ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Biosimilars are back… Or are they?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



As blockbuster drugs go off patent, the pharmaceutical industry is scrambling for fresh revenue sources. Follow-on versions of biologics, or “biosimilars,” are being pitched as BigPharma’s saving grace. One question remains unaddressed in the discussion: is anyone actually planning on selling biosimilars in the United States?

What are biosimilars?

Biosimilars are a new class of protein-based biologic drugs intended to serve as a replacement for existing biologic medicines when those original drugs go off patent. Biologic drugs include insulin, human growth hormone, monoclonal antibodies and other therapies for such difficult-to-treat illnesses as rheumatoid arthritis, cancer and Crohn’s. Though designed to work similarly to their biologic predecessors, they are not “generic” despite some politicians and journalists’ use of the term. The closest they will ever get to generic is to be deemed “interchangeable” once they have been approved via a pathway such as the one envisioned in the 2010 Health Reform Law, but that pathway does not yet exist.

Given the current state of scientific development, we rarely succeed in replicating proteins’ complex folding and unfolding processes under the best conditions: biologic companies have a hard enough time proving equivalence between batches of the same medication, even though they themselves hold all of the intellectual property and often use the exact same equipment and scientists. (see Genzyme’s Fabrazyme, which is once again experiencing quality control problems, for an example).

For biosimilars, we depend instead on a more nuanced determination: are they similar enough for the second drug to be considered a follow-on (a continuation) of the original drug? A few differences here and there are permissible, but does the new drug basically do the same thing the old drug did? If so, we can call them similar and permit the new drug to enter the market under the biosimilar designation.

Why do they matter?

Given these complexities, why are these drugs so important? First, they represent big money for pharmaceutical companies, and potential cost savings for governments, insurance providers and patients.

We know the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeks to regulate them: earlier this year it requested $124 million of the 2012 budget to develop a biosimilar approval pathway and on August 4th it released a report in the New England Journal of Medicine sketching its plans. It seems American insurers are concerned about covering them: that same day, a survey by Decision Resources indicated major hesitation among surveyed payers over approving complex biosimilar drugs such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), saying they would need more data to prescribe such medications than the FDA plans to request.

Will we ever get them?

For insight, I turned to Novel Health Strategies consultant Dr. Saurabh Aggarwal. After years as a lab researcher, Dr. Aggarwal now advises both biologic innovator and biosimilar companies on the economics of market entry.

According to Aggarwal, the FDA is already planning to require too much data for biosimilars to succeed in the US. “For biosimilars to be successful, the amount of data required from a regulatory standpoint cannot be as onerous as that required to get a pioneer biologic approved.” Even then, there is no guarantee that the drug will be successful. “Look at Europe: biosimilars have a relatively easier pathway, yet they have only been successful in Germany and the UK.” In Europe, not only are regulations less strict than those in the United States, but an EMA approval permits full interchangeability with the reference product. This means pharmacies can exchange the drug for the patented name-brand version without needing doctor or patient approval.

Pathway to nowhere?

Given that the US biosimilar approval pathway as now imagined does not anticipate full interchangeability, is US biosimilar development doomed before it begins? According to Aggarwal, quite possibly. “The fact is, you need interchangeability in the label to succeed. The amount of investment you need to obtain that designation – there is no financial model that would make the case to conduct those studies.”

Dr. Aggarwal is far from optimistic that a biosimilar would be designated as interchangeable with its reference drug, despite the fact that previous proteins have been in Europe. “The way the current biosimilars provision is written, if you want interchangeability to be on the label, you need clinical studies to show that you can replace the branded product. Step into the shoes of any of the current companies considering biosimilar development. You can use the analogy that biosimilar developers are like generic manufacturers, so their estimate of what they can invest is maybe 5-10 million dollars. The FDA approval pathway as explained so far would require far more than that.”

Recent EMA guidelines on biosimilar mAbs development replace interchangeability with a lesser requirement that a biosimilar antibody simply not be more harmful than the reference antibody. Though the EMA guidelines still require clinical trials, including safety trials, the EMA guideline is still a lesser standard than that for a pioneer biologic, and a lesser standard than industry groups have proposed here in the US. The EMA Guideline states that “[t]he focus of the biosimilarity exercise is to demonstrate similar efficacy and safety compared to the reference product, not patient benefit per se, which has already been established by the reference product.” Hence, differences will be tolerated on a case-by-case basis, as long as the biosimilar is exactly that: similar.

Given the fact that payers have already expressed such a lesser standard will not be accepted here, and considering the expense associated with proving interchangeability, why would a biosimilar company seek a US FDA interchangeability designation in the first place? Dr. Aggarwal opines that there is no other way to profit from the US market. “Take a scenario where no one gets interchangeability. Then the pathway has biosimilars that aren’t interchangeable. If the FDA says they’re not interchangeable, then doctors don’t want to use it and payers don’t want to pay because they’re worried that if something were to happen they couldn’t support the use of those products.”

They’re working elsewhere, why not here?

Across the world, government and payer demand for biosimilars keeps growing, as everyone seeks ways to cut the cost of healthcare. According to Dr. Aggarwal, those macroeconomic conditions will create the market for biosimilars. “If you look at branded products, the more aggressive they get in their price, including the aggressive pricing biologics companies have set in China, Spain and Italy, the more payers are looking to save costs by looking at biosimilars.” The pressure is on for regulators to create incentives and minimize confusion for uptake of these products. “In the UK and Germany, many of those people have used biosimilar CSF and EPO [erythropoietin] and there have been no adverse reports.  They have so well endorsed and used; why can’t Spain, France, Italy or the US do the same?”

One reason that we are not doing the same might be that the large, influential companies here in the US still have major branded biologics in the pipeline. Hence, these bigger players are waiting and watching while they lobby to protect their branded interests, which are far more profitable at present than any risky foray into biosimilars. Current budgets for lobbying Capitol Hill on behalf of these companies’ branded biologics are equal or greater to their entire budgets for US biosimilar development.

Add generic drug lobbying to that mix: earlier this year, CVS Caremark and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) filed a statement denouncing what they saw as the existing biosimilar provision’s twelve years of “market exclusivity,” finding the lack of distinction between data and market exclusivity in the law ambiguous enough for attack. This has reignited an impassioned debate about the biosimilars provision in President Obama’s 2010 Health Reform Law: did the legislative drafters intend to grant pioneer biologics developers twelve years of data exclusivity, or of market exclusivity, or of both? Yet according to Aggarwal, biologics companies and biosimilars companies are not making strategic business decisions based on the period of data exclusivity, market exclusivity or any non-patent exclusivity. They are making decisions based on the science.

Will science rule the day?

As a scientist by training, Aggarwal thinks we are ready to create biosimilars that will meet all parties’ stringent criteria. He sees labs using sufficient techniques and analytical methods to perform reasonable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies and sufficiently characterize the relevant proteins and their functions. “There are two schools of thought: one that you cannot say A is similar to B and thus interchangeable; and one that yes, based on available analytical methods, you can say that. Based on my hands-on background in the lab, I am in the latter school of thought.” According to Dr. Aggarwal, “the tide is turning” for biosimilars; we just need to create a legislative pathway that is in line with clinical and scientific data. “There is a market for biosimilars, but we have to create a reasonable legislative pathway that is not biased toward whichever lobbying group has more of a voice on Capitol Hill.” Given the range of concerns expressed by regulators and payers, the future of the biosimilars market depends on Aggarwal being right.

Biologic drugs include insulin, human growth hormone, monoclonal antibodies and other therapies for such difficult-to-treat illnesses as rheumatoid arthritis, cancer and Crohn’s.
Khadijah Britton About the Author: Khadijah M. Britton, JD, is founder of BetterBio, a Massachusetts-registered nonprofit and fiscally sponsored project of the 501(c)(3) Fractured Atlas whose mission is to empower journalism that reinforces the intimate connection between life and science. BetterBio provides a platform for comprehensive science reporting, challenging us to ask hard questions and debunk dangerous myths while addressing our collective social responsibility. Khadijah also serves as Chief Communications Officer for the Open Science Alliance and 2011 Open Science Summit. She has recently relocated to Washington, DC and is excited to be at the heart of US health and science policy. Follow on Twitter @KMBTweets.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.






Comments 8 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Andrew Maynard 5:45 pm 08/7/2011

    Interesting review of the current state of biosimilar regulation in the US and how it impacts on development. Would be interested in knowing more about the IP minefiled when it comes to biosimilars – you indicate that they are a potentially simple(er) route to big pharma maintaining IP rights in a product area, but what are the barriers and opportunities to other companies bringing out biosimilars based on a competitor’s product?

    Link to this
  2. 2. jeffcutler 6:40 pm 08/7/2011

    OK. The issues I see here – as a consumerist, a sometimes critical thinker, someone with a chronic illness, a staunch supporter of copyright and IP, and a believer in business success – are that people need drugs; businesses need to make money; IP needs fair protection; patients need affordable medicines; and support businesses need to survive.

    That said, I think we’re lost in the semantic terminology. Once a drug becomes part of the open landscape after a period of time (not sure if it’s 7 or 11 years or some other period), then competition can generate similar drugs based on what they know of that first drug. They can do it for a far lower price. They can likely do it to produce effective and desired medications. So, there we have bio similars that do the job, cost less and help keep the competitive landscape alive.

    Is there a problem with that? Do we need full interchangeability of drugs so that only one pharma group can own the playground ball? I don’t think so. While I am on many medications, the only one that is still alone in the market without a similar or interchangable product is Remicade. I’ve been on it for years and it’s the only drug that constantly gets extra attention from my healthcare provider.

    They don’t care about my other drugs and I can ask for name brand or generics when it pertains to any other prescription. But when my regular Remicade infusion comes up, the insurer scrutinizes the order and the reasoning behind the procedure.

    As a patient and as someone who thinks business at all levels should have at least some degree of common sense, it’s time we trash the semantic crap and look at how badly companies will get hurt if their proprietary products are at some point replicated or confronted with an interchangeable drug.

    Once we do that, and think about the reason we have science and medicine in the first place (for the good of humankind, I thought), then we’re all going to be in a better place.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Elaine Schattner 8:36 pm 08/7/2011

    Thanks for covering this topic, Khadijah. While “biosimilars” may prove useful and cost-saving, the problem is they’re likely to vary among drugs and classes of drugs. Do we have the resources to test each, adequately, for its quality and capacity to reproduce the effects of a patented med?

    Link to this
  4. 4. Monotreme 8:45 pm 08/7/2011

    I have been uncomfortable for a long time with the prices charged for biologics. For example, Dr. Jen Gunter has covered the high price (unjustified, I believe) of the drug Synagis™ (palivizumab):

    http://www.preemieprimer.com/tag/synagis/

    A similar situation exists for Makena™

    http://www.preemieprimer.com/tag/makena/

    If drug companies had not engaged in predatory pricing for these biologics, then the drivers behind massive cost increases would be reduced.

    Having said that, I think that a change in patent law is called for, and I would support starting the “patent clock” at the time the drug is first marketed, not when it enters Phase I clinical trials. (I may be wrong about this, but I am doing this from memory.)

    @7synapses

    Link to this
  5. 5. capratt 10:20 pm 08/7/2011

    Fantastic post! I had absolutely no idea about the topic, but I happen to be hanging out with a pharmacist, and your post sparked some serious discussion and subsequent googling. From a superficial standpoint (which is all I can really offer without some more reading) it seems to me that the only debate surrounding the use of biosimilars is financial (maybe somewhat political, also). That they have equal efficacy and are cheaper to produce naturally puts a knot in big pharma’s knickers. However, what’s stopping the big drug companies making their own biosimiliars? That way they would be able to tap both the brand-name-conscious-doctors-and-patients-of-America market, and the patients-who-are-strapped-for-cash-but-desperately-need-medical-care market? Is there a law I don’t know about that prevents this?

    Link to this
  6. 6. criener 11:35 am 08/8/2011

    My question is similar to capratt’s:
    If developing biosimilars is driven by patent law, and not therapeutic effectiveness, then it strikes me as a problem. This could represent a redirecting of R&D money into making biologics that are equivalent therapeutically, but not under patent law. In other words, the drugs don’t work any better, but they allow the companies to continue to claim a name brand.
    Enough of R&D is already subsumed into marketing departments, this seems like another straw on the camels back. Big Pharma can try to make money by making better, more effective drugs, or by other means. Full court press marketing to doctors, federal lobbying, and gaming patent law don’t strike me as good applications of science. If anything, it makes people more cynical of the efforts of those in research medicine to actually improve the lives of patients.

    Link to this
  7. 7. MD@GaBIonline 9:27 am 08/9/2011

    Sorry to be pedantic, but in Europe interchangeability of biosimilars is not automatic.

    The EMA does not have the authority to designate biosimilars as being interchangeable with the reference product. This job is left to each respective country.

    Although many things—including regulations for licensing of biosimilars—are harmonised within the EU, the attitude towards biosimilars and their substitution within the different countries of the EU varies widely.

    In fact in Germany and the UK, although biosimilars are well accepted, automatic substitution is not allowed.

    See: http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/Research/Interchangeability-or-substitution-of-biosimilars/(highlight)/interchangeability
    and
    http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/Research/Biosimilar-substitution-in-the-EU/(highlight)/biosimilar%20substitution

    Link to this
  8. 8. borhani 11:35 pm 08/9/2011

    I think the emphasis placed on interchangeability—as opposed to the lower bar of biosimilarity—is misplaced. I am a pharmaceutical researcher with over 20 years experience in the discovery, characterization, and development of both small molecule drugs and biologics. In terms of complexity, there is simply no comparison between the two. The ~100-fold difference in size of traditional (small molecule) drugs and biologics presents numerous subtle (and often incompletely known or characterized) scientific issues that make registration of a generic biologic—declaring to be both safe and effective, as well as “equivalent”—very difficult. The FDA (and EMEA) are struggling with these issues.

    In concert with recent legislation, the FDA is working hard to lay out a route for registration of biosimilar, in addition to interchangeable, follow-on generic biologics. The distinction is this: a biosimilar generic could be prescribed for a patient who had never used the brand-name (innovator) drug (e.g., the anti-TNF antibody Humira, used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions). The expectation is that the biosimilar would perform as well as, and would be as safe as, the original drug. An interchangeable generic, by contrast, could be prescribed to a patient *already taking the original drug*, and that patient would suffer no ill effect from switching between the two versions—the original, and the “interchangeable” generic—of the biologic. This is indeed a higher bar. Nonetheless, the lower biosimilar bar (representing a large market) is written into law as well.

    These concepts are recently discussed in an article published by FDA scientists (Kozlowski et al. (2011) New Engl. J. Med. 365: 385.). They stated:

    ‘Under the BPCI Act, biosimilars will also have the opportunity to meet a higher standard of similarity to a reference product — “interchangeability,” reflecting
    an FDA assessment that pharmacists can make substitutions between biologics without the prescriber’s intervention. A biologic will be considered interchangeable with a reference product
    if the developer demonstrates that it can be expected to produce the same clinical result in any given patient and that the risk associated with alternating
    or switching between the two products is not greater than that involved in continuing to use the reference product.’

    The FDA is being appropriately cautious, I believe, for the benefit of all Americans. Ensure safety first; then efficacy; and lastly promote cost savings where possible.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X