FDA’s Updated Biosimilar Policy: What it really means in the US, EU5, Japan, and China
The regulatory
landscape for biosimilars is shifting significantly in 2025. The FDA has taken
two big steps that collectively make it faster and cheaper to bring many
biosimilars to market:
- In June 2024, the FDA proposed to
drop “switching” studies for the interchangeable designation, saying most
products won’t need extra human trials just to prove patients can switch
back and forth.
- In October 2025, the FDA issued new
draft guidance signaling that comparative efficacy trials may often be
unnecessary for showing biosimilarity, putting more weight on analytics,
PK/PD, and totality of evidence. The FDA also previewed steps to make interchangeability
more straight forward.
Those two
moves won’t solve every commercial hurdle, but they materially reduce
development burden.
Below is a
breakdown of the key policy changes, what they mean for different players, and
how each region might respond.
United States:
Simpler files, but access still decides winners
What changed
Interchangeability:
The agency updated expectations around switching studies; many products won’t
need them. That knocks out a costly step with minimal incremental safety value.
Biosimilarity
packages: the new CES draft signals fewer large efficacy trials where
state-of-the-art analytics and sensitive PK/PD data already answer the key
questions.
Why it matters
Time and cost
drop for sponsors; more programs pencil out. FDA’s own data notes numerous
“interchangeable” approvals were already granted without extra switching
trials, the guidance simply codifies the science.
Interchangeability
becomes attainable for more products. Where state laws allow pharmacy
substitution, this label can speed uptake as seen with Semglee and Cimerli.
Reality check
Policy ≠
uptake; Even after 9th biosimilar of adalimumab entered, HUMIRA still stands
high with more than 80% of market share for much of 2024 and 2025, because of
contracting, formulary dynamics, and co-promotion plays. Expect FDA’s policy to
help, but payers remain the decisive lever.
The EU5:
Already there on interchangeability and it shows
Scientific
alignment is already high. Since 2022–2023, the EMA/HMA have stated that
EU-approved biosimilars are interchangeable on scientific grounds; countries
set their substitution rules. FDA’s 2024/2025 moves largely converge with that
stance.
Country-level
wrinkles you should factor in:
- Germany: Pharmacy-level switching/substitution rules
were operationalized via the G-BA, with new biosimilar switching
provisions taking effect March 15, 2024. Plan for region-by-region
contracts and “aut idem” mechanics.
- France: Pharmacy substitution exists but is narrow:
since 2022, it’s permitted for filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, with broader
expansion discussed in the 2024 reforms. Expect substitution to grow, but
still check the ANSM lists and local decrees.
- Italy: Automatic substitution is not permitted;
AIFA leaves switching to the prescriber. Commercial plans rely on hospital
tenders and clinician engagement rather than pharmacy substitution.
- Spain: No automatic substitution in community
pharmacies; adoption is driven by regional policies, tenders, and
prescriber buy-in.
- United Kingdom: The MHRA/NHS position is clear: once
authorised, biosimilars are interchangeable with the reference (and with
each other using the same reference). Uptake hinges on NHS procurement and
switching programmes.
So what?
For EU5
launches, technical packages can be built once and leveraged on both sides of
the Atlantic; the market access plan still needs country-specific tactics
(tendering, clinician education, device training).
Japan: less
“Japan-only” data, faster alignment
Japan’s PMDA
has been revising biosimilar guidance and Q&As, including a 2024
administrative notice and subsequent updates that relax the expectation for
Japanese-subject data in every case with appropriate justification, and
encourage early consultations on the clinical package without Japanese
subjects. That reduces duplicative trials and speeds global alignment.
Takeaway: Anchor on global analytics/PK, plan post-marketing commitments,
and engage KOLs to support physician-led switching.
China: Growing
pipeline, cautious substitution
China’s NMPA
has built out a modern framework (e.g., facilitating one-off import of
reference biologics for biosimilar development) and continues to expand
approvals, studies count 30+ antibody biosimilars by late 2023. Uptake is
increasing but automatic pharmacy substitution is not a national default;
switching tends to be a clinical decision, with adoption influenced by
volume-based procurement and hospital policies.
Signal to
watch: provincial procurement rounds
increasingly favor price-competitive biosimilars and accelerating share once
listed, mirroring tender dynamics seen in Europe. Policy specifics vary by
province; always check the latest VBP notices.
What
manufacturers, payers and clinicians should do next?
Manufacturers
(all regions)
- Right-size clinical plans: lead with
analytics/functional comparability and sensitive PK/PD; add efficacy only
if a residual uncertainty truly needs it under FDA’s 2025 CES draft.
- Design for interchangeability from
day one (device, instructions, risk management), then map US state
substitution laws and EU country substitution rules for launch
pull-through.
- Invest in access mechanics: patient
cost-share relief, hub services, and specialty-pharmacy pull-through,
especially in the US where payer dynamics dominate outcomes.
Payers and
procurement bodies
- Translate regulatory savings into
patient savings. Zero- or low-copay designs and clear interchange policies
move share much faster than policy shifts alone.
- In EU5 and China, tenders with
device-training and supply-assurance scoring prevent false economies and
support sustained use.
Clinicians and
hospital pharmacies
- Lean on EMA/HMA and MHRA statements
(EU/UK) and the evolving FDA stance to normalize switching where
appropriate; incorporate device training and traceability in SOPs.
Bottom line
The FDA’s
2024/2025 updates lower the trial burden and tighten global alignment with the
EU, making it easier to file one core package across the US, EU5 and Japan,
while China’s framework keeps maturing. Winners won’t just “save a study”,
they’ll reinvest those savings in market access, clinician confidence, and
patient affordability—the levers that actually move share.
Read more:
FDA’s
Updated Biosimilar Policy: What it really means in the US, EU5, Japan, and
China
Comments
Post a Comment