Biologics, Pharmacovigilance, and Patient Safety: It's All in the Name

Abstract

The most appropriate naming convention for biologics and biosimilars has been an area of significant debate. The ultimate decision will have an impact on patient safety, pharmacovigilance program effectiveness, and, potentially, the overall adoption of biosimilars in the United States. This article reviews some of the advantages and disadvantages of various naming approaches. For clarity in communication, optimal pharmacovigilance, and patient safety, it is recommended that biosimilars be named with a common USAN (United States Adopted Name) with the reference product, along with a suffix that is memorable, such as one associated with the original manufacturer of the product. This approach supports the FDA's mission of protecting patient safety and public health, while minimizing the possibility of inadvertent switching of products and facilitating effective pharmacovigilance.

Disclosures: No funding supported the writing of this article. Stevenson reports consulting fees from Amgen, Inc., AbbVie, and Pfizer and is employed by Visante. Green is employed by and owns stock in Amgen, Inc. Article concept was contributed primarily by Stevenson, along with Green. The manuscript was written and revised primarily by Stevenson, along with Green. Both authors contributed equally to data interpretation.