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 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

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

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