Ethical and human subject burdens of trials conducted to evaluate biosimilars
Ohn, J. A.; Atteberry, P. J.; Trusheim, M. R.; Bach, P. B.
Show abstract
Background/AimsWith a policy goal of introducing price competition into the market for biologic drugs after their period of market monopoly is over (called loss of exclusivity), policymakers created a pathway for companies to make copies of those treatments and termed them biosimilars. But unlike generic drugs, biosimilar drug copies must be studied in human trials to assure they have the same clinical effect as the original biologic products. The burden that this places on human subject participants, and the opportunity cost on the clinical trial system generally, have not been considered in detail. MethodsFor all biosimilar drugs in development, approved, or that failed to obtain approval in the US, we abstracted from clinicaltrials.gov registry the number of subjects enrolled at each phase of development. ResultsWe identified 105 clinical trials for approved or withdrawn biosimilars and another 20 studies that are either planned, ongoing or completed for biosimilars in development. These studies collectively enrolled (or plan to enroll) 38,169 human subjects. Most (28,130) are enrolled in phase 3 studies. The mean number of human subject participants per approval is 1,045, about 25% of the number required for a new drug approval on average. ConclusionsA consequential number of human subjects are required for the testing of biosimilar drugs prior to approval. The explicit and sole purpose of biosimilars is to induce competition in order to lower prices of biologic drugs after loss of exclusivity. The burden the biosimilar approval trials place on human subjects with no direct clinical benefits but definite risks, and the possibility that they rob subjects from trials that are of more scientific importance, are ones policymakers might consider. Price regulation of biologic drugs after loss of exclusivity could achieve lower prices as well, without the burdens of the current approach. Funding SourceArnold Ventures (Grant to support Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Subcutaneous REGEN-COV Antibody Combination in Early Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial 87%
- Protection afforded by the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in fully vaccinated cohorts with and without prior infection 86%
- General Health Checks in Adult Primary Care: A Review 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents Over Three Decades, 1995-2017: Cross-Sectional Analysis 91%
- Effectiveness of casirivimab and imdevimab, and sotrovimab during Delta variant surge: a prospective cohort study and comparative effectiveness randomized trial 90%
- Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Effect of common maintenance drugs on the risk and severity of COVID-19 in elderly patients 90%
- Extent and causes of the collapse in the registration of innovative medications in Lebanon: A mixed-methods analysis 89%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 92%
- Design and implementation of the multi-arm, multi-stage Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform master protocol: An Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative 90%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Amortization of Funding Gene Therapies: Making the “Intangibles” Tangible for Patients 91%
- Drug company methodologies used for reporting in the UK pharmaceutical industry payment transparency database between 2015-2019: A content analysis 91%
- Progressivity of out-of-pocket costs under Australia’s universal health care system: a national linked data study 86%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.