Biosimilars: How similar or dissimilar are they?

82Citations
Citations of this article
93Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The imminent expiry of patents on biological medicinal products, such as epoetin alfa in 2006, has significant implications for nephrology in Australia. The purpose of this review is to examine the differences between biosimilars (similar biological medicinal products) and generic low molecular weight (chemical) drugs. The approach that regulatory agencies, including the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), are taking towards biosimilars is also discussed. Biosimilars differ from generic chemical drugs in many important ways, including the size and complexity of the active substance, the nature of the starting materials (cell banks, tissues and other biological products), and the complexity of the manufacturing processes. Therefore, it has been acknowledged by the EMEA that established legal and regulatory principles of 'essential similarity' that are applied to standard chemical generics cannot be readily applied to biosimilars. One of the key areas of concern with the introduction of biosimilars into the field of nephrology will be guaranteeing the safety and efficacy of biosimilars. New manufacturers will need to ensure that their biopharmaceutical has a similar efficacy and safety profile to the innovator product through more extensive clinical trials than the limited testing done for generic versions of low molecular weight chemical medicines. © 2006 The Author.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roger, S. D. (2006, August). Biosimilars: How similar or dissimilar are they? Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1797.2006.00594.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free