, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 218–221 | Cite as

Market access of biosimilars: not only a cost issue

  • S. Simoens
  • G. Verbeken
  • I. Huys
Synthèse / Review Article


This article discusses specific issues related to the market access of biosimilars. Biopharmaceuticals are complex molecules produced by living cells. Copies of these medicines, called biosimilars, are not identical to their reference medicine and, therefore, specific regulatory requirements apply. When considering the use of biosimilars, the question of the degree of comparability between a biosimilar and the reference biopharmaceutical needs to be considered for registration, pricing and reimbursement purposes in addition to the cost issue. To date, many key concepts (like clinically meaningful differences) remain undefined and the question of the degree of comparability is not yet resolved.


Biopharmaceutical Biosimilar Registration Pricing Reimbursement 

L’accès au marché par les biosimilaires: pas seulement un problème de coût


Cet article aborde les problèmes spécifiques liés à l’accès au marché par les biosimilaires. Les produits biopharmaceutiques sont des molécules complexes produites par des cellules vivantes. Les copies de ces médicaments, appelées biosimilaires, diffèrent de leur médicament de référence, et c’est la raison pour laquelle on a imposé des exigences réglementaires spécifiques. Lorsqu’on étudie l’utilisation des biosimilaires, il est nécessaire de réfléchir, aux fins d’enregistrement, de tarification et de remboursement, en plus du problème de coût, au degré de comparabilité entre un biosimilaire et le produit biopharmaceutique de référence. À ce jour, de nombreux concepts clés (tels que les différences cliniquement significatives) demeurent flous et la question du degré de comparabilité reste en suspens.

Mots clés

Produit biopharmaceutique Biosimilaire Enregistrement Tarification Remboursement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    de Joncheere K, Rietveld A, Huttin C (2002) Experiences with generics. Int J Risk Safety Med 15: 101–109Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Declerck PJ, Darendeliler F, Goth M, et al (2010) Biosimilars: controversies as illustrated by rhGH. Curr Med Res Opin 26: 1219–1229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    European Generic Medicines Association (2010) EGA handbook on biosimilar medicines. European Generic Medicines Association, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency (2006) Annex guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: non-clinical and clinical issues. Guidance on similar medicinal products containing somatropin. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    European Medicines Agency (2006) Guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived proteins as active substance: quality issues. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grabowski H, Cockburn I, Long G (2006) The market for follow-on biologics: how will it evolve? Health Aff 25: 1291–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes DA (2010) Biosimilars: evidential standards for health technology assessment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87: 257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    King DR, Kanavos P (2002) Encouraging the use of generic medicines: implications for transition economies. Croat Med J 43: 462–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Long M, Trout J, Akpinar P (2009) Biosimilars: HGH to TNFS, how will payers respond? ISPOR 12th Annual European Congress, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mellstedt H (2010) The future of biosimilars. Hosp Pharm Eur 49: 33–34Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oldham T (2006) Strategies for entering the biosimilar market. In: Oldham T (ed) Biosimilars-evolution or revolution? Biopharm Knowledge Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roger SD (2010) Biosimilars: current status and future directions. Expert Opin Biol Ther 10: 1011–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schellekens H (2009) Biosimilar therapeutics-what do we need to consider? NDT Plus 2: i27–i36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scottish Medicines Consortium (2010) Epoetin zeta. Scottish Medicines Consortium, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siena S, Piccart MJ, Holmes FA, et al. (2003) A combined analysis of two pivotal randomized trials of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle and daily Filgrastim in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Oncol Rep 10: 715–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart A, Aubrey P, Belsey J (2010) Addressing the health technology assessment of biosimilar pharmaceuticals. Curr Med Res Opin 26: 2119–2126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The consolidated Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as amended by Directive 2002/98/EC, Directive 2004/24/EC and Directive 2004/27/ECGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Title VII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies-Subtitle (Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, section 351(k), 351 (l), 351(m). Pub.L.No.111-48. 2011. 3-2-2011Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zuniga L, Calvo B (2010) Biosimilars approval process. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 56: 374–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Laboratory for Molecular and Cellular Technology, Burn Wound CentreQueen Astrid Military HospitalBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations