and the complex biological medicines used to treat it are expensive. Even the world’s richest countries will struggle with the cost of providing these drugs to patients and so tackling the issue of affordable cancer care is something we need to address now.
Biosimilars are being developed as part of an increased effort to reduce the cost of biologic medicines and give patients better access to life-saving treatments; however, these cheaper alternative versions of originator, branded drugs have not been accepted with as much enthusiasm as expected.
First, we need to understand why we need biosimilars.
The WISH report focusses on the next decade for the wealthier, English-speaking countries: US, UK and Australia. The report demonstrates that most modern cancer medicine has become unaffordable.
The Lancet Comission was set up to look at affordable oncology in high-income countries. We are at a crossroads now and the decisions that we make or we refuse to make will have a consequence that will resonate into the future. This paper covers the tools that clinicians can use to increase access to affordable innovation, and it signposts the steps we should take to help make the innovation we need in oncology and hematology affordable in the future.
Here is some key advice from the article:
Despite growing interest in biosimilar treatments, there is a lack of trust among the physician community. We spoke to many hemonc specialists during ASH 2016 and they shared common concerns, all centering around a lack of trust in the efficacy and safety of biosimilars compared with originator biologics. How can we trust that biosimilars are similar enough, and how can we be absolutely sure our patients will receive the same level of care?
The case of epoetin alpha taught us a lot about the complexity of biologic drugs and how to manage variation over time. This is important for biosimilars because we now know that aggregates of the drug that are formed in the subcutaneous route of delivery were much more immunogenic.
This can be detected with a physiochemical test of the drug, meaning that new varieties of an established drug as it’s manufactured differently over time now have a new critical attribute to meet in order to maintain quality. This is just one example of a critical attribute of a drug that regulators will want to maintain within a very close range over time.
In 2003, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) put in place a regulatory pathway for biosimilars, which would be followed by a post-authorisation safety study (PASS) – known as Phase IV study. The PASS studies would help regulators understand if biosimilars would behave in the real-world in the same way as the originator. Today, these studies are no longer required, as Paul Cornes explains in a video below. The European regulatory pathway is well-established and robust enough to approve novel biosmilars coming into the market.
In the first instance, biosimilars go through extensive laboratory analyses to establish comparability to the reference product in terms of molecular structure and functionality. If this is not sufficient to assert similarity, the drug goes through pre-clinical animal studies to confirm that it does not affect safety or efficacy, and then clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics studies are undertaken to assert if it behaves in the same way in the body as the originator. If there are still questions over similarity, a clinical immunogenicity assessment is carried out. And finally, if required, clinical studies within a patient population are undertaken.[5, 6]
Written by the biosimilars working party of the European Medicines Agency, this article is an important read for those unconvinced or sceptical of the extrapolation of indication in biosimilars.
To learn more about the extrapolation process, we recommend this medical education course created by the American Food and Drug Administration, FDA Overview of Biosimilar Products
Our short slideshow, featuring Paul Cornes, will help you understand the rationale behind extrapolation of indication.
 Thomas R et al. Delivering affordable cancer care a value challenge to health systems. Report of the WISH Delivering Affordable Cancer Care Forum 2015. Available from: www.wish.org.qa [Accessed March 21, 2017].
 Sullivan R et al. Delivering affordable cancer care in high income countries. Lancet Oncology, 2011;12(10): 933-980.
 Schellekens H. Biopharmaceutical immunogenicity: association between epoetin alfa and pure red cell aplasia. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. 2003;8(3): 68-9.
 Sharma B et al. Technical investigations into the cause of the increased incidence of antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia associated with Eprex. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. 2004;10(5): 86-91.
 FDA Overview of Biosimilar Products Course. Available from: http://fdabiosimilars.e-paga.com/ [Accessed March 21, 2017].
 Weise M et al. Biosimilars: what clinicians should know. Blood. 2012;120(26): 5111-5117.
 Weise M et al. Biosimilars: the science of extrapolation of indication. Blood. 2014;124(22): 3191-3196.
This content has been supported by NAPP Pharmaceuticals Ltd through an unrestricted educational grant to Magdalen Medical Publishing. Napp has had no input into the content or review of this material
By choosing to continue, you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional