The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided not to go back and rename biologics’ nonproprietary names with nonsense suffixes, as it once said it would, raising questions about the confusion that will likely come from a subset of biologics’ and biosimilars’ names containing suffixes while another subset of biologics’ names will not contain suffixes. Since 2015, FDA has been adding the meaningless suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names as part of an effor...

Welcome to our Asia Regulatory Roundup, our weekly overview of the top regulatory news in Asia. Australia Bans Transvaginal Mesh Products Following Risk-Benefit Review Australia has banned transvaginal mesh products used in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) took the action after concluding the risks of the controversial treatment outweigh the benefits. Patients and healthcare experts around the world have questi...

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week began adding four-letter meaningless suffixes at the end of newly approved biologics' nonproprietary names, signaling a shift in policy from only adding the suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names since 2015. The first additions of the meaningless suffixes came for Thursday's approval of Roche's Hemlibra (emicizumab-kxwh), one of the first new medicines in nearly two decades to treat people with hemophilia A, ...

Back in January, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized guidance on how biosimilars and their biologic reference products' names should include a four-letter, FDA-designated meaningless suffix attached at the end of the nonproprietary name. But between January and now, of the biologics and biosimilars approved, only the biosimilars' names have included the random four-letter suffixes. The discrepancy leads to questions of inequity between the two pro...

No consensus has been reached on whether the World Health Organization (WHO) should continue with its biological qualifier proposal in assigning international nonproprietary names for biosimilars, and WHO says it "will not be proceeding with this at present," according to an October report. The US Biosimilars Council praised the WHO move , which follows the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) use of a system in which biosimilar nonproprietary names come with a f...

Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) on Friday launched a public consultation to gather feedback on proposals for potential biological naming systems, including options for EU- or US-aligned systems. According to TGA, the need for a naming convention that can differentiate biologics from their biosimilar counterparts stems from concerns that adverse events could occur when switching patients between products, though the agency says there has been little evi...

This article presents the contrasting views and continuing debate among health authorities in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan and the US as well as industry experts regarding conventions for naming biological products and biosimilars. It discusses the World Health Organization's (WHO's) proposal for naming and the importance of a clear distinction between the drugs to avoid confusion and ensure patient safety. Introduction Conventions and regulations for naming biosi...

In a departure from the way the WHO and Europe name biologics, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday finalized long-awaited guidance on how biosimilars and their biologic reference products’ names should include a four-letter, FDA-designated meaningless suffix attached at the end of the nonproprietary name. The decision to finalize this guidance follows not only several tweaks (including one that has companies submit 10 suffixes to FDA for consideratio...

The final guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration is part of a host of proprietary name evaluation measures from the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and aims to help reduce medication errors. Although prescription drug names can sound funny or awkward, health care providers often rely on the proprietary name as the critical identifier of the appropriate therapy in a market of tens of thousands of products. Product names that look or soun...

This article discusses recently published FDA draft guidance on Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products. What's in a name? Well, everything, since it provides a unique identity. A name may not be important to Romeo and Juliet, but it truly matters when it comes to regulation of biological products. On 27 August 2015, FDA published its long-awaited and much-anticipated draft guidance, Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products . 1 The draft guidance describes F...

Industry is calling on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use to use "meaningful" and "distinguishable" suffixes linked to a biosimilar license holder's name, according to comments on the proposed naming system. In total, FDA received 178 comments on its draft guidance, known as Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products , including clear calls for changes to FDA's proposal. Background In August, FDA released the guidance, which proposed a naming conventi...

Today, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released its long-awaited guidance establishing a naming convention for biologicals, including related and biosimilar products. Background With the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the US created a new pathway for biosimilar products to come to market, similar to the pathway in place for generic drugs. This pathway allows companies to get biosimilars to market more quickly and cheaply by relying on clinical ...