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

Yesterday, Sanofi-aventis (S-A) agreed to acquire a controlling stake in Indian vaccine maker, Shantha Biotechnics, for an undisclosed amount. And, recently, Abbott announced a definitive agreement to acquire the nutrition businesses of Wockhardt Limited, Carol Info Services Limited, and certain Wockhardt subsidiaries and group companies for consideration totaling approximately US$130 million in cash.

While these two recent acquisitions don’t appear to be particularly noteworthy, they speak volumes about growing Indian influence in biologics and, perhaps more importantly, in biosimilars. India, long known for its expertise in generic drug development and its ability to work with US-based companies, has expanded beyond generic pharmaceuticals into generic biologics aka biosimilars. Biosimilars have been on the Indian market for over a decade and by all accounts several Indian companies, most notably BioCon, might be able to steal biosimilar market share in Asia from the likes of Sandoz, Merck and Teva—companies expected to be major players in the emerging biosimilar market.

Both Shantha and Wockhardt possess substantial experience in biosimilar development and commercialization. To that end, Sanofi-aventis has publicly announced its desire to get into biotechnology and Abbot must expand its biotechnology pipeline beyond Humira to remain competitive. These acquisitions likely represent Sanofi’s and Abbott’s attempt to gain a foothold in the emerging Asian markets. Also, it gives both companies access to lower cost biologics R&D and manufacturing capabilities.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year or so!

Until next time...

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

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

As the Congressional debate over follow-on biologics slogs on, the Obama Administration has finally weighed in and backs 7 years of data exclusivity for follow-on biologics. As you may recall, innovator companies want a 12-14 year data exclusivity period whereas follow-on biologics manufacturers are seeking a 5-year period (which is identical to the data exclusivity period for small molecules generic drugs outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act). What this means—based on the Obama Administration's proposal—is that a follow-on biologic manufacturer must wait seven years from the date of approval for the innovator (branded) drug before the US Food and Drug Administration could consider approval of a follow-on version of the molecule.

It is not surprising that the Obama Administration supports a 7 data exclusivity period--it is, after all, a compromise between the 5 year period sought by the follow-on manufacturers and the 12-14 years that the innovator companies are seeking. And, Mr Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise when it comes to getting important legislation passed. Hopefully, Congress will take the Obama Administration's compromise to heart and pass follow-on biologics legislation as quickly as possible.

 Until next time...

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!

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

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) inked a deal yesterday with the Indian generics manufacturer Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories giving it access to over 100 future generic drugs and a gateway to Asia’s emerging pharmaceutical markets. The therapeutic areas covered under the agreement include diabetes, cardiovascular, pain management, gastroenterology and oncology. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories is one of India’s largest generic drug manufacturers. Like many of its competitors, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories also have active development programs for new biotechnology drugs and biosimilar products.

UK-based, GSK joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and others that have entered into deals with major generic drug manufacturers—or purchased smaller generics companies—to gain access to generics pipelines and an ability to compete in emerging  non-branded pharmaceutical markets. Impending US healthcare reform and downward pricing pressures (resulting from increased global competition) have forced drug makers to reevaluate the role that generic drugs will likely play in future pharmaceutical revenue streams.

While generic drug makers have outstanding manufacturing capabilities, they generally lack the marketing, sales and distribution channels necessary to penetrate foreign markets and quickly ramp up drug sales. I suspect that the number of deals between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers will continue to increase as many of the patents for multibillion, blockbuster drugs continue to expire in the next few years.

Until next time....

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

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

A much-anticipated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report was released on Wednesday that will likely help House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman bolster support for his fledgling follow-on biologics (FOB) bill. For those of you who haven’t been closely following the debate over proposed legislation to create a regulatory framework for approval of FOBs in the US, I provide a brief synopsis.

The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicines Act (H.R.1427) introduced by US Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Nathan Deal (R-GA) calls for an abbreviated development pathway (at the discretion of the agency), the possibility of substitution or interchangeability (if the follow-on biologics manufacturer can prove a high degree of structurally similarity and an identical mode of action) and five years of data exclusivity. In contrast, The Pathways for Biosimilar Act (H.R. 1548) introduced by US Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Joe Barton(R-TX) requires clinical data, rigorous immunogenicity testing and limits on interchangeability and substitution provisions for follow-on biologics. Further, it calls for a minimum of 12 or up to 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator companies—a period during which FDA can’t rely on innovator data to approve follow-on biologics. For example, if a biotechnology drug was approved in 2009, the earliest that FDA could consider and approve an application for a competing follow-on product is 2021.

The FTC report concluded that a 12- to 14-year wait is unnecessary because follow-on biologics will not be offered at the same steep discounts as traditional generic drugs. It also pointed out that no evidence exists that biologic patents will not hold up. The agency estimates follow-on biologics would be sold at discounts ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the FTC did not recommend a specific number of exclusivity years. This allows legislators to continue to squabble and debate the point ad nauseum, until concessions are made by both innovator and follow-on biologics proponents.

The measure by Eshoo and Barton has garnered 88 co-sponsors, while Waxman and Deal's bill has 11. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reached a bipartisan compromise on follow-on biologics in 2007 that allowed for 12 years of exclusivity, but that deal seems unlikely. Democrats are trying to address generic firms' concerns that brand companies could make slight changes to their products and start the exclusivity period over again. Some senators introduced a more generic-friendly bill like Waxman's earlier this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the data exclusivity provisions in the final legislation will be five years—a period identical to that provided stipulated in the 1984 Hatch Waxman Act, which created the US generic pharmaceutical industry. 

Stay tuned for new updates on this unfolding drama!

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

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
• Share Link

Richmond Va-based INSMED, a US-based follow-on biologics manufacturer, posted a press release on its website entitled: “Insmed Announces First Human Bioequivalence Data for a Follow-on Biologic by a U.S. Company” that reports on the results from a Phase I clinical trial that demonstrated that it lead product INS-19 was bioequivalent to Amgen’s Neupogen^(R) (recombinant G-CSF) in stimulating human white blood cell production. 

, Dr. Geoffrey Allan, President and CEO of Insmed said  "These results are very exciting, as they represent Insmed's ability to replicate a protein product, to bring that product rapidly through the clinic and to demonstrate clear bioequivalence to the innovator drug," said "To our knowledge, we are the first U.S. company to report human bioequivalence data for a follow-on biologic product, validating the idea that follow-on biologics can be a scientific reality in the U.S. and that Insmed is well positioned to be a leader in the field. “ The company has requested a meeting with FDA to discuss the design of a Phase III human clinical trial for INS-19.

I am not sure why INSMED is so excited about its results. Sandoz essentially accomplished the same feat with Omnitrope, its biosimilar version of recombinant human growth hormone (HGH)and it took a law suit and a loophole in the approval process for growth hormones for FDA to allow it to be sold in the US. In my opinion, until legislation is passed that provides a clearly defined legal pathway for approval of follow-on biologics I suspect that INS-19 will suffer the same fate (or perhaps worse) than Omnitrope. Bioequivalence is only legal defined for and relevant for approval of small molecule NOT BIOLOGICS when seeking expedited approval for generic versions of branded products. That said, I want to tip my hat to INSMED for its willingness to take a lead role in the fight to get follow-on biologics approved in the US. Finally, there is nothing like an edgy press release and a few bloggers to bring an issue that is rapidly losing momentum back to the forefront.

Kudos to INSMED!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

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

As many of you may know, Ranbaxy was involved in a bitter patent dispute with Pfizer over Lipitor, Pfizer’s blockbuster multibillion, dollar anti LDL-cholesterol drug. Ranbaxy was challenging the validity of Pfizer’s intellectual property estate for Lipitor which would have extended patent protection for the drug until 2013 or longer. The patent dispute began after Ranbaxy filled an ANDA with the US Food and Drug Administration to sell generic Lipitor after uncontested Lipitor patents expire in early 2010.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Pfizer would ultimately lose the patent dispute and that Ranbaxy would be able to immediately flood the market with a much cheaper generic version of Lipitor. This would have an enormous negative impact on Pfizer’s financial stability and its future (Lipitor had $12.8 billion in sales in 2007). Nevertheless, untilDaiicho-Sankyo announced its intention to acquire Ranbaxy last week, Pfizer was willing to gamble and run the risk of losing the lawsuit. Apparently, Ranbaxy impending sale was enough of an impetus for Pfizer to settle the patent dispute which has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past year or so.

According to agreement (which needs to be approved by the US Federal Trade Commission), Pfizer was able to get Ranbaxy  to agree to delay the release of generic Lipitor until November 2011 — up to 20 months later than many analysts had been expecting (some insiders believed that generic Lipitor could reach the market as early as March 2010). Further, as part of the agreement, Pfizer will allow Ranbaxy to sell its version of Lipitor in Australia, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden two to four months before Liptor’s patents expire. This is likely the sweet part of the deal for Ranbaxy because all of the above mentioned markets are top sellers for anti-cholesterol drugs. Finally, because Ranbaxy was the first to file an ANDA for generic Lipitor with the FDA, it will get 6 months of market exclusivity guaranteed (in the Hatch Waxman Act) to a generic manufacturer that is first to file for generic production of a brand name drug nearing patent expiry.   However, after quickly perusing the terms of the deal, I think that it more closely resembles an authorized generics deal rather than a “true” competitive generics launch.

Currently, Lipitor costs about $2.50 to $3 a day. Analysts predict that Ranbaxy can sell its generic Lipitor for about 75 cents to $1 a day, or as low as 10 cents a day at some discount pharmacies. The potential drastic price reduction coupled with Daiichi-Sankyo’s intention to purchase Ranbaxy (which would have provided Ranbaxy with more money underwrite and press on with IP lawsuit, it what I believe forced Pfizer’s hand to act as quickly as it did to settle the suit. The deal, if approved, allows Pfizer to dodge a near fatal financial bullet and will provide it with a potentially lucrative revenue stream from it authorized generics deal that it struck with Ranbaxy. 

Nevertheless, given the financial stakes associated with the Lipitor franchise, it may make more sense for Pfizer to purchase Ranbaxy rather than enter into the pending deal. Also, a Ranbaxy purchase would allow Pfizer to enter the biologics and biotechnology fields—something that Pfizer executives have been talking about publicly to insure the company’s future. Like most other pharmaceutical generics manufacturers, Ranbaxy has active research programs on biosimilar and other biotechnology products. If I was driving the boat at Pfizer I would offer Ranbaxy a lucrative counteroffer to block its sale to Daiichi-Sankyo. I don’t know—the deal just makes sense to me. That said, not many recruiters have been calling me about CEO jobs lately!!!!!!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

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
• Share Link

The first biosimilar version of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) received a positive opinion from EMEA last month.  The European commission is expected to grant marketing approval for the product in the EU. The product, developed by Israel-based Teva, a global generics manufacturer, will be sold under the brand name TevaGrastim. The company is seeking EU approval for TevaGrastim a as treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.  

Amgen’s Neupogen, the innovator product, yields annual revenues of approximately $300 million in the EU. Teva hopes to cash in on a piece of that action. It appears that biosimilars are alive, well and making money in Europe!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Despite what the American public has been led to believe, the scientific, regulatory and safety issues related to biogenerics aka follow-on biologics, biosimilars, or subsequent entry biologics have been clearly investigated and are no longer controversial issues. All of the aforementioned "issues" have been analyzed and carefully vetted. This allowed EMEA, the European Medicines Agency in 2006 to craft a comprehensive regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars. For those of you who may not know, several biosimilar products are currently are the market and sold in all European Union member states. This begs the question–what is taking the US so long?

From the beginning, big pharma and big biotech have unequivocally and steadfastly opposed any legislation that would allow biogenerics to be approved and sold in the US. The trade groups BIO and PhRMA have literally spent millions of dollars lobbying members of Congress to oppose any legislation that would allow approval of biogenerics in the US. Now, in a sudden and unprecedented about face, big biotech and pharma have thrown their collective weight behind proposed biogenerics legislation that will be introduced in the near future by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

As far as I can tell, the primary reason for this sea change is the market exclusivity that may be afforded to innovator companies by the legislation. A quick perusal of the bill reveals that innovator companies will be granted 12-year market exclusivity for a product after its initial licensure. Further, under certain circumstances, this period of market exclusivity for an innovator product may be extended to 14.5 years. Also, reference product sponsors (innovator companies), as well as interested third parties (most notably universities) that own patents on the reference product may sue a biogeneric applicant for patent infringement. Under certain circumstances, such litigation could delay or prevent approval of the biogeneric product.

So what does the proposed legislation mean for biogeneric manufacturers seeking regulatory approval for their products in the US?  Unfortunately, it means that a biogeneric product application may not be approved or made effective until 12 to14 years after the original date of licensure of the innovator (reference) product. It also opens the door for patent litigation against biogeneric manufacturers to hinder or delay approval of their products. In my opinion, the proposed legislation is extremely one-sided and biased toward innovator companies. More importantly, it seems to me that the real intent of the legislation is to discourage (rather than encourage) biogeneric manufacturers from seeking US approval for their products, i.e. there are no real financial incentives or inducements for these manufacturers to seek approval because of the excessively-long market exclusivity period for innovator products.

On the surface, the proposed legislation would appear to be a long sought victory for biogeneric advocates and the American public which would benefit from less costly versions of potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. That said, it seems to me that the proposed legislation is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt by big biotech and pharma to placate biogeneric advocates and the American public. In reality, the legislation provides innovators companies with a legally-binding regulatory approval pathway that will allow them to maintain or extend their monopolistic stranglehold on blockbuster biotechnology products. I think that the US Congress can do better when it comes to biogeneric legislation–the American public not only deserves it but demands it!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (5)
• Share Link

The Bush administration's proposed 2009 fiscal year budget for the FDA includes not only a 5.7 percent increase but a plan to seek authority to allow the agency to approve abbreviated applications for follow-on biologics.

As part of the budget package, the administration said it is seeking regulatory authority for the FDA to approve follow-on biologics, also called biosimilars or biogenerics, which would be financed through user fees.

The House and the Senate both introduced follow-on biologics legislation in 2007, with the Senate's bill moving the furthest by achieving passage by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Lawmakers have pledged to move the legislation forward in 2008.

Jim Greenwood, CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), said "BIO strongly believes that the FDA should have a pathway for the approval of follow-on biologics, which protects patient safety and promotes continued innovation," Greenwood added that "The creation of a pathway for follow-on biologics is a top legislative priority for BIO, and we are meeting with members of the House and Senate to encourage them to consider and pass follow-on biologics legislation this session." This is quite a policy turnaround for BIO which over the past 8 years has spent tens of millions or more lobbying against allowing follow-on biologics in the US.

Even more shocking than the BIO turn around, was the first ever plea last week by the Whitehouse to pass legislation to craft legislation to create a regulatory approval pathway for follow-on biologics-what’s up with that? I guess Bush and his big biotech buddies finally realized that large sums of money can be made in the follow-on biologics/biogenerics business. This possibility was not lost on the Europeans, who created a regulatory pathway for approval of biosimilars (what follow-on biologics are called in Europe) several years ago! Biosimilars are already on the European market–who said that Europeans were less entrepreneurial than Americans?

Contrary to statements made by FDA officials last week, which suggested that FDA would craft the follow-on biologics legislation, it now appears that FDA will  work closely with Congress to draft a legislative proposal for approval of  follow-on biologics. I don’t think that Congress’s involvement is a good idea given the political wrangling, deal-making and concessions that must be made in order to get legislation passed. As the old adage goes, something is better than nothing.

It looks as though follow-on biologics may become a reality in the US. As I mentioned in previous posts, I don’t think Americans will see follow-on biologics on the market before 2010 or 2011. That said, it gives us Americans something to look forward to!

Until next time…

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

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

As the debate continues to rage in the US about how to regulate biogeneric drugs, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has given the go-ahead to Hospira and Stada to sell their copycat version of Johnson & Johnson's anemia drug Procrit.

The European Commission approved Retacrit (epoetin zeta), a biosimilar version of erythropoietin (EPO), to treat anemia associated with chronic renal failure and chemotherapy. EMEA regulators determined that the drug was comparable in efficacy and safety to Procrit.

The EPO market is a large one and more than 250,000 patients in Europe are estimated to be treated with epoetin alfa, which is marketed under various brand names, Procrit (JNJ; US), Eprex (JNJ; Europe) and Epogen (Amgen; US). Worldwide annual sales of EPO drugs are estimated at more than $7 billion, $600 million of which comes from Europe.

The approval for Retacrit comes some three months after Novartis’ generics unit Sandoz got the first go-ahead in Europe to develop its version of epoetin alfa. Sales of Retracrit will begin in Germany in early 2008.

When are American pharmaceutical and biotechnology executives going to wake up and realize that they will lose millions in revenue to biosimilar competition?  I think the old adage; “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is apt when talking about the biogenerics industry.

Until next time…

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

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