WHO guidelines on biosimilars: Toward improved access to safe and effective products.

The World Health Assembly resolution on access to biotherapeutics in 2014 urges WHO and Member States to facilitate access to biotherapeutics while ensuring their quality, safety, and efficacy. While efforts to date have contributed to increased availability and better access to biotherapeutics, including biosimilars, huge gaps still remain, with lack of product access identified as a problem in many countries. A thorough review of the WHO guidelines on biosimilars issued in 2009 in view of technical developments, accumulated and emerging scientific evidence as well as experience in biosimilar evaluation since the release of the guidelines provided an opportunity to introduce greater flexibility and to reduce regulatory requirements in biosimilar development where possible. Based on the identification, draft revisions of the WHO guidelines were prepared with input from extensive consultation with various stakeholders and the broader public. The move toward a greater emphasis on quality and functional in vitro assessment enables the reduction of cost and timelines of development and supports streamlined regulatory approval as a first critical step toward product availability. This article includes the key updates that have been incorporated in the revised guidelines but are not restricted to these alone and should be read in conjunction with the guidelines.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

WHO informal consultation on revision of guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products, virtual meeting, 30 June - 2 July 2021.

The WHO informal consultation was held to promote the revision of WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. It was agreed in the past consultations that the evaluation principles in the guidelines are still valid, but a review was recommended to provide more clarity and case-by-case flexibility. The opportunity was therefore taken to review the experience and identify areas where the current guidance could be more permissive without compromising its basic principles, and where additional explanation could be provided regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of data needed for regulatory approval. The meeting participants applauded the leading role taken by the WHO in providing a much-needed streamlined approach for development and evaluation of SBPs which will provide efficient and cost-effective product development and increase patient access to treatments. It was recognized that the principles as currently described in the draft WHO guidelines are based on sound science and experience gained over the last fifteen years of biosimilar approvals. However, since these guidelines when finalised will constitute the global standard for biosimilar evaluation and assist national regulatory authorities in establishing revised guidance and regulatory practice in this complex area, it was felt that further revision and clarity on certain perspectives in specific areas was necessary to dispel uncertainties arising in the current revised version. This report describes the principles in the draft guidelines, including topics discussed and consensus reached.

Development of mRNA Vaccines: Scientific and Regulatory Issues.

The global research and development of mRNA vaccines have been prodigious over the past decade, and the work in this field has been stimulated by the urgent need for rapid development of vaccines in response to an emergent disease such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, there remain gaps in our understanding of the mechanism of action of mRNA vaccines, as well as their long-term performance in areas such as safety and efficacy. This paper reviews the technologies and processes used for developing mRNA prophylactic vaccines, the current status of vaccine development, and discusses the immune responses induced by mRNA vaccines. It also discusses important issues with regard to the evaluation of mRNA vaccines from regulatory perspectives. Setting global norms and standards for biologicals including vaccines to assure their quality, safety and efficacy has been a WHO mandate and a core function for more than 70 years. New initiatives are ongoing at WHO to arrive at a broad consensus to formulate international guidance on the manufacture and quality control, as well as nonclinical and clinical evaluation of mRNA vaccines, which is deemed necessary to facilitate international convergence of manufacturing and regulatory practices and provide support to National Regulatory Authorities in WHO member states.

Regulatory challenges with biosimilars: an update from 20 countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidelines for the regulatory evaluation of biosimilars in 2009 and has provided considerable effort toward helping member states implement the evaluation principles in the guidelines into their regulatory practices. Despite this effort, a recent WHO survey (conducted in 2019-2020) has revealed four main remaining challenges: unavailable/insufficient reference products in the country; lack of resources; problems with the quality of some biosimilars (and even more with noninnovator products); and difficulties with the practice of interchangeability and naming of biosimilars. The following have been identified as opportunities/solutions for regulatory authorities to deal with the existing challenges: (1) exchange of information on products with other regulatory authorities and accepting foreign licensed and sourced reference products, hence avoiding conducting unnecessary (duplicate) bridging studies; (2) use of a "reliance" concept and/or joint review for the assessment and approval of biosimilars; (3) review and reassessment of the products already approved before the establishment of a regulatory framework for biosimilar approval; and (4) setting appropriate regulatory oversight for good pharmacovigilance, which is essential for the identification of problems with products and establishing the safety and efficacy of interchangeability of biosimilars.

Removal of the innocuity test from The International Pharmacopoeia and WHO recommendations for vaccines and biological products.

The innocuity test was indicated as a quality control test to release pharmaceutical and biological products to the market. The test was intended to detect possible extraneous toxic contaminants derived from the manufacturing processes of the product. The test was included in WHO Recommendations and Guidelines for vaccines, biotherapeutics and blood products and in some monographs on antibiotics in The International Pharmacopoeia. Over the past years, the requirements in WHO Recommendations/Guidelines for conducting the test evolved such that it could be waived for routine release of product once consistency of production was established to the satisfaction of the NRA, or that the need for this test should be discussed and agreed with the NRA. However, some users of WHO written standards for biologicals (i.e., Recommendations, Guidelines) and WHO specifications for pharmaceuticals (i.e., The International Pharmacopoeia) requested that the innocuity test be deleted from WHO written standards based on its lack of specificity and scientific relevance. In response to that request, we studied the history of this test and its use by the member states of WHO, and the recommendations in WHO written standards. The outcomes of the study were reviewed by the relevant WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization and Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Products who then decided to discontinue this test in WHO Recommendations for vaccines and biologicals and to omit the test from The International Pharmacopoeia.

WHO informal consultation on the guidelines for evaluation of the quality, safety, and efficacy of DNA vaccines, Geneva, Switzerland, December 2019.

Consultations have been held to promote the revision of the WHO guidelines for assuring the quality and nonclinical safety evaluation of DNA vaccines adopted by the Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2005. The drivers for this revision are described, including the need for regulatory convergence highlighted by the WHO R&D Blueprint. These consultations have driven the revision to its current form, where a new guideline that includes quality, nonclinical, and clinical evaluation of plasmid DNA vaccines is being prepared for public consultation with a view to present to an upcoming ECBS. Major changes to the guidelines include streamlining the existing quality (part A) and nonclinical (part B) sections to reflect the two decades of experience, with manufacturing and control, nonclinical evaluation, and clinical testing of plasmid DNA vaccines, as a platform technology. The urgency for gaining regulatory convergence on this topic is that development of such a platform technology as DNA vaccines for routine use immunizations will prepare manufacturers and regulators across the globe in dealing with rapid development of medical countermeasures against emerging infectious diseases even in the face of an emergency setting. Two examples are described of Zika candidate vaccines that have rapidly advanced in development based on preexisting nonclinical and clinical data that precluded the need to repeat nonclinical toxicology. This report describes the progress stemming from the most recent consultation on the guidelines, including topics discussed and consensus reached.

The regulatory landscape of biosimilars: WHO efforts and progress made from 2009 to 2019.

The World Health Assembly in 2014 adopted a resolution that mandates both Member States and the WHO Secretariat to facilitate access to biotherapeutic products in a way that ensures their quality, safety and efficacy. The availability of biosimilars is expected to increase access to biotherapeutic products by providing more treatment options triggering competition which would lead to a consistent reduction in the average price of treatment. Since the WHO guidelines for regulatory evaluation of biosimilars were issued in 2009, WHO has provided immense effort towards harmonizing the terminology and the regulatory framework for biosimilars globally. This article describes the progress made and the regulatory landscape changes for biosimilars in 21 countries during the past ten years. Based on the information from regulators and from publicly available data, the following has been identified: 1) WHO guidelines have contributed to setting the regulatory framework for biosimilars in countries and increasing regulatory convergence at global level; 2) terminology used for biosimilars is more consistent than in the past; 3) biosimilars are now approved in all participating countries; and 4) the dominant product class for candidate biosimilars under development is monoclonal antibodies.

WHO implementation workshop on guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 25-26 June 2019.

The first global workshop on implementation of the WHO guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products adopted by the WHO Expert Committee in 2018 was held in June 2019. The workshop participants recognized that the principles based on sound science and the potential for risk, as described in the WHO Guidelines on post-approval changes, which constitute the global standard for product life-cycle management are providing clarity and helping national regulatory authorities in establishing guidance while improving time-lines for an efficient regulation of products. Consequently, the regulatory situation for post-approval changes and guideline implementation is changing but there is a disparity between different countries. While the guidelines are gradually being implemented in some countries and also being considered in other countries, the need for regional workshops and further training on post-approval changes was a common theme reiterated by many participants. Given the complexities relating to post-approval changes in different regions/countries, there was a clear understanding among all participants that an efficient approach for product life-cycle management at a national level is needed to ensure faster availability of high standard, safe and efficacious medicines to patients as per the World Health Assembly Resolution 67.21.

Quality changes to approved biotherapeutic product: Simulated case studies on reporting categories & supporting data requirements.

Changes are essential for the continual improvement of the manufacturing process and for maintaining state-of-the-art controls on biotherapeutic products and such changes often need to be implemented after the product has been approved. WHO guidelines on procedures and data requirement for changes to approved biotherapeutic products were issued in 2017 to provide guidance to national regulatory authorities and manufacturers on the regulation of changes to already licensed biotherapeutic products in order to assure their continued quality, safety and efficacy, as well as continuity of supply and access. The case studies in this article were prepared to be used for WHO implementation workshops. Using these case studies, an interactive discussion was carried out among the workshop participants, and this article reflects the outcomes of case study exercise and lessons learnt from the 1st implementation workshop on the guidelines held on 25-26 June 2019, Seoul, Korea.

Quality assessment and its impact on clinical performance of a biosimilar erythropoietin: A simulated case study.

The case study described in this paper was developed for the purpose of training for a better understanding of principles relating especially to a comprehensive evaluation of multiple quality attributes as outlined in the WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products. It is also to emphasize the importance of an understanding of the critical quality attributes and a risk assessment of the impact on clinical performance. It was prepared to mimic a real situation in which regulators need to evaluate the differences in quality attributes known to have potential impact on clinical activity. Erythropoietin has been identified as one of the important glycosylated therapeutic proteins and a good example to illustrate how structural characteristics would affect product efficacy and safety. The case study illustrates biosimilarity assessment of a candidate of erythropoietin biosimilar and the important quality attributes that need to be considered in order to understand the importance of structure-function relationships as they contribute to the stepwise evaluation of biosimilarity. This paper reflects the outcomes of the case study exercise and discussion from two WHO implementation workshops held in Ghana (September 2015) and Denmark (July 2017).

Regulatory evaluation of biosimilars throughout their product life-cycle.

The World Health Assembly in 2014 adopted a resolution that recognized the importance of increasing access to biotherapeutic products, of improving their affordability and of ensuring their quality, safety and efficacy. Biosimilars are biotherapeutic products similar to already licensed reference products and are usually developed after patents on the original products have expired. Their introduction into the market is likely to reduce the costs of medicines substantially, thereby improving the availability of treatment for patients. However, there are barriers to market access for biosimilars. This article discusses the factors that give rise to these barriers and explains the importance of regulatory oversight throughout the product life-cycle of biosimilars. The paper also describes the role regulators can play in increasing confidence in biosimilars use by: (i) establishing regulatory oversight of biosimilars throughout their life-cycle, from development to post-licensing oversight, and ensuring that only high-quality, safe and efficacious biosimilars are available on the market; (ii) ensuring regulatory authorities have adequate capacity to assess and monitor the quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars throughout their life-cycle; and (iii) monitoring the use of biosimilars in public health systems in collaboration with other stakeholders.

En 2014, l'Assemblée mondiale de la Santé a adopté une résolution qui reconnaissait l'importance d'améliorer l'accès aux produits biothérapeutiques, de les rendre moins coûteux et de garantir leur qualité, innocuité et efficacité. Les biosimilaires sont des produits biothérapeutiques similaires à des produits de référence déjà autorisés, qui sont généralement développés après expiration des brevets protégeant les produits originaux. Leur introduction sur le marché a le potentiel de réduire considérablement les coûts des médicaments, améliorant ainsi la disponibilité des traitements pour les patients. Mais certaines barrières font encore obstacle à l'entrée sur le marché des biosimilaires. Cet article évoque les facteurs qui créent ces barrières et explique l'importance d'une supervision réglementaire sur tout le cycle de vie des produits biosimilaires. Cet article décrit également le rôle que les organismes de réglementation pourraient jouer pour améliorer la confiance à l'égard des biosimilaires, notamment: (i) en établissant une supervision réglementaire des biosimilaires sur tout leur cycle de vie, depuis leur développement jusqu'à la surveillance postérieure à leur autorisation de mise sur le marché et en s'assurant que seuls des biosimilaires de grande qualité, sûrs et efficaces sont commercialisés; (ii) en veillant à ce que les autorités de réglementation aient la capacité suffisante pour évaluer et contrôler la qualité, l'innocuité et l'efficacité des biosimilaires pendant tout leur cycle de vie; et (iii) en surveillant l'utilisation des biosimilaires dans les systèmes publics de santé, en collaboration avec d'autres parties prenantes.

La Asamblea de la Organización Mundial de la Salud en 2014 adoptó una resolución que reconoce la importancia de aumentar el acceso a productos bioterapéuticos, de mejorar su asequibilidad y asegurar su calidad, seguridad y eficacia. Los medicamentos biosimilares son productos bioterapéuticos similares a productos de referencia con licencia y usualmente se desarrollan después de que las patentes de los productos originales ya hayan expirado. Su introducción al mercado puede reducir sustancialmente los costes de los medicamentos, por lo tanto, mejora la disponibilidad del tratamiento para los pacientes. Sin embargo, existen barreras de acceso al mercado para los biosimilares. Este articulo trata los factores que dan lugar a esas barreras y explica la importancia de una supervisión reguladora durante el ciclo de vida de los biosimilares. El documento también describe el papel que pueden tener los reguladores para aumentar la confianza en los biosimilares de la siguiente forma: (I) estableciendo supervisiones reguladoras de biosimilares durante su ciclo de vida, desde el desarrollo hasta la supervisión post licencia, y asegurando que solamente biosimilares de alta calidad, seguros y eficaces estén disponibles en el mercado; (ii) asegurando que las autoridades reguladoras tengan la capacidad adecuada para evaluar y controlando la calidad, la seguridad y la eficacia de los biosimilares durante su ciclo de vida; y (iii) controlando el uso de biosimilares en los sistemas de salud públicos en colaboración con otras partes interesadas.

WHO informal consultation on development of guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 27-28 April 2017.

In April 2017, WHO convened an informal consultation to develop WHO guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products. The objective of the meeting was to review the draft of WHO guidelines and the comments received from the public consultation. The guidelines were recognized by the participants as a tool for regulatory convergence and harmonization. Regulation of changes to approved biotherapeutic products is a key in ensuring that products of consistent quality, safety and efficacy are distributed after they receive authorization or licensure. Participants agreed that the guidelines would contribute to assuring the continued quality, safety and efficacy throughout the life-cycle of biotherapeutics as well as continuity in supply and access. In the meeting, participants further requested WHO should assist national regulatory authorities in improving technical expertise in the evaluation of biotherapeutics and their post-approval changes by organizing implementation workshops and developing case studies and e-training modules on various technical topics. At its meeting in October 2017, the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization formally adopted the WHO guidelines on procedures and data requirements for changes to approved biotherapeutic products.

Immunogenicity assessment of biotherapeutic products: An overview of assays and their utility.

Biotherapeutic products (BTPs) are the fastest growing medicines in the pharmaceutical market. Despite their clinical success, the immunogenicity of BTPs continues to be a major concern. Assessment of immunogenicity as well as appropriate interpretation of immunogenicity data is therefore, of critical importance for defining safety profile of these products for the purpose of their licensure and use. In the past decade, much progress has been made towards how immunogenicity should be studied. This article reflects the content of the brief presentation on principles of methods used for immunogenicity assessment and their merits and limitations given at the first World Health Organization (WHO) implementation workshop on rDNA derived biotherapeutic products held in the Republic of Korea in May 2014 to support the case studies on immunogenicity presented and discussed during the workshop. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the methods used for assessing immunogenicity of biotherapeutic products (BTPs) and the most important considerations in interpreting results in the context of regulatory overview of these products.

Immunogenicity assessment of monoclonal antibody products: A simulated case study correlating antibody induction with clinical outcomes.

Monoclonal antibodies are large molecules with complex structure and functions. They have a wide application for treatment of a broad range of chronic diseases and represent the largest class of biotherapeutic products. Given that biotherapeutic products may induce unwanted humoral and/or cellular immune responses in recipients, it is essential to investigate the immunogenicity of a product prior to licensure. The immune response is influenced by many factors and data generated in the pre-licensure studies are usually somewhat difficult for regulatory review. The knowledge and expertise required for this requires a thorough understanding of animal and human immunology as well as specific product characteristics, including mechanism of action, antibody assays and assessment of results in a given clinical context. The appropriate interpretation of immunogenicity data is of critical importance for defining the safety profile of a monoclonal antibody. Two case studies described in this paper were prepared to mimic a real situation in which regulators need to evaluate immunogenicity studies conducted by manufacturers of monoclonal antibody products. The specific objective of the case studies was to illustrate assessment of unwanted immunogenicity and the important factors that need to be considered in this context. Regulators and manufacturers who attended the World Health Organization (WHO) implementation workshop on Evaluation of Biotherapeutic Products, held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in May 2014, participated in the case studies and provided valuable input. This article outlines the main aspects of immunogenicity discussed in these case studies and a summary of the lessons learned at this occasion.

Implementation workshop of WHO guidelines on evaluation of malaria vaccines: Current regulatory concepts and issues related to vaccine quality, Pretoria, South Africa 07 Nov 2014.

The current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on the quality, safety and efficacy of recombinant malaria vaccines targeting the pre-erythrocytic and blood stages of Plasmodium falciparum were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization in 2012 to provide guidance on the quality, nonclinical and clinical aspects of recombinant malaria vaccines. A WHO workshop was organised to facilitate implementation into African (national/regional) regulatory practices, of the regulatory evaluation principles outlined in the guidelines regarding quality aspects. The workshop was used also to share knowledge and experience on regulatory topics of chemistry, manufacturing and control with a focus on vaccines through presentations and an interactive discussion using a case study approach. The basic principles and concepts of vaccine quality including consistency of production, quality control and manufacturing process were presented and discussed in the meeting. By reviewing and practicing a case study, better understanding on the relationship between consistency of production and batch release tests of an adjuvanted pre-erythrocytic recombinant malaria vaccine was reached. The case study exercise was considered very useful to understand regulatory evaluation principles of vaccines and a suggestion was made to WHO to provide such practices also through its Global Learning Opportunities for Vaccine Quality programme.

Review of the current use and evaluation of cell substrates for producing biologicals in selected countries.

In 2010, the WHO guidance document for the evaluation of cell substrates for producing biologicals was replaced with updated recommendations and in May 2013 an implementation workshop on the new recommendations was held in Beijing, China. As part of this workshop, a survey of the use and evaluation of cell substrates for producing biologicals was undertaken and the information obtained was updated in June 2014. The purpose of survey was to capture the status of national requirements related to cell substrates in various countries with particular emphasis on whether or not the updated WHO recommendations had been, or were to be, incorporated into national requirements. This paper reports the outcome of the survey and is based on information provided by regulators in eleven countries. Since the publication of the updated WHO recommendations, several activities such as the implementation workshop and publications have been undertaken by the WHO. The aim of these activities, including the publication of this article, is to contribute to the implementation of WHO recommendations so as to reduce regulatory gaps between national requirements and globally agreed expectations.

Case studies on clinical evaluation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody: scientific considerations for regulatory approval.

The objective of this paper is to provide considerations based on comprehensive case studies important for regulatory evaluation of monoclonal antibodies as similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs) with a special emphasis on clinical aspects. Scientific principles from WHO Guidelines on SBPs were used as a basis for the exercise. Working groups consisted of regulators, manufacturers and academia. The following topics were discussed by the working groups: clinical criteria for biosimilarity, extrapolation approach and the overall regulatory decision making process. In order to determine typical pitfalls in the design of a SBP clinical programme and evaluate the gap of knowledge, amongst different industry and regulatory stakeholders on the appraisal of the data arising from SBP clinical studies, we have presented two fictional but realistic clinical case studies. The first case consists of the fictional development programme for an infliximab SBP candidate. The second case describes clinical studies proposed for a fictional rituximab SBP candidate. In the first scenario a highly similar quality profile has been taken forward into clinical studies whereas there was an important residual difference in functional attributes for the rituximab SBP candidate. These case studies were presented at the WHO implementation workshop for the WHO guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in May 2014. The goal was to illustrate the interpretation of the clinical data arising from studies with SBP candidates and elicit knowledge gaps in clinical assessment. This paper reflects the outcome of the exercise and discussions held in Seoul and offers an analysis of the case studies as a learning opportunity on clinical development and evaluation of SBPs.

The role of the quality assessment in the determination of overall biosimilarity: a simulated case study exercise.

A determination of biosimilarity is based on a thorough characterization and comparison of the quality profiles of a similar biotherapeutic product and its reference biotherapeutic product. Although the general principles on the role of the quality assessment in a biosimilar evaluation are widely understood and agreed, detailed discussions have not been published yet. We try to bridge this gap by presenting a case study exercise based on fictional but realistic data to highlight key principles of an evaluation to determine the degree of similarity at the quality level. The case study comprises three examples for biosimilar monoclonal antibody candidates. The first describes a highly similar quality profile whereas the second and third show greater differences to the reference biotherapeutic product. The aim is to discuss whether the presented examples can be qualified as similar and which additional studies may be helpful in enabling a final assessment. The case study exercise was performed at the WHO implementation workshop for the WHO guidelines on quality assessment of similar biotherapeutic products held in Xiamen, China, in May 2012. The goal was to illustrate the interpretation of the comparative results at the quality level, the role of the quality assessment in the entire biosimilarity exercise and its influence on the clinical evaluation. This paper reflects the outcome of the exercise and discussion from Xiamen.