As South Korea increases its stakes on the “bioeconomy” as its next growth engine and as its “second semiconductor industry,” leading domestic biologic and biosimilar drug producers such as Samsung Biologics Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. are setting record production targets to become forerunners in the global playing field.

National support for the biosimilar sector and the domestic industry’s efforts to increase production and sales may not be enough for South Korean biosimilar firms to box out competition in the ever-changing regulatory court of the U.S.

National support for the biosimilar sector and the domestic industry’s efforts to increase production and sales may not be enough for South Korean biosimilar firms to box out competition in the ever-changing regulatory court of the U.S. “Competition in U.S. negotiations and rebates are fierce,” Choi Sung-ho, chairman of the Korean Society for Bioeconomy, said. “Even if you get listed, it is crucial to be placed in an advantageous class to lower out-of-pocket costs.

As South Korea increases its stakes on the “bioeconomy” as its next growth engine and as its “second semiconductor industry,” leading domestic biologic and biosimilar drug producers such as Samsung Biologics Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. are setting record production targets to become forerunners in the global playing field.

In July 2023, South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy ramped up efforts to kickstart the so-called “Bio Economy 2.0,” the newfound initiative that banks on the biopharmaceutical industry to potentially revitalize the country’s slowing economic and social growth. Highlighting four major areas – biopharmaceuticals, biomaterials, bioenergy and digital technologies – as the four “wheels” to carry the biopharma industry, the new plan underscored the government’s unwavering support for the sector while highlighting its vision to become the “number one bioeconomy” worldwide.

In July 2023, South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy ramped up efforts to kickstart the so-called “Bio Economy 2.0,” the newfound initiative that banks on the biopharmaceutical industry to potentially revitalize the country’s slowing economic and social growth. Highlighting four major areas – biopharmaceuticals, biomaterials, bioenergy and digital technologies – as the four “wheels” to carry the biopharma industry, the new plan underscored the government’s unwavering support for the sector while highlighting its vision to become the “number one bioeconomy” worldwide.

As biosimilar development expands beyond monoclonal antibodies to more complex biologics, the flexibility built into regulatory paths across the world will become more essential. Rather than making wholesale changes to those pathways, regulators need to follow the science in exercising the flexibility they already have, Leah Christl, executive director of global biosimilars regulatory affairs and R&D policy at Amgen Inc., told BioWorld. In doing so, “we do need to look forward to what might be coming down the pipeline,” in addition to looking backwards at what types of biosimilars have already been approved, she said.

If the U.S. FDA has its way, biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars would no longer be a difference with a distinction – at least when it comes to labeling. Instead of distinguishing between the two, the agency is recommending that the labeling for both follow-ons include a “biosimilarity statement.”

To streamline the development of biosimilars and align it with current analytical science, regulators across the globe are reevaluating a routine requirement for comparative clinical efficacy studies for biosimilar candidates.