ABSTRACT
Background/Aims With 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.
Methods For 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.
Results We identified 105 clinical trials for approved or withdrawn biosimilars and another 20 studies that are either planned, ongoing or completed for biosimilars in development.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.
Conclusions A 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 Source Arnold Ventures (Grant to support Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)
Competing Interest Statement
PBB reports grants from Kaiser Permanente, Arnold Ventures, advisory fees from EQRx, consulting fees from GRAIL and Foundation Medicine, speaking fees from Mercer, United Rheumatology, Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer & Co, Cello Health, Oncology Analytics, Anthem, Magellan Health, Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, America's Health Insurance Plans, Geisinger, National Pharmaceutical Council, and stock from Grail, Oncology Analytics, EQRx. MRT reports LLC earnings distribution from Co-Bio Consulting, LLC, and speaking fees from Merck & Co and Shire.
Funding Statement
Arnold Ventures (Grant to support Drug Pricing Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
As this study uses only publicly available non-individual-level data, it was exempt from IRB review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
