Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

A post today on the Pharmalot blog suggests that Israeli generic manufacturer Teva is in talks to acquire US-based Barr Pharmaceuticals for  $7.0 -7.5$ billion. Barr’s present market cap is approximately $5.0 billion.

The acquisition would make sense for Teva to broaden its reach into the generic and branded generic markets in the US. Also, Barr recently acquired PLIVA which has active research programs on biosimilars and is currently selling its version of EPO in Croatia and other parts of Eastern Europe.

Teva has been trying to get into the biosimilar/follow-on biologics market for the past eight years or so. The company previously bought several early stage biogenerics manufacturers but have yet to advance their plans to formally enter the biosimilar/follow-on biologics market. This may be the opportunity that Teva has been looking for!

Check back for updates.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In 2004, the European Commission adopted a new directive that paved the way for legal approval of biosimilars in the European Union (EU). To date, five (5) biosimilars have garnered marketing approval in the EU. Of the five, two are generic versions of recombinant growth hormone (rHGH)–Omnitrope (Sandoz) and Valtropin (Biopartners). The remaining three are “knock off” versions of erythropoietin alpha–Binocrit (Sandoz), Epoetin alpha Hexal (Hexal) and Abseamed (Medice Arneimittel Putter).

There is no doubt, at this point, that Europe is leading the way in the biosimilar space. However, it is important to point out that a variety of biosimilars, developed by Indian generic manufacturers and others, are already being sold in less- regulated Asian markets (see Table 1). Unfortunately, political issues and the fierce struggle between innovator

Table 1. Biosimilar Manufacturers and Their Products

biotechnology companies and generic manufacturers have delayed development of legislation for regulatory approval of follow-on biologics (American lingo for biosimilars) in the US. Further, and perhaps more perplexing, the FDA has been reluctant to issue any guidance on the topic. However, rising drug costs and increasing expenditures on biologics (both by Medicare and private insurers) have left American lawmakers with no choice but to craft legislation for approval of follow-on biologics.

In the first half of 2007 alone, three different bills were proposed to craft a statutory pathway for the approval of follow-on biologics under the Biologic License Application (BLA). The first of these bills–The Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act– was introduced into Congress by Representative Henry Waxman (CA) and into Senate by Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) in February. The second bill–the Patent Protection and Innovative Biologic Medicine Act –was introduced in Congress in April by Representative Jay Inslee (WA). Neither bill made any progress. This is because the Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act was considered to be heavily pro-follow-on whereas the Patent Protection and Innovative Biologic Medicine Act was deemed to favor innovator companies and did not provide any financial incentives for follow-on manufacturers.

A compromise was reached by both Republican and Democrat Senators and the Biologics Price Protection and Innovation Act was approved by the Senate on June 27.  It proposes 12 years of market exclusivity for the patent holders but also one year of exclusivity to the first follow-on biologic to be approved as interchangeable with the reference product.  I previously aired my views on the proposed legislation. For a more in depth analysis of the issues and the bills, please read this.

Recently, there was an important new regulatory development in the European biosimilar landscape. Sandoz’s EPO, Binocrit, received the same nonproprietary name (INN) as Amgen’s original erythropoietin alpha (Epogen in the US, Eprex in Europe).This was a big win for the biosimilar industry because the INN debate had been raging in the EU for the past several years. Innovator companies wanted biosimilars to have different INN than their products whereas biosimilar manufacturers were lobbying for identical INN designation. An identical INN designation allows for  interchangeability of medicines. The fact that EMEA granted Binocrit the same INN number as Eprex, means that the agency views the two products as biologically-equivalent and interchangeable. This paves the way for EU pharmacists to freely substitute Binocrit for the more expensive Eprex. Also, it sends a message to US lawmakers and FDA that the EU considers certain biosimilars as interchangeable with their innovator counterparts. As you may have guessed, the issue of interchangeability is being hotly debated and contested by advocates on both sides of the follow-on biologics fence.

The US is clearly dragging its feet in the follow-on biologics arena. The prime driver of this inertia is the imagined loss of revenue that many innovator companies fear will occur if the US ultimately divines a regulatory approval pathway for follow-on biologics. That said, with Europe and India leading the charge into Asia, it looks as though the US is going to loss a substantial amount of money (not to mention market share) anyway.

With regard to biosimilars in the US, it is no longer a question of “if” but “when.” That said, I think that the one seminal issue that needs to be addressed is what to call these things in the US?  In my opinion, the European moniker, biosimilar, is particularly apt and appropriate for this new class of medicines. Unfortunately, we Americans don’t like to play second fiddle to anybody, especially the Europeans. With this in mind, I have no doubt that they WILL NOT be called biosimilars in the US. Whatever they are called, don’t be surprised to find them your pharmacist’s shelves in the next couple f years!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

As many of you know, the pharmaceutical industry has been trending downward for the past year or so. Weak pipelines, uncontrolled corporate expansion and soaring drug prices have been offered to explain the recent down turn. However, the real back story to the downturn is the loss of  future revenues that is expected to occur starting in 2010 when many current blockbuster pharmaceutical products, e.g., Lipitor (Pfizer), Plavix (Sanofi Aventis), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline), Zyprexa (Lilly), and others lose patent protection.

The loss of patent protection of branded blockbuster products is almost always accompanied by the development and subsequent, regulatory approval of lower cost, generic versions of the drugs. The Hatch Waxman Act permits generic manufacturers to begin to develop generic versions of branded products five years prior to patent expiry. This allows generic manufacturers to develop and gain regulatory approval of their products well in advance of a patent expiry date. Further, generic manufacturers usually launch their products (and flood the market) with generic versions of a branded product on the same day that its patent lapses. To induce and hasten generic development, Hatch Waxman grants market exclusivity for 180-days (6 month) to the first company that gains US regulatory approval for a generic version of a branded product that has lost patent protection.

Revenue generation and a company’s market share of branded drug products generally fall precipitously following introduction of less costly, generic versions of the drugs. From a financial standpoint, this is not surprising—why would anybody chose to pay more for a branded product when there is a cheaper and therapeutically efficacious generic alternative available?  In the past, most pharmaceutical companies chose to neglect (and ultimately abandon) blockbuster products after generic versions were introduced.  Many companies chose this strategy because, in the past, there was always another blockbuster in the pipeline that would replace the lost revenues caused by generic competition.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the days of the billon-dollar-a year blockbuster drug are long gone! This realization has caused many pharmaceutical companies to rethink their business strategies when a blockbuster drugs lose patent expiry. Many pharmaceutical companies are experimenting with a relatively new kind of product called an authorized generic–a copycat version of a company’s branded drug that is sold through a licensing agreement between the innovator company and a generic-drug manufacturer. This type of arrangement allows the innovator company to hold on to a larger share of a revenue stream from the drug once it loses patent protection and it falls prey to generic manufacturers.

Authorized generics have always made sense to me–who knows how to manufacture, market and distribute a drug better than the company that originally created it? Further, why would a company choose to give up on a revenue stream simply because a product can no longer generate billions each year due to generic encroachment– wouldn’t hundreds or even tens of millions suffice? Much to my surprise, late last week, Merck & Co announced that it had inked a deal for an authorized generic form of its blockbuster osteoporosis drug  Fosamax after the US patent expires on February 6. Merck did not disclose the terms of the deal or the identity of it generic manufacturing partner.

Industry analysts have suggested that cheaper generics will not only batter sales of Merck’s Fosomax but could also hurt rival Actonel (Proctor & Gamble Co/Sanofi-Aventis) and Boniva (Roche/GalxoSmithKline). Generic manufacturers.  Barr Laboratories and TEVA are expected to launch their own generic versions on February 6 and share the 180-day market exclusivity for their respective products.

Merck, once a champion of the old pharma blockbuster model, is slowing emerging as an industry innovator. The company’s recent decision to authorize a generic version of one of its former blockbuster drugs may be a harbinger of things to come in the pharmaceutical industry. That said, I don’t understand why big biotechnology companies like Amgen, Biogen/IDEC and Genentech are unwilling to consider the authorized generic model to stave off generic competition for blockbuster biotechnology products like EPO, Avonex and Rituxan. Whether these companies like it or not, I believe that biogenerics aka follow-on biologics will be a reality in the US in the next five years. Maybe Amgen can bolster is rapidly falling stock price by inking an authorized generic deal for EPO—rather than spending hundreds of millions on patent litigation—“whadda ya think?”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks