Bio Job Blog : 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

The US Food and Drug Administration finally released portions of the long-awaited guidance documents that will help to implement the development and approval of biosimilar molecules under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA)

Yesterday the agency issued three guidance documents which represent only a small portion of the total guidance package that will be necessary to develop and commercialize biosimilar products in the US

They are:

1. Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product
2. Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009
3. Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product

For a more detailed analysis of the guidance documents please check out a post by James N. Czaban. According to Czaban (and many other in the biosimilar space) these first three guidance documents represent “baby steps” towards implementing the specifics of BPCIA. To that point, Czaban suggests that:

“These Guidances, while helpful in expressing some of the FDA's general approaches, but will be of limited specific value with respect to any particular product”

Stay tuned for more updates.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sandoz, the generics division of Novartis, is currently the world leader in the biosimilar market. In fact, if it was not for Sandoz, the biosimilar industry may never have gotten started in the first place! As some of you may know, Sandoz sued FDA (and won) to gain approval of its biosimilar human growth hormone. While FDA contends that Omnitrope is not really a biosimilar (it was approved as a “drug” rather than a biologic) most analysts agree that it was the first biosimilar product ever approved and sold in the US. 

As part of its global biosimilar strategy, Sandoz today announced that it had initiated Phase III clinical trails for US approval of biosimilar version of recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor(G-CSF) or filgrastim (Amgen’s Neupogen®) and another for global launch of PEG-filgrastim (Amgen’s Neulasta®); a PEGylated form of G-CSF.

The filgrastim study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Sandoz's biosimilar filgrastim versus Neupogen® in breast cancer patients eligible for myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment. These trials expected to support extension of commercialization to the US, the largest global market for biologics. The pegfilgrastim study, which is being conducted in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy treatment, represents the next major step in the Sandoz global biosimilar development program. Previously, Sandoz announced that it had initiated late stage clinical trials for a biosimilar version of Roche’s monoclonal antibody cancer treatment Rituxan®). Finally, Sandoz has eight to ten different biosimilar molecules at various stages of development in its pipeline.

Sandoz currently markets and sells three biosimilars: filgrastim (Zario®), somatropin (Omnitrope®) and epoetin alfa (Binocrit®) in countries across Europe and elsewhere. As mentioned above Omnitrope is also sold in the US. However, because FDA has yet to craft a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars (despite legislation mandating their approval) it is illegal to sell biosimilars (with the exception of Omnitrope) in the US.

Once vilified and staunchly opposed by most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the biosimilar business has been picking up steam in the past few years. To that end, companies like Merck, Pfizer, Teva and more recently Amgen and Biogen (all of whom lobbied against an approval pathway for biosimilars in the US) announced plans to compete on the global biosimilar market.

The decision of these companies to enter the biosimilar market is largely a result of downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical and biotechnology drugs and near-empty drug pipelines at most major life sciences companies. Nevertheless, it is still not clear whether or not a robust biosimilar market truly exists. To wit, biosimilars have been in the market in the EU for the past fiver years and have not gained much traction there. However, the real biosimilar markets probably exist in China, Brazil and other emerging countries where there are large populations and emerging middle classes but drug prices are under tight government regulation. Because of this, the uptake of biosimilars in these markets will likely be greater than in Europe and the US.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have been in the business long enough to remember when Amgen was the largest and most successful biotechnology company in the world. During most of the 90s and early 2000s, Amgen was second to none. But, a lack of innovation, questionable marketing practices and an uncreative executive management team forced the once invincible biotech Giant to recently stumble and relinquish its world class status

For those of you who may not be familiar with Amgen, it was founded in 1980 by a team of scientists led by George B. Rathmann. The company’s original name was Applied Molecular Genetics which was officially changed in 1983 to Amgen. Its first product, Epogen (EPO; epoetin-alfa) an erythropoiesis-stimulating hormone was approved in 1989 when Gordon Binder was CEO. 

EPO quickly became the company’s flagship blockbuster product and was largely responsible for Amgen’s early success.  The company’s second blockbuster product Neupogen (Filgrastim) a recombinant-methionyl human granulocyte colony factor (G-CSF)—also under Binder’s leadership—which stimulates neutrophil (white blood cell) production was approved in 1998. In the early 2000s the company—now under the tutelage of its third CEO, Kevin Shearer—introduced a longer acting, second generation EPO product called Aranesp (darbepoetin-alfa) and Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), a second generation, longer-acting PEGylated version of recombinant G-CSF.

The largesse from the EPO and Filgrastim franchises allowed Amgen to rapidly expand in the 2000s and to heavily invest substantial resources into new drug development (both small molecule and biotechnology). Unfortunately, most of these investments did not pan out; with the possible exception of XGEVA (denosumab) and Prolia (denosumab) a monoclonal antibody (MAb) treatment that recently received approval for the treatment of skeletal-related events including pathological faction in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and postmenopausal osteoporosis respectively.

In the 2000s, Amgen’s went on something of a “buying spree” during Mr Shearer’s 11 year tenure at the company. During this time Amgen acquired eight companies including three high profiles and well known ones; Immunex (2002) a MAb development company; Tularik (2004) a small molecule discovery company and Abgenix (2006) another MAb development entity. The Immunex acquisition, clearly the most profitable one, gave Amgen access to Enbrel (etanercept) a tumor necrosis factor α MAb indicated for the treatment of various forms of arthritis. Enbrel is currently one of the world’s top selling biotechnology products.

Despite its lack of R&D productivity, Amgen was recognized until recently as the world’s largest and most profitable biotechnology company in the world. However, its lack of R& D productivity coupled with a recent, highly publicized regulatory and criminal inquiry into inappropriate marketing associated with its EPO franchise has seriously tarnished the company’s once impeccable reputation. Interestingly, it appears that Amgen is finally attempting to reinvent itself.

Last week, the company announced that its CEO, Kevin Shearer and Dr. Roger M. Perlmutter, head of R&D will retire early next year. Mr. Shearer will be succeeded by Robert Bradway, a former Wall Street executive who is Amgen’s current chief operating officer. Dr. Perlmutter will be replaced by Sean Harper, MD, the company’s chief medical officer. And, last month, Amgen announced that it plans on buying back up to $5 billion shares of its publicly-held stock in an attempt to return profit to shareholders. Finally, today, the company announced that it entered into a deal with Watson Pharmaceuticals, a leading generics company, to develop biosimilar versions of some of its competitor’s blockbuster cancer-fighting biotechnology drugs. The press release made it clear that the deal did not include developing biosimilar versions of any of Amgen’s currently marketed biotechnology products. Nevertheless, today’s announcement strongly suggests that Amgen is willing to use anything at its disposal (in this case its substantial expertise in biomanufacturing rather than new drug development) to generate additional revenue streams for the company.

The recent organizational changes and strategic decisions made by Amgen’s board of directors and management team tends to validate the need for change at the company so that it can remain profitable and possibly restore its reputation as a global biotechnology leader. That said, like most other things in life, only time can tell!

Until next time...

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

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

While Samsung is mostly know for flat screen televisions and other electronic appliances, one of South Korea’s largest companies has been quietly evaluating a play in the protein engineering and manufacturing space. For those of you who may not know, Korea possesses one of Asia’s most vibrant biotechnology industries. At present, there are over 600 Korean biotechnology companies in existence. In April 2011, Samsung created a business units called Samsung Biologics which specializes in biopharmaceutical manufacturing.

Today, Samsung formally announced that it would create a joint venture with America’s Biogen/Idec to develop market and manufacture biosimilar molecules. Under the terms of the agreement, Samsung will invest $255 million and garner a 85% stake in the venture which will be located in South Korea. Biogen/Idec will invest $45 million for a 15% stake in the joint venture. Samsung will take a leading role in developing and marketing the joint venture’s products whereas Biogen/Idec will contribute expertise in protein engineering and biomanufacturing. The joint venture will not develop biosimilar versions of Biogen/Idec’s proprietary, branded protein-based drugs which include Avonex (MS), Rituxan (oncology) and Tysabri (MS).

Biogen/IDEC is the first “big biotech” company to jump on the biosimilar train. The company joins Merck BioVentures and Sandoz (Novartis) as major players in the biosimilar marketplace. Teva, which began looking at biosimilars about eight years ago, is also widely believed to be a biosimilar player. While the financial fate of biosimilars is still uncertain in the US, these molecules are generally perceived as having a much higher financial upside in large emerging markets such as China, Korea, Brazil and Russia which are susceptible to government pricing controls.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, Janet Woodcock, head of the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation (CDER) made public comments which suggested that the long awaited guidance for approval of biosimilar products in the US was complete and likely to be issued by the end of this year. According to the Pharmalot Blog, another agency official suggested that the guidance may be “as early as the next few weeks, maybe even days.” Conventional wisdom suggests that the end of the year scenario may be more likely!

As widely anticipated, the guidance will resemble that already in place in Europe and will rely heavily upon analytical similarity of the biosimilar to the innovator product to determine the clinical testing requirement for approval of the molecule. Interestingly, Woodcock went out on a limb and suggested that the FDA approval process may make interchangeability feasible for biosimilars. For those who may not know, interchangeability or substitution allows pharmacists to substitute generic small molecules drugs for brand names when filling a prescription. This practice is legally allowed by the Hatch Waxman Act because FDA approval of a generic indicates that it biologically equivalent or identical to the branded molecule.

For those of you who have not close paid attention to the biosimilar brouhaha, a regulatory approval pathway for these molecules was implemented in Europe in 2004. Since that time, at least 10 biosimilar products have reached European markets. At present, biosimilars are still not legal in the US. While Woodcock and other FDA officials may be proud of their progress, why has it taken over 12 years for the agency to divine regulatory guidance for this class of molecules? 

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Whether you like President Obama or not, the changes he made in the leadership at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is beginning to yield results. After just two years, the agency is well on its way to modernization and overcoming its descent into the dark ages during the failed Bush Administration.

Mark Senak, the intrepid author of the EyeonFDA blog has been assiduously following and blogging about many of the new things going on at the agency. First, in a post a last week, Mark noted that FDA has updated its website and created a product recall page that collects recall information on all of the products that it regulates and deposited it in an easy to find product recall page. With product recalls in the food and life sciences industry increasing in frequency, this page will help to alert consumers about tainted products before learning of them on the nightly news. 

Second, Mark points out that FDA has finally entered the 21^st century and is now fully engaged in social media.

“FDA begins to join the 21st Century launching a Facebook page that has been long anticipated on this blog. FDA has not completed the Social Media Quadrant - (1) a blog, (2) several twitter feeds (3) a YouTube channel, and (4) a Facebook page.  And as added good measure, the agency opened a Flickr page.  The agency is now fully engaged in activities that many in the industry it regulates think is forbidden them.... And the beat goes on.”

Finally, earlier this week FDA announced that it would hold long-awaited public hearings to get input on proposed biosimilar regulatory guidance. As Mark duly notes, this process is likely to be contentious and protracted.    

"The FDA has set November 2-3 for a meeting to get input on a wide span of questions regarding the development of a regulatory pathway for biosimilars.  The scope of the questions is demonstrative of the number of outstanding issues the agency faces and will likely result in a protracted process. "

Central to the debate (and ultimate success of biosimilars) is the question of interchangeability and substitution of name brand products with biosimilar molecules. According to Mark, the agency will focus on the following questions

"What factors should the agency consider in determining whether a proposed interchangeable biological product can be "expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient?"

"What factors should the agency consider in evaluating the potential risk related to alternating or switching between use of the proposed interchangeable biological product and the reference product or among interchangeable biological products?"

What has become patently obvious to many of us who have been following the debate over the last decade is that unless biosimilars are interchangeable or substitutable for brand name biologics, the commercial success of the biosimilar industry may be in serious jeopardy. Put simply, there is no question that safe and effective biosimilars can be manufactured; the real question is whether or not physicians will prescribe biosimilar products if they are required to be branded by regulatory agencies. This is because physicians are reluctant to switch patients to new biologic products if a patient is doing well on a currently prescribed regimen. Since most physicians pay little attention to drug pricing, it is highly unlikely that they will switch a patient to product simply because there may be a 20 percent reduction in drug price. And, unless biosimilar products are deemed interchangeable with their branded counterparts, pharmacists (based on insurance formularies) will not be able to offer patients a generic equivalent of a name brand biologics. 

With the cost of biologic treatments skyrocketing, it will be interesting to see what the agency will do with this question.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was only a matter of time before some company decided to attempt to commercialize a generic version of a therapeutic monoclonal antibody (MAb). The main barrier to entry to the biosimilar MAb market was the patent expiry dates for the first generation of therapeutic MAbs (most were commercialized in the early 1990s and have patent protection until 2018 or longer). The recent health-care overhaul law signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year permits U.S. regulators to approve biosimilar versions of branded biologic drugs and paves the way for commercialization of biosimilar MAbs (and other biologics) in the US.

This past Monday Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic prescription drug manufacturer, announced its plans to commercialize a generic version of Rituxan (rituximab), Roche’s blockbuster MAb used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, leukemia and certain forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Rituxan has patent protection in the U.S. until 2018 and in the rest of the world through 2013. According to the announcement, Teva joined worked with the biomanufacturing giant Lonza to produce sufficient quantities of generic Rituxan for clinical development.

Earlier this month Teva began recruiting patients with rheumatoid arthritis for a clinical trial comparing its biosimilar copy, TL011, with the Roche drug, sold outside the U.S. as MabThera. Teva and Lonza are focusing on monoclonal antibodies, and aim to gain regulatory approval for their first product by the end of 2014 said a Lonza spokesman.

Rituxan generated $5.24 billion in sales last year. Indian generic-drug maker Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. began selling a new version of Rituxan in India in 2007 which had $4.2 million in sales in 2009. Interestingly, the size of the biosimilar MAb market is predicted to be much larger than that for therapeutic proteins like Epogen, Neupogen, Avonex and other therapeutically-active proteins.

What will be the next branded MAb-based product to succumb to the biosimilar encroachment? Only time will tell.....

Until next time...

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

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

As reported in the March issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, figures published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showed that the approval rate for new drugs (branded, generics, biosimilars and orphan) increased between 2007 and 2009; however most of the approvals were for generic drugs not new ones.

According to the published figures there were 58 new drug approvals in 2007, 66 in 2008 and 117 in 2009. However, the number of approvals for branded products decreased during this period; 35 in 2009 compared with 41 in 2008 and 59 in 2007. On the other hand, the approval rate for generics skyrocketed with more than 50 in 2009 as compared with 4 in 2008 and 5 in 2007.

Interestingly, biosimilar products didn’t fare as well as small molecule generic drugs with the number of applications and approvals decreasing during the period. For example, in 2007 10 new biosimilar applications were filed as compared with 3 in 2008 and 1 in 2009. Likewise, the number of approved biosimilar products decreased with 5 in 2007, 6 in 2008 and 0 in 2009. This trend suggests that biosimilars, mainly therapeutic proteins are not faring well in the European market. However, this is likely to change as patents begin to expire for monoclonal antibody-based drugs which are increasingly becoming the new drugs of choice for many indications including oncology, inflammation and metabolic diseases. Nevertheless, there is a growing emphasis and trend on developing generic medications as compared with new ones. Expect this trend to continue as patent expiry for many small and large molecule continues to draw near.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After months of speculation and a nine month-long bidding war, Teva not Pfizer has emerged as the winner to purchase Ratiopharm; the financially-troubled, German generics manufacturer. Ratiopharm was Germany’s second largest generics manufacturer.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Ratiopharm, Germany's second largest generics producer (Novartis AG’s Hexal unit is first and Stada Arzneimittel AG is third) and the sixth largest generic drug company worldwide, for €3.625 billion ($ 5.0 billion). Teva expects to complete the transaction by year-end 2010.

The acquisition will position Teva as the leading generic pharmaceutical company in Europe. Ratiopharm's extensive product portfolio includes 500 molecules in over 10,000 presentation forms covering all major therapeutic areas marketed in 26 countries. Also, Ratiopharm has valuable know-how in biosimilars (a market that Teva has entered and is extremely bullish on) which consists number of products in advanced stages of development and a well-established sales and marketing team. The combined company will have 40,000 employees worldwide, of which 18,000 will be based in Europe. The purchase will bolster Teva’s visibility and standing in European markets.

Late last month, Ratiopharm board members implored Pfizer to enter a new bid, after it had rejected an earlier offer by the company. Apparently, the new bid was not sufficient to prevent Teva from acquiring the highly sought after generics manufacturer. Iceland-based generics manufacturer Actavis also put in a failed bid to acquire Ratiopharm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pfizer is one of three companies vying for the opportunity to . Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the Swedish private equity fund EQT and Pfizer are the three finalists to purchase Ratiopharm GmbH which is valued at about €2.8-3 billion. The finalists will make their bids in early February. France’s Sanofi-Aventis SA Euronext and China’s Sinopharm Group Co. Ltd. withdrew from the tender in December

Ratiopharm is a private company owned by the Merckle family. Ludwig Merckle put the company up for sale last year, after his late father Adolf Merckle committed suicide in early 2009 after losing control over his business empire to lenders. If Teva acquires Ratiopharm, it will win a major foothold in the German healthcare market, considered a large and growing market. Teva, the world’s largest generic drug company, is currently not a big player in the German market.

 The rising development and retail costs of name brand prescription drugs and the future possibility of price controls in the US is forcing pharmaceutical companies to reconsider the value of generic drugs. Currently, generic prescriptions are rapidly outpacing those for branded products and the size of the US and international markets for both small and large molecule drugs (biosimilars) growing daily. Previously, most innovator companies didn’t think the profit margins nor returns on investment were sufficient to add generic molecules to their product portfolios. However, a few large pharmaceutical companies have already entered the generics fracas; most notably Sandoz (a division of Novartis) which manufactures both generic small molecule and biosimilar biotechnology products and more recently established Merck BioVentures which aims to compete in the follow-on biologics market. 

Many experts believe that it is only a mater of time before most big pharma companies like Pfizer realize that they have to be in both the branded and generic sides of the business. Don’t be surprised over the coming months if other pharma companies consider doing deals to acquire generic drug manufacturers. Diversification will be the mantra of the next decade or so!

Until next time...

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

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

The rancorous debate over a regulatory approval pathway for follow-on biologics (aka biosimilars) continues to rage on in the US Congress. Despite recommendations from the Federal Trade Commission that a data exclusivity period for follow-on biologics isn't necessary and a seven year compromise offered by President Obama,the pharmaceutical and biotechnology lobbies continue to press Congress for a 12 to 14 year period of data exclusivity in any legislation for follow-on biologics. 

In a well-balanced article in today’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack diligently put forth the arguments against follow-on biologics that innovator companies have been espousing for the past decade. These include: complexity of the manufacturing processes for biotechnology drugs, potential tolerability and safety issues and perhaps, most importantly, an anticipated loss of profits that innovator companies claim “would stifle American innovation” in the life sciences. Until recently, these arguments were successfully used to hinder any substantive debates on follow-on biologics legislation. However, it  has become increasingly apparent that the American healthcare system can no longer sustain the high costs and lack of access to potentially life-saving branded biotechnology drugs. For those of you who may not know, a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars already exists in Europe and it has been used to approve eight products since its inception in 2004.  Biosimilars are also available in Australia and have been sold for many years in less-regulated markets including India, China and elsewhere. Japan recently approved legislation for approval of biosimilars and Canada is close to finalizing its regulatory guidelines for these products.

American innovator companies recognizing the inevitability of follow-on biologics, no longer oppose legislation for approval of these molecules. Instead, these companies and their supporters have tenaciously latched on to the data exclusivity argument, presumably in a last ditch effort to preserve their profits from multibillion dollar biotechnology drug franchises that may be lost when follow-on biologics legislation is enacted.  And, for the most part, their uncompromising insistence on an excessively long data exclusivity period appears to be taking hold with members of Congress. At last count, there were more Congressional sponsors of legislation favoring a 12 to 14 year data exclusivity period than there was for those who support a 5 year data exclusively period. The five year data exclusivity period was proposed by follow-on biologics proponents because it is identical to the period required for generic versions of small molecule drugs enacted in the Hatch Waxman Act.

I have been following the follow-on biologic debate for the past eight years and, to date, I know of no scientific claims or relevant safety concerns which argue that 12 to 14 years of data exclusivity is warranted for follow-on products.  For example, no untoward safety or tolerability problems have been reported for any of the eight biosimilar products that were approved and sold in Europe for the past three years. Further, European healthcare agencies and physicians haven’t readily embraced biosimilars despite an almost 25%-30% reduction in price. The one exception is Germany (the largest generic market in Europe), where biosimilar versions of erythropoietin (Eprex) have captured 30% of the anemia market. This, in turn, has  forced some innovator companies to lower prices on their branded products.

Based on the European experience, it is likely that follow-on biologics won’t catch on quickly in the US and it may take years for them to erode the market share garnered by innovator brands.  Also, contrary to earlier assertions, it is becoming increasingly apparent that only large, well capitalized companies with sophisticated regulatory, marketing and distribution capabilities will be able to compete in the US follow-on biologics market. To that end, companies like Sandoz (Novartis) and Merck—one of the companies that originally opposed follow-on biologics legislation—will likely dominant the US follow-on biologics market.

Ironically, the biggest losers in the follow-on biologics debate will likely be the innovator companies—but not for the reasons they once cited to prevent regulatory approval of these molecules. By spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against follow-on biologics legislation—rather than investing to develop their own lower cost, generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology products—innovator companies have unwittingly provided foreign follow-on biologics manufacturers with a competitive advantage when follow-on biologics are finally approved for sale in the US. Companies like Sandoz, Teva and several Indian biosimilar companies— with products already on the market in Europe, India and China—have been developing biosimilar molecules for the past fiver years or more. Their scientific and regulatory experiences with these products suggests that they will be poised to dominate the US market after legislation permitting approval and sale of follow-on biologics is finally completed. Surprisingly, Merck is the only major pharmaceutical company to publicly announce its intention to compete in the follow-on biologics market. The Merck announcement was made last fall—almost three years after Sandoz won European approval for Omnitrope, its first biosimilar product!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Previously, the US Congress proposed legislation to create a regulatory approval process to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs known as follow-on biologics (FOBs). While a regulatory pathway exists for approval of generic versions of small molecule drugs (as outlined in the Hatch-Waxman Act) there is no legally-approved regulatory pathway to bring FOBs to market in the US. In contrast with the US, the European Union crafted legislation five years ago that allows biosimilars —the name given to FOBs in Europe—to be approved and sold in EU member states. Since 2004, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU regulatory body, has approved the sale of six biosimilar drugs with many more in the queue awaiting regulatory review.

The debate over FOB legislation started in the US about 10 years ago when patent expiry of many  multi-billion blockbuster biotechnology drugs was fast approaching. From the beginning, many so-called innovator companies (the companies that produced the original branded biotechnology drugs) and the trade associations that represent them on Capital Hill, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), aggressively lobbied against any form of FOB legislation. However, late last year, several senators introduced legislation that would permit FDA to approve generic versions of many blockbuster biopharmaceutical products following patent expiry. The proposed legislation stipulated that FOB manufacturers would have to wait 12 years —after patent expiry of previously approved biotechnology drugs—before generic versions of those drugs could be sold in the US. That legislation, which unabashedly favored innovator drug manufacturers, passed the Senate health committee but died without being voted on. The new measure, introduced Thursday, cuts by more than half — to 5 years, from 12 — the time allowed before cheaper versions of biotechnology drugs could compete with the originals. A similar bill was introduced two weeks ago in the House by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the proposed reduction in the so-called “FOB waiting period” is commendable, I don’t think that any waiting period is necessary before FOBs can be sold in the US. It is difficult to understand why innovator companies require an additional patent protection—beyond the 20 years already afforded to them under US patent law—to continue to sell their blockbuster products! To that end, Jeff Joseph, a spokesman for the BIO said that the FOB waiting period reduction, “.... Would jeopardize patient safety and undermine our ability to develop future cures and therapies.” I believe that the FOB waiting period being championed by innovators companies is nothing more a thinly veiled attempt by them to continue to maintain monopolistic control over lucrative multibillion dollar biopharmaceutical drug franchises. Biotech executives have vowed to vigorously fight the new legislation, saying it could result in unsafe medicines, fewer cures and fewer jobs in biotechnology centers like Boston, California and elsewhere. Interestingly, similar arguments were put forward by the pharmaceutical industry before the Hatch-Waxman act was passed by Congress in 1984..

Despite the claims that FOBs will stifle innovation and may jeopardize the safety of Americans, the current high costs and lack of access to affordable healthcare will almost certainly leave Congress no choice but to pass legislation that permits the marketing and sale of FOBs in the US. While FOB legislation is a likely fait accompli, US drug manufacturers remain steadfastly opposed to any FOB legislation. I believe that innovator company opposition to FOB legislation is really a “red herring” that serves to detract attention away from the real issue that the drug industry is deathly afraid of federal regulation of drug prices. Interestingly, the US is one of the only countries in the world where drug prices are not regulated or controlled by the government. This permits drug manufacturers to set prices based exclusively on “what price the US market will bear.” In other words, they can charge as much as they want for their drugs, as long as third party payors, insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid agree to continue to cover the costs of the drugs that they manufacture (it should come as no surprise to anyone that the American pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets are the largest and most financially lucrative in the world).

I have no doubt that innovator companies will continue to fight hard and as long as possible prevent adoption of legislation regulating the approval of FOBs. After all, there are huge sums of money and corporate profits at stake. Like it or not, FOBs will ultimately be sold in the US—the current costs of drug and healthcare are simply too high to sustain. Despite a fierce decade-long struggle, most American drug makers will privately concede that sale of FOBs in the US is inevitable. Nevertheless, innovator companies will likely not publicly endorse FOB legislation until the US government provides them with assurances that it will not seek to regulate American drug prices for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Pharmalot blog reported today that this coming Friday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will conduct a workshop on the issue of follow-on biologics. The roundtable will apparently be organized into five panels to discuss: 1) the price and market share effect of entry by both biosimilar and biogeneric drugs, 2) the likely competitive effects of reference product regulatory exclusivity, 3) biotechnology patent issues, 4) the likely competitive effects of follow-on biologic regulatory incentives, and 5) the patent resolution process.

The first thing that comes to mind is “beating a dead horse” (euphemistically of course). Call me crazy but these very issues have been bandied about and discussed ad nauseum and  for the past decade or so. I am not sure what new revelations will come to light at this Friday’s FTC roundtable meeting. 

Here’s a thought. Maybe industry representatives, FDA regulators and the insurance companies ought to ask the European Union how they were able to craft their version of a regulatory pathway for approval of these products way back in 2004. Nah…let’s let the lobbyist duke it out and see which side wins!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when I thought the absurdities surrounding the American follow-on biologics debate couldn’t get any sillier, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced today that it would sponsor public workshops and round table discussion to learn more about the impact of follow-on biologics on American competitiveness, regulatory policies and healthcare costs.

I am not certain what role the FTC has in the follow-on biologics debate (as far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t have much of one) but what new information does the FTC think that it is going to get that other more relevant government agencies like FDA or the US Congress don’t already have about follow-on biologics? After all, the debate to formulate an approval pathway for follow-on biologics in the US has gone on for almost 10 years now. How ineffectual and ineffective can the US government and its agencies be (rhetorical question)?

As far as I can ascertain, the main reason why follow-on biologics are not already being sold in the US are the never-ending efforts of power, well-funded lobby organizations like BIO and PhRMA. The data are incontrovertible: 1) the cost of branded drugs is out of reach for many Americans, 2) access to potentially life-saving drugs and treatments is hindered by restrictive drug formularies and onerous insurance co-pays and 3) many local and state governments and large, multi-national corporations can no longer provide adequate healthcare coverage for their employees because of out-of-control medical costs and expenditures.

In my opinion, the irony of the US follow-on biologics brouhaha is that it is putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the biosimilar/follow-on biologics space. Selling profitable, cheaper generic versions of blockbuster drugs is no longer a dream but a reality in countries like China and India whose middle class has finally come of age. True, the American pharmaceutical/biotech market is still the largest in the world—but will it still be the largest 10 years from now? Only time (and Asia) will tell.

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link