To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real‐world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open‐label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.

Antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia is a very rare but devastating condition affecting patients receiving treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. New cases continue to emerge, generally in clusters, consistent with an 'environmental' trigger to its pathogenesis. Defining the causes of antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia is clearly of importance for patients with chronic kidney disease, but any developments in this area may also have relevance to other disease areas as therapeutic delivery of endogenous proteins rapidly increases. This review focuses on the current knowledge regarding the etiology of antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia and the current approach to therapy.

Data on the frequency of switching in clinical practice is scarce, but it seems most frequent for erythropoietins. We have found no evidence from clinical trial data or post marketing surveillance data that switching to and from different biopharmaceuticals leads to safety concerns.

No abstract

Conditional marketing authorization (CMA) in the European Union (EU) is an early access pathway for medicines that show promising therapeutic effects, but for which comprehensive data are not available. Using a mixed quantitative-qualitative research design, we evaluated how CMA has been used in marketing authorization of oncology medicines in the period 2006 to 2013. We show that compared to full marketing authorization, CMA is granted based on less comprehensive data. However, this is accompanied by significantly longer assessment times and less consensus among regulators about marketing authorization. Moreover, development time from first-in-human testing to marketing authorization did not differ between full marketing authorization and CMA, but was significantly longer for CMA compared to accelerated approved products in the United States (US). Results indicate that CMA is not used by companies as a prospectively planned pathway to obtain early access, but as a "rescue option" when submitted data are not strong enough to justify full marketing authorization.

No abstract

Biosimilars have the potential to lead to enormous cost savings in healthcare without reducing the level of care for patients. In Europe, biosimilars have to demonstrate comparability in an extensive biosimilarity exercise including analytical, preclinical and comparative clinical studies. By successfully completing the biosimilarity exercise, the biosimilar shows that all aspects that are considered relevant for the clinical activity of the product fall within the same range as observed for the innovator. It should be carefully considered whether the benefit of additional information from more comparative clinical studies weighs up to the additional barriers such studies create for biosimilars to enter clinical practice.

The principles of establishing biosimilarity are to demonstrate structural and functional similarity to a reference product using the most discriminatory analytical methods. There is still considerable controversy on the scientific basis for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars, which has been strengthened by diverging global regulatory decision making. Closely related to the question of extrapolation is the question of how to communicate the evidence base for authorizing biosimilars to healthcare professionals. In this paper we will consider some of the discussions around extrapolation of indications and the implications of decisions of various regulatory agencies in the world regarding the authorization and labeling of biosimilars.