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

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

Rumor has it that Pfizer may offer a counteroffer to acquire India-based generics manufacturer Ranbaxy. As you may recall, Japan’s Daiichi Sankyo agreed earlier in the week to pay about $4.6 billion for a controlling interest in Ranbaxy. According to reports many analysts expect Pfizer to attempt to queer to the Daiichi-Ranbaxy deal because “it is battling Ranbaxy in about 18 countries on patent rights of Lipitor, the largest selling cholesterol drug in the world. Lipitor has annual sales of $13 billion. In most countries the patent on the drug will expire starting 2011.”  Ranbaxy has won favorable court decisions on Lipitor in many countries including in the US, the largest drug market in the world, which accounts for 28 per cent of the global generic market estimated at $72 billion.

I tend to agree with the pundits. Pfizer has a lousy pipeline and its recent clinical trial record is horrendous. Consequently, the company must hang on (as long as possible and at any cost) to its blockbuster brands to avoid financial ruin.

Stay tuned for late-breaking news and updates!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Daiichi Sankyo will buy a controlling interest (50.1%) of Ranbaxy, India’s third largest generic manufacturer.  Daiichi will pay as much as $4.6 billion for the opportunity.

The deal will put Daiichi Sankyo into ninth place in the $120 billion generic-drug market behind leaders Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Novartis AG's Sandoz unit. According to the report “Daiichi Sankyo is mimicking strategies pursued by Novartis and Johnson & Johnson to weather turbulence in the branded-drug industry by diversifying into other markets. The acquisition also gives the Japanese company more reach in emerging regions including India, China and Eastern Europe. “

I think after this deal, that other pharmaceutical companies may consider buying profitable generics businesses. I am not sure why it has taken innovator companies so long to realize that it is much easier to join (buy??) rather than compete with generic manufacturers. It just seems so obvious to me—and I don’t even have an MBA!  Maybe there is some truth to the age-old aphorism “missing the forest for the trees.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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