During my visit to Thailand, I was privy, not only to the particularly innovative research goals being pursued, but also to a number of challenges the country has recognized and hopes to address within the next few years to encourage a stronger, more diverse industry.
A few weeks ago, I was invited by the Thailand Board of Investment to attend a media trip to learn about the country’s budding life sciences industry. Entering Thailand, a country in which the government is pushing more investment and education in the sciences, was even more striking and meaningful to me given the current scientific climate in the U.S.
In the spirit of this list-making season, I compiled what I thought were the five most important biosimilar-related triumphs in the past year. Many of these events were widely covered by the media and will play an influential role in how the biosimilar industry unfolds through 2017 and beyond.
Relocating an organization as large as the EMA, which employs upwards of 1,000 people in London, will be no easy feat. As such, IDA Ireland, an agency that supports companies in Ireland and promotes foreign direct investments in the country, is working to compile information on why Ireland would be a good location for the EMA.
PhRMA is facing a controversial, potentially industry-altering decision. The generics king Teva has requested to become a member of the trade organization that traditionally represents “innovators”. Could this move redefine the industry's perception of "innovation"?
Not only are there some fascinating parallels between the fledging biosimilar and lab-grown diamond industries, but there are also some lessons biosimilar makers can take away from the development and commercialization of lab-grown diamonds.
As pay-for-performance drugs becomes more high-profile in the U.S., these emerging deals pose a number of difficulties for reference makers. But if pay-for-performance becomes more wide-spread, could innovators' successes become yet another roadblock to getting biosimilars into doctor's treatment repertoire and patients' hands?
Though differentiating large-molecule biosimilars from small molecule generics is a staple in biosimilar education, Amit Munshi, CEO of pure-play biosimilar company EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, argues the history of the generics market could hold valuable clues as to how the biosimilar market will evolve.
As the FDA continues to compose guidances on the labeling and interchangeability of biosimilar medicines, there remains one big, overarching concern in the industry, and that is making sure biosimilar medicines are not treated as small molecule generics. But should we really be considering the two types of drugs as drastically different as we have been over the past few months?
Last week, Matthew Herper of Forbes published an eye-opening article providing a closer look at FDA approvals in recent years, coming to the conclusion that the industry is facing what could be a dangerously high approval rate for new drugs. But how could high approval rates be a bad thing?