Generic Biosimilar Medicines Association

Making Medicines Affordable

  • Home
  • About GBMA
    • Contact us
    • GBMA Members
    • Guiding principles
    • Code of Practice
      • Code Complaint Committee
      • Historical Event Reporting
      • Annual Review
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
        • 2020
        • 2021
      • Lodging a complaint
    • Media Enquiries
    • Our Objectives
    • Links
  • Advocacy
    • New 5-year Strategic Agreement
    • Extended Strategic Agreement
    • Generic Medicines Working Group (GMWG)
    • Submissions
  • Generics
    • Facts and Fallacies
    • Key Figures on Generic Medicines
    • What is a Generic Medicine?
    • Bioequivalence Explained
  • Biosimilars
    • IGBA Global Biosimilars Week
    • GBMA Position on Biosimilars
      • Impact of Biosimilars
      • Switching
      • Pharmacy Substitution
      • Regulation
      • Awareness and Uptake
      • Naming
    • Key Figures on Biosimilars
  • Topics
    • IGBA
    • Price Disclosure
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Trade Agreements
  • News
    • News 2022
    • News 2021
    • News 2020
    • News 2019
    • News 2018
    • News 2017
    • News 2016
    • News 2015
    • News 2014
  • GBMA Education
  • COVID-19 Virus
    • COVID-19 Virus: The Facts
You are here: Home / Biosimilars / GBMA Position on Biosimilars / Naming

Naming

Biosimilar naming – why changing the way we name biosimilar medicines won’t fix the problem some think we have.

As patents expire on some of the world’s most expensive biologic medicines and biosimilar competitors seek market entry, a new discussion has emerged in Australia about how these products should be named.  Some argue that as biosimilar medicines are not ‘identical’ to the original reference product, active ingredient names with unique identifiers such as suffixes or prefixes are required to enable accurate tracing of medicines for the purpose of pharmacovigilance, specifically the reporting of adverse events. This position is based on the assumption that the current system for reporting adverse events is somehow not appropriate for biosimilar medicines.

But is there a problem? Is there any rationale to treat biosimilar medicines any differently to other medicines? And do we think changing the way we name biologic medicines will fix the problem? To answer these questions, we need to take a look at how the TGA assesses and monitors medicines.

TGA assesses risk of all medicines prior to granting marketing authorisation  

The TGA adopts a risk-benefit approach to the regulation of ALL medicines taking into account the medicine’s safety profile, efficacy, indication and target population. These characteristics are specific to the medicine itself and not to whether the medicine is derived from natural sources, chemical synthesis or through biologic processes.

The TGA has a three-step approach to medicines regulation, starting with pre-marketing evaluation, licensing of manufacturers, and continuing with post-marketing surveillance. Post-marketing surveillance of medicines is vital as it provides real world evidence of a medicine’s safety and efficacy, adding to the substantial data already obtained through clinical trials and publicly disclosed in the Product Information.

Risk assessment doesn’t stop once a medicine is marketed

Medicines sponsors have a key role in post-marketing surveillance and the requirements for sponsors of biosimilar medicines are no different to those for any other prescription medicine.

Sponsors of ALL medicines are required to have an effective adverse event recording and evaluation system in place so any post-marketing signals likely to impact on the risk benefit profile of a medicine are effectively detected, analysed and communicated to the TGA, prescribers and consumers. It is mandatory for sponsors to report any information likely to significantly impact on the risk benefit (that is any significant change to the safety or efficacy) profile of the medicine.

A Risk Management Plan is required to be submitted for ALL new prescription medicines and new indications likely to significantly impact on the currently established risk benefit profile of the medicine. And, all sponsors must submit regular Periodic Safety Update Reports to the TGA for several years after registration of a new medicine.

Spontaneous reporting of adverse events provides additional information  

Adverse events happen. And sometimes, the incidence of adverse events in the real world can be different to what is observed in clinical trials. When an adverse event is suspected, healthcare professionals and consumers are encouraged to make a spontaneous adverse event report to both the sponsor and the TGA. The information provided helps sponsors and the TGA identify risk, and can result in a range of actions by the sponsor from an update to the medicine’s Product Information and Consumer Medicine Information, to a national recall.

Enhance what is already in place

The current process for reporting adverse events is well established. We need to remind everyone that the current TGA online system for reporting an adverse event encourages the completion of a number of fields for data entry, including the brand name, active ingredient name, batch number, AUST-R or AUST-L number, and expiry date. Similar data are required by sponsors when processing adverse event contacts made directly to them.  In parallel, education and encouragement for healthcare professionals and consumers on how to report an adverse event, and why it’s so important, is also needed.

Unique names won’t improve reporting

If the problem some think we have is that we need a unique name to track biosimilar medicines, then we are missing the point. All medicines supplied in Australia already have a number of unique identifiers – including the brand name, active ingredient, batch number and expiry date.   It would be impossible not to be able to identify a medicine suspected of causing an adverse event if all four of these identifiers are reported.

There is no rationale for treating the post-marketing surveillance of biosimilar medicines any differently to other prescription medicines. If we are genuine about observing biologic and biosimilar medicines in the real world, encouraging the proper reporting of adverse events is a much better solution than applying different names or adding another meaningless, unique identifier.

 

Belinda Wood is the CEO of GBMA.

April 2017

Our Members

logo_ACCORD
logo_ACCORD
Organon logo
Organon logo
Juno
Juno
Sandoz logo
Sandoz logo
Viatris
Viatris
Arrow logo
Arrow logo
apotex
apotex
Celltrion Healthcare
Celltrion Healthcare
Fresnius Kabi
Fresnius Kabi
Fresnius Kabi
commercial_eyes
commercial_eyes
sinapse
sinapse

Generic Medicines: The Facts

Generic Medicines Facts

Generic medicines are quality medicines at affordable prices. Ask your doctor to prescribe a generic medicine, or ask for a generic medicine next time you take your prescription to the pharmacy. … More…

The promise of Biosimilars

Biosimilars

https://youtu.be/sBDur7xa084   Biosimilars provide a unique opportunity to help manage the growing costs of biological medicines on the PBS. They offer therapeutically equivalent and … More…

Peak body for affordable medicines welcomes the announcement of Mark Butler as the new Minister for Health and Aged Care – Prioritising patients is the shared mission

June 1, 2022

Tuesday May 31, 2022 Canberra, ACT The announcement of Australia’s new Health … More...

2022 Biosimilar Awareness Week: 30 May – 3 June

May 30, 2022

Marking a new dawn in medicine choice and affordability #BiosimilarAwarenessWeek2022 Monday May … More...

Health Minister, Greg Hunt MP and Shadow Health Minister, Mark Butler MP both applaud the role of the GBMA Strategic Agreement for the security of the supply of vital medicines

April 1, 2022

Friday March 1, 2022 Canberra, ACT In … More…

© 2022 Generic Medicines Industry Association Pty Ltd | Site Map | Contact Us