Biomanufacturing Changes: Trenches Littered With Lessons Learned
This article was originally published in The Gold Sheet
A comparability template for biomanufacturing changes could serve as a model for biosimilars - but only if one can be established. As the dream of well-characterized biologics falters despite growing analytical prowess, industry and FDA are resigned to a case-by-case approach to comparability. Discussions at a recent DIA meeting focus on how to converge toward a common set of best practices, starting with a decision tree and testing hierarchy. The dominant role of bioequivalence PK studies in demonstrating biosimilarity is questioned. The difficulty of powering up animal studies sufficiently to detect subtle differences is discussed. Lessons learned are shared. Early and frequent discussion with FDA is encouraged to cut down on 'just in case' studies. Pending biosimilars legislation would set comparable 'highly similar' standards.
You may also be interested in...
The US FDA shaved months from review of Gilead’s Veklury (remdesivir) for COVID-19 with post-approval commitments for multiple stability studies. The Pink Sheet takes a deep dive look at discussions within the agency and with the sponsor.
FDA historically has based 100% of drug adulteration warning letters on inspections but COVID-19-related travel restrictions began changing that in FY 2020, when 2% of drug GMP warning letters were based on testing import samples. The change became even more pronounced in the first two months of FY 2021, with 59% of actions related to sample testing and 41% to inspections.
Government offers help securing supplies in return for another 100 million doses by Q2. That would mean abandoning Pfizer’s preferred arms-length relationship.