Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:43:04.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What’s in a Name? The US Food and Drug Administration Issues a Guidance on the Non-proprietary Naming of Biological Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2017

Tobias DOLLE  and
Yury ROVNOV
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 559 - 564
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Tobias Dolle is an Associate and Yury Rovnov was, at the time of writing, a Junior Lawyer at FratiniVergano – European Lawyers, a law firm with offices in Brussels and Singapore that specialises in international trade and food law. An earlier version of this report appeared in Trade Perspectives©, Issue No 3 of 10 February 2017, available at <“http://www.fratinivergano.eu/en/trade-perspectives/” www.fratinivergano.eu/en/trade-perspectives/>. The authors wish to thank Ignacio Carreño and Paolo R Vergano for their valuable contributions to this article.

References

1 FDA, “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, Guidance for Industry”, January 2017, available at <www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm459987.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

2 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, “The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook through 2017”, November 2013, p 9, available at <www.imshealth.com/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Reports/The_Global_Use_of_Medicines_2017/global use of med 2017 right6 Biologics_Market.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

3 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, “Delivering on the Potential of Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of Functioning Competitive Markets”, March 2017, pp 1 and 3, available at <www.imshealth.com/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Healthcare%20Briefs/Documents/IMS_Institute_Biosimilar_Brief_March_2016.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

4 See EMA, “Guideline on similar biological medicinal products”, 23 October 2014, p 3, item 1.1, available at <www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/10/WC500176768.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

5 Supra, note 4, item 3.3.

6 Section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act.

7 In the EU, interchangeability falls within the competence of national authorities and is therefore not addressed in the EMA guidance.

8 An additional, and by no means less significant, question is whether and how interchangeable medicines should differ in their non-proprietary names. The current FDA guidance, however, explicitly takes interchangeable products out of its scope, explaining that the “FDA is continuing to consider the appropriate […] format” for them. See FDA, “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, Guidance for Industry”, supra, note 1.

9 Supra, note 8.

10 Supra, note 8, pp 4–7.

11 FDA, “Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products, Guidance for Industry”, supra, note 1, p 9.

12 Supra, note 11, p 10.

13 ASBM, “Statement on FDA Draft Guidance ‘Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products’”, available at <https://safebiologics.org/2015/09/asbm-statement-on-fda-draft-guidance-nonproprietary-naming-of-biological-products/> accessed 7 June 2017.

14 Generic Pharmaceutical Association, Statement by Dr Bertrand C Liang, Chairman, Biosimilars Council, “Regarding FDA Proposals on Biosimilars Naming”, 27 August 2015, available at <www.gphaonline.org/gpha-media/press/statement-by-dr-bert-c-liang-chairman-biosimilars-council-regarding-fda-proposals-on-biosimilars-naming> accessed 7 June 2017.

15 Official Journal, L 311, 28.11.2001, pp 67–128.

16 EBG, “Labelling & Naming – European Biosimilars Group (EBG) Perspective”, available at <www.medicinesforeurope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20141203_Grooten_DIA_Berlin_biosimilars.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

17 Supra, note 16, pp 11–18; Generics Bulletin, “Biological qualifier is not needed in the EU”, 17 October 2014, p 22.

18 EMA Press Office, “Organisational matters: Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use meeting, 22–25 September 2014”, EMA/CHMP/129678/2014, 25 September 2014, available at <www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Annex_to_CHMP_highlights/2014/10/WC500175252.pdf> accessed 7 June 2017.

19 WHO, “Proposal for Assignment of Biological Qualifiers (BQ)”, INN Working Doc 14.342, October 2015, p 2, available at <www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/WHO_INN_BQ_proposal_2015.pdf> accessed 20 February 2017.

20 Supra, note 19, pp 3–4.

21 Supra, note 19, pp 3–4.

22 WHO, “Biological Qualifier (BQ) Frequently Asked Questions”, INN Working Doc 15.382, October 2015, p 5, available at <www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/WHO_INN_BQ_proposal_FAQ_2015.pdf?ua=1> accessed 7 June 2017.

23 Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, para 7.119.

24 See Panel Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, paras 7.223–7.225.

25 Supra, note 19, p 3.