The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Investigations
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Bellows Demands DHS Secretary Nominee Confirm in Writing That ICE Won’t be Present at Polling Places
  • Northeast Terror Attack Converges With California Drone Warning After President Trump Assembles Counter Cartel Coalition
  • Bangor Concert Venue May Change Hands Under DOJ Settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster
  • MDEA Bust in Searsport Leads to Five Arrests Including Two Suspects from Massachusetts
  • Target Bows To Political Pressure, Agrees Amid DEI Protest To Invest In Minority Businesses
  • Socialist Shortfalls: FBI Steps In To Conduct Controlled Detonation At Pennsylvania Storage Facility Tied To Mamdani Mansion Terror Attack
  • Maine Fishermen’s Forum All Tied Up Over Bill Beli-chick’s Sexy Girlfriend In A Skimpy Rope “Dress”
  • Maine Supreme Court May Soon Advise Lawmakers on Constitutionality of Controversial Ranked-Choice Voting Expansion
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Wednesday, March 11
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Investigations
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
The Maine Wire
Home » News » National » Congress should preserve public quality standards for biologic drugs
National

Congress should preserve public quality standards for biologic drugs

Liam SigaudBy Liam SigaudAugust 27, 2019Updated:August 28, 2019No Comments4 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

A powerful committee in the U.S. Senate is considering legislation that could have significant negative effects on Mainers seeking treatment from cutting-edge drugs.

The measure would remove the existing requirement that a biologic or biosimilar product sold in the U.S. adhere to public standards, called monographs, set by the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP), an independent non-profit organization that has helped protect the quality of American drugs for more than a century. The USP’s standards dictate the purity, potency, and other characteristics of drug ingredients.

The class of products under scrutiny, biologics and biosimilars, are large, sophisticated molecules produced in living organisms. Over the last few years, a diverse and growing list of biologics — including medicines to treat arthritis, cancer, and diabetes — have been approved for marketing in the U.S. Biosimilars are essentially generic versions of originator biologics.

The proposal’s backers, including the FDA and the Trump administration, argue that while USP standards make sense for small-molecule chemical drugs like aspirin, “a biological product is so inherently complex and variable that the established structure of the USP…standards process does not serve it well, and in fact, can impede technological progress or innovation” by failing to accommodate future advances in manufacturing techniques.

But there’s little evidence to support the FDA’s claims. Since the USP’s standards aren’t developed until the first originator biologic comes to market, they don’t interfere with innovation. For companies seeking to develop biosimilars once an originator biologic has been created and a monograph is in place, the USP’s standards help more than they hinder, giving drug makers clarity about how to design their research and development processes and gain regulatory approval. That explains why a leading biosimilar industry group, the Association for Accessible Medicines, along with a host of patient advocacy groups, reject the FDA’s arguments.

The USP has a long record of adapting quickly to evolutions in scientific knowledge and regulatory practices. This year alone, more than 800 experts are participating in USP standards-setting committees that continuously revise quality benchmarks and manufacturing requirements based on the latest research. The USP’s standards for insulin products, for example, have been frequently updated since their introduction in 1941 to accommodate shifts in manufacturing techniques and biotechnology. Moreover, the USP has already demonstrated its commitment not to publish new biologic standards without the FDA’s support and collaboration.

The FDA’s assertions are also undermined by the fact that in Europe, where manufacturers of biologics and biosimilars are also required to comply with public quality standards, 51 biosimilars have been approved to date, compared to only 20 in the U.S. It’s clear that thriving biosimilar competition is compatible with robust public standards.

And there’s reason to think the plan could backfire. Instead of spurring innovation and cost savings, it could unravel decades of work meant to ensure the safety and quality of biologics.

The quality benchmarks in the USP’s public standards allow for independent verification that a medicine has been made properly, regardless of the manufacturer or manufacturing process. In doing so, the USP’s public standards give health care providers that prescribe and administer biologics, as well as the patients who count on them for treatment, confidence in the products they use.

Without the USP’s public standards, the public, practitioners, and the rest of the stakeholder community in the dark about the standards governing how these vital medicines are produced. Only drug manufacturers and a handful of federal bureaucrats would be familiar with the details, making it harder to hold companies accountable.

Mainers should have confidence that the medicines they take are made to the highest possible quality standards. For more than a century, the USP has helped make that possible. As global manufacturing supply chains grow more complex, public quality standards for biologics have never been more important.

Liam Sigaud works on economic policy and research for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit educational and research organization. He lives in Rockland, Maine.

biologics biosimilars drugs fda national pharmaceuticals regulations U.S. Food and Drug Administration US Pharmacopeia US Senate
Previous ArticleLawmakers reject 3 of 4 bonds, approve RCV for presidential elections during special session
Next Article Will Governor Mills sign or veto bill that expands RCV to presidential elections?
Liam Sigaud

Liam Sigaud is a former policy analyst at Maine Policy Institute. A native of Rockland, Maine, he holds a B.A. in Biology from the University of Maine at Augusta and has studied policy analysis and economics at the Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine. He can be reached by email at [email protected].

Related Posts

Socialist Shortfalls: FBI Steps In To Conduct Controlled Detonation At Pennsylvania Storage Facility Tied To Mamdani Mansion Terror Attack

March 11, 2026

Southwest Airlines Flight Diverted After Security Threat Amidst Ongoing U.S. – Israel Strikes In Iran

March 8, 2026

Federal Gov’t to Refund Importers Billions Paid Under Now-Void Tariff Policy After Court Ruling

March 8, 2026

Comments are closed.

Recent News

Bellows Demands DHS Secretary Nominee Confirm in Writing That ICE Won’t be Present at Polling Places

March 11, 2026

Northeast Terror Attack Converges With California Drone Warning After President Trump Assembles Counter Cartel Coalition

March 11, 2026

Bangor Concert Venue May Change Hands Under DOJ Settlement with Live Nation and Ticketmaster

March 11, 2026

MDEA Bust in Searsport Leads to Five Arrests Including Two Suspects from Massachusetts

March 11, 2026

Socialist Shortfalls: FBI Steps In To Conduct Controlled Detonation At Pennsylvania Storage Facility Tied To Mamdani Mansion Terror Attack

March 11, 2026
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.