, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 319–324 | Cite as

The End of Phase 3 Clinical Trials in Biosimilars Development?

  • Francois-Xavier Frapaise
Current Opinion


Most patients still have limited or no access to life-changing therapeutic proteins in the treatment of their cancer or autoimmune disorders. The current clinical development model of biosimilars is expensive, and in most cases, large, phase 3 trials do not provide meaningful information on the clinical equivalence of biosimilars and reference compounds. At the same time, the development of state-of-the-art orthogonal analytical methods has enabled a better understanding of the structure and structure–function relationship of biotherapeutics. Hence, we suggest here that a solid chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) package and meaningful phase 1 studies will leave limited uncertainty on biosimilarity, which can be addressed—if needed—by post-approval, long-term follow-up studies (post-approval studies, pharmacovigilance, real world evidence data and registries, and possibly new post-approval models to be developed). We believe that this new approach may be more appropriate than 600- to 1000-patient, phase 3 trials in assessing biosimilarity and therapeutic equivalence, under the condition that the administered biosimilar given to individual patients can be clearly identified. Obviously, there will probably never be a “one size fits all” development model, and an individualized, risk-based approach to biosimilar development will always have to be considered and discussed early with regulators.


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for the preparation of this review.

Conflict of interest

Dr Frapaise has no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. Perennial, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fleischmann R. Editorial: The American College of Rheumatology White Paper on Biosimilars: it isn’t all white-there is some gray and black. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(3):323–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McCamish M, Woollett G. The continuum of comparability extends to biosimilarity: how much is enough and what clinical data are necessary? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;93(4):315–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schneider CK. Biosimilars in rheumatology: the wind of change. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;(72)3:315–318.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamanna WC, et al. The structure-function relationship of disulfide bonds in etanercept. Sci Rep. 2017;7:3951. Scholar
  6. 6.
    George Bernard Shaw, Laurence DH. Man and Superman. UK: Penguin Adult; 2000. ISBN 0140437886Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dipaola M. Analytical strategy in the development of biosimilars. BioPharm Int. 2017;30(8):38–43, 46.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tsong Y, et al. Development of statistical methods for analytical similarity assessment. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;27:197–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    FDA. US Department of Health and Human Services. CDER/CBER, Biosimilars; 2017.
  10. 10.
    Zeng D, et al. Improving the power to establish clinical similarity in a phase 3 efficacy trial by incorporating prior evidence of analytical and pharmacokinetic similarity. J Biopharm Stat. 2017;28(2):320–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu L. Antibody glycosylation and its impact on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of monoclonal antibodies and Fc-fusion proteins. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104(6):1866–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee C, et al. Glycosylation profile and biological activity of Remicade® compared with Flixabi® and Remsima®. MAbs., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2017;(6):968–77.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. (CHMP) guideline on data monitoring committees. Stat Med. 2006;25(10):1639–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    FDA releases program for approval of biosimilars. draft guidance for industry from FDA: scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product: draft guidance for industry from FDA: quality considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference protein product. Biotechnol Law Rep. 2012;31(2):142–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FDA releases program for approval of biosimilars. Document: draft guidance for industry from FDA: scientific considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product. Document: Draft guidance for industry from FDA: quality considerations in demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference protein product. Biotechnol Law Rep. 2012;31(2):142–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on statistical methodology for the comparative assessment of quality attributes in drug development. EMA, 2017.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FDA. US Department for Health and Human Services. CDER/CBER. Biosimilars; 2017.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Silvio D, Gomollon F. ECCO position statement: the use of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). J Crohn’s Colitis. 2013;(7)7:586–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ECCO survey highlights lack of confidence in biosimilar MAbs. Posted 22/08/2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Avila-Ribeiro P, et al. The experience with biosimilars of infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Pharm Des. 2018;23(44):6759–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danese et al. ECCO Position statement on the use of biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease—an update. J Crohn’s Colitis, Oxford Academic. OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen, Hillel P, et al. Switching reference medicines to biosimilars: a systematic literature review of clinical outcomes. Drugs. 2018; 78(4):463–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) is not inferior to originator infliximab: results from a 52-week randomized switch trial in Norway. ACR Meet Abstr. 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paramsothy S, Cleveland NK, Zmeter N, Rubin DT. The role of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology Hepatology. 2016;12(12):741–51.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fiocchi C. Inflammatory bowel disease pathogenesis: where are we? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30:12–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Low M. The next drugs: the future for biosimilars an Atlantic policy briefing. The Atlantic: Atlantic Media Company; 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations