As Expected: the Debate Over Follow-on Biologics Legislation Hinges on Data Exclusivity

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!!!!!!!!

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

 

Congrats to INSMED...I Think!

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!!!!!!

Japan's Daiichi Sankyo Co Buy's Generic Manufacturer Ranbaxy

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!!!!!

Who's Who in the Biosimilar Space?

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

Company

Launched Biosimilars

In the Pipeline

Barr                                                          (www.barr.com)

EPO scheduled for launch in Eastern Europe

G-CSF (Filgastrim), Insulin, and HGH

Biocon                                          (www.bioconinc.com)

Insugen (Insulin in India and China), Erypro (EPO) G-CSF, Nimotruzmab, BIOMAb EGFR (cancer)

Insulin, glargine and HGH

Biopartners                             (www.biopartners.ch)

Valtropin (rHGH)

Alpheon (INF-α) and EPO

Cipla                                                   (www.cipla.com)

None

Autoimmune, cancer and cardiovascular

Dr. Reddy’s Labs                       (www.drreddys.com)

G-CSF (Filgastrim)

Nine (9) development programs

Glenmark                  (www.glenmarkpharma.com)

None

GBR 500 (mAb for MS), GBR600 (antithrombotic) and mAbs for adhesion molecular inhibitors

Intas Biopharma (www.intasbiopharma.com)

Neukine (G-CSF), Erykine (EPO) and Intalfa (INF-alpha2b)

Six (6) development programs

Prolong Pharmaceuticals (www.prolongpharmaceuticals.com)

None

PEG-EPO and other PEGylated proteins

Ranbaxy

(www.ranbaxy.com)

Nugraf (Filgrastim), Macrogen (Molgramostim from Zenotech)

mAbs in oncology and neurology

Sandoz

(www.sandoz.com)

Omnitrope (HGH), Binocrit (EPO)

Six (6) development programs including G-CSF (Filgrastim)

Shanta Biotechnics                              (www.shantabio.com)

Shaferon (INF-alpha2b, Shankinase (streptokinase) and Shanpoietin (EPO)

mAbs and PEGylated therapeutic proteins

Stada                                               (www.stada.de)

EPO-Zeta (approved)

Filgrastim

Teva                                           (www.tevapharma.com)

G-CSF (Filagstrim),Teva-Tropin (HGH), INF-alpha2b

Insulin, EPO and interleukins

Wockhardt                             (www.wockhardt.com)

Wepo (EPO), Wosulin (insulin) INF-alpha2b, G-CSF

Insulin Glargine

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!!!!!!!!!

Novartis to Build New Biomanufacturing Facility in Singapore

Novartis announced late last year that it intends to invest about $700 million to build a new biomanufacturing facility in Singapore. Construction will begin in early in 2008 and the plant is expected to be fully-operational by 2012. The new cell culture production facility will employ approximately 300 people and support manufacturing of both clinical and commercially-available products, mostly monoclonal antibodies.

At present, biologics and protein-based biotechnology products represent about 25% of Novartis’ drug pipeline. Most of these products are owned and manufactured by Novartis’ wholly owned subsidiary .

You gotta tip your hat to Singapore—their government-sanctioned plan to invest billions of dollars into biomedical research seems to be paying off!

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Singapore)!!!!!!

A Second Biosimilar Version of EPO Gets Approved in Europe

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!!!!!!!!

Finally-A Reality Check at Momenta Pharmaceuticals

The Massachusetts-based biotechnology company, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, announced late yesterday that FDA refused to approve its ANDA filing for M-Enoxaparin, a generic version of Sanofi-Aventis' Lovenox®. The agency cited that Momenta had failed to provide data in its application on the potential immunogenicity of M-Enoxaparin. I find this oversight to be extremely perplexing because Momenta’s management team had to know that regulatory approval of a product –considered to be a follow-on biologic (M-Enoxaparin is a synthetic version of low molecular weight heparin which is a polysaccharide) – would require a rigorous assessment of the product's  potential immunogenicity. If Momenta did not know about the immunogenicity requirements, then Sandoz (its co-development partner) had to be keenly aware of them because Sandoz had to provide immunogenicity data to FDA to garner approval last year of Omnitrope®, a follow-on version of human recombinant growth hormone (rHGH).

Although FDA’s refusal to approve M-Enoxaprin is a setback for the follow-on biologics movement in the US, it is about time, in my opinion, that Momenta’s stock price truly reflects the real market value of the company. Much to my surprise, Momenta’s stock price was over $30 a share about two years ago– presumably founded in the notion that the company’s innovative carbohydrate technology platform could be used to create a generic version of Sanofi’s multi billion dollar a year Lovenox® . I have no doubt that Momenta’s technology platform is one of the more innovative ones in the carbohydrate synthesis biz. However, as a former employee of 2 biotech companies founded on revolutionary carbohydrate synthesis platforms, I think that Momenta’s elevated stock price had more to do with the pedigree of scientists who started the company and the ROI that these scientists previously provided to the VCs who are currently backing Momenta. Further, cutting a deal with Sandoz, a company whose name is now synonymous with follow-on biologics may also have contributed to the elevated stock price.

If I was one of Momenta 100 or so employees I would be dusting off that resume right about now.

Unitl next time....

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