 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
switched during a course of treatment. In light of the potential for delayed immune
response it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine the cause of adverse events
that occur after a product switch. Furthermore, rare adverse events may not be
observed in a typical clinical study for a biosimilar product, therefore post-marketing
observation will likely be an essential tool in determining the reporting rate of more rare
adverse events. Product switching could well confound postmarketing assessment of
such semiquantitative data. How to ensure accurate attribution of adverse events
following a product switch remains an open question and should be addressed in future
guidance documents prior to designation of interchangeability.
7.2.2 Suggested FDA Actions
Although no single action by FDA will ensure accurate attribution of adverse events,
Amgen recommends the agency take the following steps.
• Require that biosimilars have distinguishable nonproprietary names,
• Require biosimilars to bear distinctive packaging compared with their reference
products, and
• Take steps to improve the quality of adverse event reporting.
First, biosimilars should have distinguishable nonproprietary names that share a
common root with the reference product’s nonproprietary name but also include a
distinguishing suffix. The use of a common root will allow practitioners and patients to
recognize that the products are related, while the suffix will ensure that the products are
distinguishable.
Distinguishable nonproprietary names will simplify attribution of adverse events to the
correct biologic. Pharmacovigilance depends on voluntary reporting of adverse events
by healthcare providers and patients. Amgen has found that healthcare providers and
patients often do not have or report information needed to permit identification of the
responsible product (eg, lot number, national drug code (NDC)) beyond the
nonproprietary name. For example, NDCs generally are not found on dispensed
pharmacy prescriptions, as FDA’s MedWatch form 3500 instruction notes. Because the
nonproprietary name is often the only product-identifying information on an adverse
event report, the use of a single nonproprietary name for a biosimilar and reference
product will likely confound attribution of the adverse event and overall
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 34 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
pharmacovigilance efforts. In contrast, distinguishable nonproprietary names will ensure
that practitioners and patients are provided with the necessary information to accurately
identify the product involved in an adverse event.
Distinguishable names also will provide needed transparency to prescribers and
patients. As discussed in Amgen’s 2010 submission on the Part 15 hearing docket,
neither biosimilar nor interchangeable products are expected to be the “same as” their
reference products, as is the case for generic drugs. Distinguishable names will signal
this fact to the public and will also serve to educate the public that biosimilars, are not
generic drugs. Moreover, the shared root will convey that the products are related and
thus will appropriately reflect that the biosimilar has been shown to have no clinically
meaningful differences from the reference product.
Second, FDA should require biosimilars to have distinctive packaging in all feasible
layers (eg, from external package to syringe or vial labeling). Like distinguishable
nonproprietary names, distinctive packaging will help patients and doctors identify the
product associated with an adverse event.
Third, FDA should take steps to enhance the quality of adverse event reporting. We
suggest that FDA do the following:
• Establish simplified reporting mechanisms (eg, peel-off labels to place in a
patient’s medical record).
• Encourage sponsors to maintain and use centralized systems for collecting and
analyzing adverse event data, so that they can optimize and standardize signal
detection and thus facilitate comparisons between products.
• Educate the public on the importance of accurate adverse event reporting and
the available mechanisms for reporting adverse events.
• Emphasize the importance of obtaining healthcare provider confirmation of any
patient report, particularly for serious adverse events and regardless of whether
the manufacturer or agency receives the event report.
• Encourage sponsors to conduct antibody testing when investigating immunogenic
adverse events and include the results in the adverse event report.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 35 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
8. OTHER ISSUES
8.1 Publicly Available Information
FDA's proposed Q&A Guidance regarding what constitutes "publicly available
information" from the prior approval of the reference product is incomplete. Moreover, its
framing avoids entirely the issue as to what information with regard to a reference
product FDA can rely upon in reviewing and approving a 351(k) application.
The draft Q&A Guidance is incomplete in that it fails to address the issue of what
"publicly available information" FDA will make available as to an approval of a 351(a)
application (ie, reference product) that may be included in a 351(k) application.
Furthermore, while the Agency states that "publicly available information" about a
reference product will comply with the requirements for an "Action Package for
Approval,” as found in Section 505(l)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), it does not confirm that it will issue such approval packages for 351(k)
applications. Since Section 505(l)(2) applies to all 351 applications, FDA should affirm
that 351(k) approval packages will contain the same information as the approval
package for a 351(a) approval and what information, in both cases, that will be. That is,
FDA should require consistency and parity in what is included in approval packages for
both reference products approved under 351(a) and biosimilars approved under Section
351(k).
In all cases, first and foremost, FDA needs to make clear that, regardless of whether the
information pertains to a biological product approved under the (a) or (k) pathway, the
Agency will comply, and has complied, with all legal obligations, including the
requirements and procedures set forth in 21 C.F.R. Part 20, pertaining to the protection
of confidential commercial, trade secret, or otherwise protected information.
The proposed Q&A as set forth in the draft Q&A Guidance is also incomplete in that it
states "the publicly available information posted by FDA in the context does not
necessarily include all of the information that would be otherwise disclosable in response
to a Freedom of Information Act request" (draft Q&A Guidance, p. 11). FDA should
clarify what additional information it suggests might otherwise be disclosable.
Importantly, in all cases, FDA must put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that it
does not rely upon or otherwise use the confidential trade secret or any other protected
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 36 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
proprietary information of the reference product sponsor to review and/or approve a
biosimilar application.
Moreover, we would ask that FDA consider the need to update its BLA disclosure
regulations set forth in 21 CFR. § 601.51 to reflect the existence of a biosimilar pathway.
At a minimum – and more closely aligned with FDA’s longstanding new drug application
disclosure regulations – 21 C.F.R. § 601.51 should be revised to provide that, safety and
effectiveness data and information may not be disclosed at any time should
extraordinary circumstances exist.
Finally, as noted, this Q&A is couched so as to avoid the critical issue as to what
information constitutes "publicly available information" that FDA can rely upon in
approving a 351(k) application. It is a critical issue not only because there are potential
legal issues as to what can be properly used, but due to the fact that a 351(k) application
will be reviewed by the same division that has reviewed the BLA for the reference
product. The Agency needs to set forth clear guidance and rules to the effect that
reviews of 351(k) applications can only rely upon:
• data provided by the 351(k) applicant derived from its own research and
development;
• data to which it has a proper right of reference; and
• data which is properly within public domain (ie, “publicly available").
8.2 Interchangeability
We agree that interchangeability is a distinct and higher standard than biosimilarity. We
appreciate the thoughtful consideration FDA is giving to this important topic. We ask
that, if the agency develops guidance on this topic, it keep the following points in mind.
First, interchangeability of biosimilars is an issue of first impression and warrants a
cautious approach by the agency. The US is the only jurisdiction in which the regulatory
authority must determine whether a biosimilar may be substituted for its reference
product without the involvement of the prescribing physician. It is important that the
pathway for biosimilar products be implemented and regulators evaluate the long-term
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 37 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
safety and effectiveness of biosimilars before entering uncharted waters of declaring
biological products to be interchangeable.3
Second, FDA should expand upon its point that interchangeability is a higher standard
than biosimilarity. Specifically, FDA should re-affirm that meeting the standard for
biosimilarity is necessary, but not sufficient, to receive an interchangeability designation.
The statute mandates this approach, by providing that applicants must make two
additional showings, beyond a basic showing of biosimilarity, to receive an
interchangeability rating. FDA should also state that it will designate a product as
interchangeable only if the applicant has obtained approval for all reference product
indications. The statute also requires this approach, by providing that FDA must find that
a product can be expected to have the same clinical result “in any given patient” before
rating a product as interchangeable. Finally, because interchangeability is a higher
standard than biosimilarity, FDA should emphasize in product labeling and educational
campaigns that non-interchangeable biosimilars should not be substituted for their
reference products without physician consent.
Third, a system that provides effective tracking and tracing of all biologic medicines is
necessary to ensure accurate attribution of adverse events caused by biologics. This
system will be increasingly important as more biologics, including biosimilars and
interchangeable products, enter the market and increase the number of products that
could be the source of the adverse reaction. We will only know how safe and effective
products are if we can identify both when an event occurs and the products to which the
patient was exposed. The track and trace system should be in place prior to the arrival
of biosimilar medicines in the US marketplace.
Fourth, the dynamic of the health care market today makes it highly likely that patients
with chronic conditions using biologics will be exposed to multiple products. As the
BPCIA has introduced the legal concept of an interchangeable biosimilar, it is important
to emphasize that non-interchangeable biosimilars are not be substituted without
physician consent. The FDA has an opportunity to clearly specify in the guidances that
the standards established for biosimilarity are separate and distinct to those that are
necessary to secure approval as an interchangeable biosimilar. Therefore, meeting the
3 Although patients might, as a practical matter, be exposed to multiple non-interchangeable products in the marketplace, this experience will not be sufficient to meet the rigorous statutory standard of interchangeability.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 38 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
standard for biosimilarity is necessary, but not sufficient to meet statutory definition of
interchangeability. Due to the importance of this issue we support FDA’s stance that
labeling conventions should clearly state whether or not the drug is “interchangeable”
and a statement on the inappropriateness of interchange when a biosimilar is not rated
as such.
8.3 Sample Retention
In the draft Q&A Guidance, the Agency has proposed that sponsors of 351(k)
applications retain reserve samples of biologic products used in comparative
pharmacokinetics ("PK") or pharmacodynamic ("PD”) studies in accordance with the
requirements of 21 C.F.R. §§320.28 and 320.63. (See A.1.10). Amgen agrees with the
importance of reserve sample requirements for PK and PD studies, but believes it is vital
that rules be in place that specifically apply to 351(k) applications. As conceded by the
Agency, the rules found in 21 C.F.R. §320 only apply to products approved under
Section 505 of the FFDCA. Amgen does not believe it is sufficient for there to be merely
a recommendation to follow the referenced rules; the Agency should, instead, address
the issue through notice and comment rulemaking, with the goal being a rule having the
full force and effect of law, specifically targeted to the unique characteristics of biologic
products.
Reliance upon the rules for sample retention of bioequivalence studies of generics of
drugs approved under Section 505(b)(2) and 505(j) may not be appropriate in all cases
for biologic products. For example, there may in many cases be issues with the integrity
of biologic products stored for as long as five (5) years. A rule is needed to address the
unique stability issues with biologic products. In addition, it may be appropriate to limit
the number of reserve samples that are needed to test for identity and quality. Given
that there are not compendial requirements for most biologics, and that they may not
remain stable, testing for purity may not provide any meaningful data to FDA in terms of
ensuring the integrity of the PK and PD studies, while imposing potentially burdensome
retention programs in terms of both number of samples needed and potentially invalid
testing.
In short, there are differences between simple micro-molecule chemical products
approved under Section 505 and biologic macro-molecule products approved under
Section 351 of the PHSA that render the requirements in 21 C.F.R. § 320 infeasible and
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 39 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
inappropriate for biologic products. As there are unique considerations relating to PK
and PD studies of recombinant biologic products and samples to ensure the integrity
thereof, Amgen believes it is necessary for separate binding rules – developed with, and
informed by, stakeholder input through notice and comment rulemaking – be put in place
for reserve sample keeping for PK and PD studies of biologic products.
In the interim, Amgen believes that biosimilar applicants should be responsible for
obtaining FDA acceptance of sample retention plans for PK and PD studies, and that the
Agency should ensure parity across sponsors in terms of the requirements imposed.
8.4 Reference Product Exclusivity
Amgen encourages FDA to continue reviewing the reference product exclusivity
provisions of Section 351(k)(7) of the PHS Act, and appreciates the Agency’s public
acknowledgement that it is doing so (FDA draft Q&A Guidance at 15, acknowledging that
it is continuing to consider the input received to date, including from the 2010 Part 15
hearing docket (Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0477)). Notably, there are several issues that
remain unresolved, which the draft Q&A Guidance does not address. Indeed, there is
only one draft Q&A provided for reference product exclusivity, and even that is cursory
and raises several concerns.
Specifically, the one question posed in the draft Q&A Guidance is whether an applicant
can include a request for reference product exclusivity in its BLA (351(a)) submission.
FDA, in its proposed answer, confirms that the applicant may do so and further advises
that such a request for exclusivity describe how the proposed product meets the
statutory criteria for exclusivity, including that the applicant provide adequate supporting
data and information. In other words, FDA’s proposed response places the burden onto
the applicant to request and, in essence, “make its case” for exclusivity. Such burden-
shifting, however, is contrary to the plain language of the statute.
Sections 351(k)(7)(A) and (B) are drafted so as to confer a presumption of exclusivity for
a stand-alone BLA filed under 351(a) that serves as the Reference Product for a
biosimilar applicant. Specifically, Section 351(k)(7)(A) (“Effective Date of Biosimilar
Application Approval”) dictates that approval of a biosimilar application may not be made
effective for 12 years after the date that the Reference Product was first licensed. In
similarly crafted clear language, Section 351(k)(7)(B) (“Filing Period”) provides that a
biosimilar applicant may not even be submitted until four years after the date that the
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 40 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
reference product was first licensed. In other words, there is an affirmative presumption
of exclusivity.
The last provision in Section 351(k)(7) -- Section 351(k)(7)(C) (“First Licensure”) – then
identifies the exception to the rule. That is, Section 351(k)(7)(C) describes those
circumstances under which a separate grant of exclusivity would not apply to a
subsequent application from the same sponsor or manufacturer. There is nothing in this
or any other provision that suggests any intent to have the applicant proactively assert its
right to a 12-year data exclusivity period. In addition, not only does FDA advise the
applicant to justify a claim for exclusivity, it offers no guidance whatsoever on the data
and information that be provided to do so. Given that neither of the statutory provisions
conferring the legal right to exclusivity provides any sort of “inclusion” criteria, it is
unclear what sort of justification the applicant would be compelled to provide in order for
exclusivity to be deemed by FDA to be merited. Ostensibly, then, the sponsor is left with
defending what appears to be a presumption on FDA’s part that unless demonstrated
otherwise, the first-licensure provision codified at Section 351(k)(7)(C) is presumed to
apply; in other words, the applicant is presumed ineligible for exclusivity unless and until
demonstrated otherwise. This turns the reference product exclusivity provision on its
head.
Finally, the proposed exclusivity Q&A is also of concern in that the applicant is instructed
to include its request for exclusivity in its BLA. Although not entirely clear, this raises the
concern that the sponsor would not have any insight into FDA’s thinking as to whether
the product at issue will be awarded 12 years of exclusivity. Indeed, based on this
proposal, it is conceivable that the applicant may not learn of FDA’s decision on
exclusivity until the time of the approval of the BLA itself. In any case, a decision as to
whether a product can be expected to be accorded exclusivity is needed much earlier in
the development process. Exclusivity considerations are a key component of investment
decisions. Uncertainty about whether a product will be eligible for data protection will
significantly deter investments that improve products and will severely impede biotech
development and therefore medical advances for patients.
Thus, we urge that FDA implement a process that allows a BLA sponsor to engage with
FDA at any time in the development process in order to get clarity around whether there
are any issues presented that may affect the grant of exclusivity. At a minimum, for
example, FDA should engage with the sponsor as early as possible to address any
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 41 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
“relationship of entity” issue described in the so-called “first licensure” provision (Section
351(k)(7)(C). This sort of issue is an example of one that does not require any sort of
scientific assessment to determine, and thus should be able to be very fully addressed
separate and apart from review of the BLA itself.
In terms of the reference product exclusivity issues on which the draft Q&A Guidance is
completely silent, Amgen would refer the Agency to its written comments submitted to
FDA’s 2010 Part 15 hearing on implementation of the BPCIA rather than recite them
again here. (Amgen written comments dated December 29, 2010, submitted to Docket
No. FDA-2010-N-0477.) In brief, however, Amgen would like to reiterate the following
points:
• Any difference in the structure of a product resulting in a change in safety, purity,
or potency from a previous product is statutorily entitled to its own 12-year
exclusivity period. The exclusivity grant provides an important incentive to
ongoing research and development. It achieves the sought after balance
between encouraging innovation while at the same time facilitating competition.
• The statutory terms “same sponsor manufacturer,” “licensor,” and “predecessor in
interest” are clear; “other related entity” should be read together with these terms
to effectuate congressional intent, and should be interpreted narrowly so as to
not inadvertently stifle innovation that leverages these collaboration efforts.
Moreover, it is clear from the statutory scheme that “related” ties back to the
reference product in question and would not encompass other types of unrelated
“relationships.” FDA should abide by this plain meaning in its implementation of
the BPCIA.
8.5 Definitions
8.5.1 Protein
At this early stage of BPCIA implementation, Amgen concurs with FDA’s proposed focus
on polymer size to define “protein.” That said, Amgen also recognizes the potential need
for flexibility as FDA continues to evaluate whether other considerations may be
appropriate.
FDA Biosimilar Guidance Date: 16 April 2012 Amgen Response Page 42 of 42
Amgen, Inc AMGEN
9. REFERENCES ICH of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Guideline S6: Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-derived Pharmaceuticals (R1). June 2011. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Population Pharmacokinetics. February 1999. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM133184.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2012. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating biosimilarity to a Reference Product. Draft. February, 2012. Safe and Affordable Biotech Drugs: The Need for a Generic Pathway: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 33 (2007) (statement of Janet Woodcock, M.D., then Deputy Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer, FDA).
top related