WHO Plans to Bring Cheap Biosimilar Cancer Drugs to Poor

The copies will not be exactly identical to the originals

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

LONDON (Reuters) - The World Health Organization (WHO) is to launch a pilot project this year to assess cheap copies of expensive biotech cancer drugs in a bid to make such medicines more widely available in poorer countries.

The U.N. agency said on Thursday it would invite drugmakers in September to submit applications for prequalification of so-called biosimilar versions of two such drugs on its essential medicines list, Roche's Rituxan and Herceptin.

WHO also plans to explore options for prequalifying biosimilar insulin.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The move is a boost for biosimilars which are expected to account for a growing proportion of treatments, particularly for cancer, as patents on the original branded products expire.

The WHO plays a critical role in monitoring drug quality in poorer countries through its prequalification program, which ensures that treatments supplied by U.N. agencies such as UNICEF are of acceptable quality.

The program is also used by many governments to guide the bulk purchase of medicines.

"Innovator biotherapeutic products are often too expensive for many countries, so biosimilars are a good opportunity to expand access and support countries to regulate and use these medicines," said WHO Assistant Director General Marie-Paule Kieny.

Roche's Rituxan, known generically as rituximab, is used principally to treat blood cancers, while Herceptin, or trastuzumab, is a treatment for breast cancer.

The complex nature of biological medicines, which are made inside living cells, means copies can never be exactly the same as the original. But a growing number of such drugs have been approved as similar enough to do the job in several markets.

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by David Clarke)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe