Tag Archives: Biologic

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

Novel biologic medicines have unlocked a new frontier offering more effective treatment for a host of chronic and life-threatening diseases, such as varieties of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, to name just a few. However, these drugs being hugely expensive, many patients do not have any access, or adequate access, to them. According to the Biosimilar Council of GPhA, only 50 percent of severe Rheumatoid Arthritis patients receive biologic medicines, even in the United States, Europe and Japan, leave aside India.

Realizing the gravity of this situation, a need to develop high quality, reasonably affordable and similar to original biologic brands, was felt about ten years ago. These were intended to be launched immediately after patent expiry of the original biologic. Such medicines are termed as biosimilar drugs. It is worth noting, even biosimilar drug development involves complex manufacturing processes and handling, while dealing with derivatives of highly sensitive living organisms.

The regulatory approval process of these drugs is also very stringent, which demands robust clinical data, demonstrating high similarity, both in effectiveness and safety profile, to original biologic brands, known as the reference product. The clinical data requirements for all new biosimilars include data on patients switching from the originator’s brand, and also between other biosimilars. Clinical evidences such as these, are expected to provide enough confidence to physicians for use of these products.

An article published in the PharmaTimes magazine in January 2016, reiterated that over the last couple of years, a wealth of supporting data has been published in medical journals and presented at global congresses, including real-world data of patients who have been switched to the new drug from the originator. This has led to a positive change in physician and patient attitudes towards biosimilars.

The good news is, besides many other regulated markets, as of May 2017, five biosimilar drugs have been approved even by the US-FDA, and several others are in the pipeline of its approval process.

That said, in this article I shall mainly focus on the two key barriers for improving patient access to biosimilar drugs, as I see it.

Two major barriers and their impact:

As I see it, there appear to be the following two key barriers for more affordable biosimilar drugs coming into the market, improving patients’ access to these important biologic medicines:

  • The first barrier involves fierce legal resistance from the original biologic manufacturers of the world, on various grounds, resisting entry of biosimilar varieties of their respective brands. This compels the biosimilar drug manufacturers incurring heavy expenditure on litigation, adding avoidable cost. A glimpse of this saga, we are ‘privy’ to witness even in India, while following Roche versus Biocon and Mylan case related to ‘Trastuzumab’. This barrier is one of the most basic types, that delays biosimilar drug entry depriving many new patients to have access to lower priced effective biologic for the treatment of serious diseases.
  • The other major barrier that exists today, involves ‘interchangeability’ of original biologic with biosimilar drugs. It simple means that in addition to being highly similar, a biosimilar drug manufacturer would require producing indisputable clinical evidence that it gives the same result for any given patient just as the original biologic. We shall discuss the reason behind this regulatory requirement later in this article. However, this is an expensive process, and the absence of it creates a barrier, making the physicians hesitant to switch all those existing patients who are on expensive original biologic drugs with less expensive available biosimilar alternatives.

The first or the initial barrier:

The first or the initial barrier predominantly involves patent related legal disputes, that can only be settled in a court of law and after incurring heavy expenditure towards litigation. Provided, of course, the dispute is not mutually resolved, or the law makers do not amend the law.

An interesting case in India:

Interestingly, in India, a similar dispute has knocked the doors of both the high court and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). From a common man’s perspective, it appears to me that the laws under which these two institutions will approach this specific issue are seemingly conflicting in nature. This is because, while the patent law encourages no market competition or a monopoly situation for a patented product, competition law encourages more market competition among all related products. Nonetheless, in this specific case CCI is reportedly investigating on the alleged ‘abuse of the regulatory process’, as it has opined ‘abuse of regulatory process can constitute an abuse of dominance under the (CCI) Act.’                                                                                            

The second barrier:

I am not going to discuss in this article the relevance of this barrier, in detail. Nevertheless, this one is also apparently equally tough to comply with. The very fact that none out of five biosimilar drugs approved in the United States, so far, has been considered ‘interchangeable’ by the US-FDA, vindicates the point.

That this specific regulatory demand is tough to comply with, is quite understandable from the requirements of the US-FDA in this regard, which goes as follows:

“To support a demonstration of interchangeability, the data and information submitted to FDA must show that a proposed interchangeable product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient. Also, for products that will be administered more than once, the data and information must show that switching a patient back and forth between the reference product and the proposed interchangeable product presents no greater risk to the patient in terms of safety or diminished efficacy when compared to treating them with the reference product continuously.”

The reasoning of innovative biologic drug makers:

On this subject, the stand taken by different innovative drug makers is the same. To illustrate the point, let me quote just one of them. It basically sates, while biosimilar drugs are highly similar to the original medicine, the patient’s immune system may react differently due to slight differences between the two medicines when they are alternated or switched multiple times. This phenomenon, known as immunogenicity, is not a common occurrence, though. But there have been rare instances when very small differences between biologic medicines have caused immune system reactions that changed the way a medicine was metabolized, or reduced its effectiveness.

It further reiterates, the US-FDA requirements to establish ‘interchangeability’ between a biosimilar drug and the original one, or between biosimilars may seem like nuances, but are important because ‘interchangeability’ allows pharmacists to substitute biosimilars without consulting the doctor or patient first.

It may, therefore, indicate to many that innovative biologic drug manufacturers won’t want substitution of their expensive biologic with more affordable biosimilar drugs, on the ground of patient safety issues related to immunogenicity, though its instances are rather uncommon.

Some key players in biosimilar drug development:

Having deliberated on the core subject of this article, let me now very briefly name the major players in biosimilar drug development, both in the developed world, and also in India.

The first biosimilar drug was approved by the US-FDA in 2006, and the product was Omnitrope (somatropin) of Novartis (Sandoz). It was the same in the European Union (EU), as well. Subsequently, many other companies reportedly expressed interest in this field, across the globe, including Pfizer, Merck, Johnson and Johnson, Amgen, AbbVie, Hospira, AstraZeneca and Teva, among many others.

Similarly, in India, the major players in this field include, Biocon, Sun Pharma, Shantha Biotech, Dr. Reddy’s Lab, Zydus Cadila, Panacea Biotech and Reliance Life Sciences.

As featured on the Amgen website, given the complexity and cost of development and manufacturing, biosimilars are expected to be more affordable therapeutic options, but are not expected to generate the same level of cost savings as generics. This is because, a biosimilar will cost US$100 to US$200 million and take eight to ten years to develop. Whereas, a small molecule generic will cost US$1 to US$5 million and take three to five years to develop.

The market:

According to the 2017 report titled “Biosimilar Market: Global Industry Analysis, Trends, Market Size & Forecasts to 2023” of Research and Markets, the market size of the global biosimilar market was valued over US$ 2.5 billion during 2014, and it surpassed US$ 3.30 billion during 2016. The global biosimilar market is projected to surpass US$ 10.50 billion by 2023, growing with a CAGR between 25.0 percent and 26.0 percent from 2017 to 2023.

According to this report, gradually increasing awareness, doctors’ confidence and the lower drug cost are expected to boost the demand and drive the growth of the global biosimilar market during the forecast period. Segments related to diabetes medicine and oncology are expected to attain faster growth during the forecast period. Patent expiry of several blockbuster drugs is a major basic factor for growth of the global biosimilar market, as it may encourage the smaller manufacturers to consider producing such biologic drugs in those segments.

Conclusion:

Biosimilar drugs are expected to benefit especially many of those patients who can’t afford high cost biologic medicines offering better treatment outcomes than conventional drugs, in the longer term. These drugs are now being used to effectively manage and treat many chronic and life-threatening illnesses, such cardiac conditions, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, HIV/AIDS and cancer.

However, improving patient access to high quality biosimilar drugs, at an affordable price, with increasing competition, could be a challenge, as two key barriers are envisaged to attain this goal. Overcoming these meaningfully, I reckon, will involve choosing thoughtfully a middle path, creating a win-win situation, both for the patients, as well as the industry.

Adequate competition in the biologic drug market is essential – not only among high-priced original biologic brands and biosimilars, but also between biosimilar drugs. This is so important to increase patient access to biologic drugs, in general, across the world, including India.

The current situation demands a sense of urgency in searching for a middle path, which may be created either through a legal framework, or any other effective means as would deem fair and appropriate, without compromising with patient safety, at least, from where it is today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on by
Reply

Is criticizing pharma now just a fad of its stakeholders? Fathoming the right answer to this seemingly simple question may not be too easy, either, for some. The task could even be more onerous, especially when the global ‘researched based’ pharma and biotech companies, well chorused by their trade associations, are exerting serious efforts to garner the much required trust of all stakeholders on their ‘patient centric’ focus in the process of transacting business.

This often repeated pledge, as it were, on ‘patient centric’ approach is indeed praiseworthy. There’s no two opinions about it, either. The new found interest of several ‘research-based’ pharma and biologic players to develop less expensive biosimilar drugs, to possibly improve patient access to otherwise expensive biologic medicines, post patent expiry, could well be a reiteration of the same and well publicized vow, of course if not proven otherwise.

A recent example:

In the context of ‘patient-centric’ approach with biosimilar product development by the world’s largest innovative biologic drug makers, let me quote the following recent example.

On September 23, 2016, by a Press Release, the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (US-FDA) announced regulatory approval of Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) as a biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab) for multiple inflammatory diseases. This is the fourth FDA-approved biosimilar, after the new biosimilar pathway became effective in the US. Amjevita has been developed by Amgen Inc. – one of the global pioneers in the development of innovative biologic drugs.

According to US-FDA, a biosimilar is a biological product that is approved based on a showing that it is highly similar to an already-approved biological product and has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity and potency (i.e., safety and effectiveness) from the reference product, in addition to meeting other criteria specified by law.

Although, Amjevita is biosimilar to Humira,  it has not been approved as an interchangeable product with Humira. This issue is considered as a major regulatory roadblock in the US for substitution of original biologic brands with their biosimilar equivalents, which can, therefore, be prescribed mostly to the new patients. It’s worth noting here that Humira – the blockbuster arthritis drug of AbbVie Inc. clocked a sale of US$ 14 billion in 2015, and probably will continue to do so in the foreseeable future, even long after patent expiry. I shall touch upon that point below, briefly.

It is estimated that the savings of putting just new patients on much less expensive biosimilar drugs, sans substitution of the expensive original brand, will be billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this will help reduce the cost of treatment with biologic medications, improving their access to many others.

A key barrier:

Interestingly, the barriers to following the biosimilar path are being mostly created none other than the innovative drug companies themselves, even post patent expiry, presumably to extend market exclusivity and monopoly pricing.

Arising out of one such key barrier, in the form of patent litigation, Amgen’s Amjevita, in all probability, may not be available to deserving patients for years. This could involve a protracted process of skillfully navigating through the labyrinth of legalities.

On August 05, 2016, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that AbbVie Inc. has filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against rival Amgen Inc., seeking to block sales of a lower-priced biosimilar of AbbVie’s top-selling, now generally considered as an off-patent drug – Humira.

When the narrative gets paradoxical:

While all the ‘research-based’ drug companies claim to be ‘patient-centric’ in their business approaches, be it with the development of biosimilars or in other areas, somewhere this narrative gets paradoxical.

On September 02, 2016, Reuters reported that global ‘research-based’ companies are now ‘waging courtroom patent battles against each other over biosimilars, as the line blurs between companies known for their innovative medicines, and those that produce cheaper biotech knockoffs.’

Some of the recent high-profile examples were reported as follows:

  • Sanofi sued Merck in the US federal court over its biosimilar version of Lantus insulin with around US$7 billion in annual sales.
  • Eli Lilly reached a royalties deal with Sanofi to end a similar Lantus-related lawsuit, but their pact means the biosimilar launch was likely delayed.
  • Pfizer and Korea’s Celltrion in August beat back a court challenge from Johnson & Johnson over US$10 billion autoimmune drug Remicade, though J&J’s Janssen unit promised to appeal.
  • In a closely watched case, Novartis wants the US Supreme Court to dump a six-month marketing delay for biosimilars, in what would be the first time the high court took up a biosimilar case.
  • Samsung Bioepis, along with partner and minority shareholder Biogen Inc, filed a lawsuit against AbbVie in Britain in March to stop the US company from blocking the launch of yet another Humira biosimilar.

It is equally noteworthy, while Amgen is keen to launch its own biosimilars, the company’s aggressive legal strategy delayed Novartis’s efforts to introduce the first US biosimilar, Zarxio, before the copy of Amgen’s US $1 billion drug Neupogen finally went on sale last year.

Further, Amgen has also filed a legal suit against a biosimilar version of its Enbrel (etanercept) developed by Novartis (Sandoz), which has already received regulatory approval from the US-FDA on August 30, 2016 for multiple inflammatory diseases.

Taking these into consideration, isn’t, therefore, about time to ponder afresh, whether the innovative drug makers’ general mindset of maintaining drug exclusivity with a very high price, on techno-legal grounds, even after enjoying price monopoly over a long period of the specified time, be termed as ‘patient-centric’?

Indian scenario:

Indian players have already started developing biosimilar drugs in the country. This market offers a lucrative future opportunity considering that original biologic brands with a global turnover of around US$ 70 billion will expire by 2020.

The first biosimilar was approved and marketed in India for a hepatitis B vaccine in 2000 (GaBI Online). By now, around 30 such products have reportedly received the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)’s approval for marketing in India. Even after the new biosimilar guidelines were framed and implemented locally, since 2012, there has not been any worthwhile legal suits filed by the global innovative biologic manufacturers, against the Indian companies or such products developed and approved in India, till 2014.

Since then, this scenario has changed with Roche suing Biocon and its partner Mylan on their biosimilar versions of Roche’s Herceptin (Trastuzumab) for breast cancer, and also making the DCGI a party to this suit. This litigation is broadly on the following grounds:

  • Non-adherence to the Indian biosimilar guidelines
  • Misrepresentation of drugs as biosimilar and passing off 

Be that as it may, its key impact is on affordable biosimilar drugs that can save more lives of breast cancer patients in India. If it is so, do such litigations demonstrate a patient-centric perspective for so important a drug, which is not even protected by a product patent in India, any longer?

Are biosimilars the only examples?

Lest I am not seen as highlighting only the instances of blocking market entry of biosimilar drugs, as sole examples of ‘patient-centric focus’, or lack of it, of many global innovative drug manufacturers, I would now expand it, just a bit. This is only to fathom the bottom-line – whether it is a ‘patients-centric’ focus, or solely a ‘profit-centric’ outlook.

‘Patients-centric’ or ‘Profit-centric’?

To get a sense on this vexing issue, it would be worthwhile for us to find out by ourselves the most appropriate reason behind each of the following. Of course it’s just an illustration. This reason could be either a ‘patient centric’ focus, or simply a ‘profit centric’ outlook. …And then let’s try to make out which way the overall balance tilts, on the ground:

  • Discovering new drugs, delivery systems, and finding new indications
  • Lack of transparency and widely reported bias towards mainly positive results in clinical trial data, both for publication and regulatory approval of various new drugs, and associated global furor.
  • Exorbitant high prices of many new patented medicines and some generic drugs too
  • Widely reported marketing/other malpractices, and associated fines paid by the respective players
  • Causing entry delay for cheaper small molecule generics and large molecule biosimilar drugs post patent expiry restricting gtreaterr patient access

What’s your relative score now?

Conclusion:

Let me sign off here by raising the following relevant questions in this area, for all of us to think and address, as we deem appropriate:

Is the narrative of ‘patient centric’ approach of the ‘research-based’ global drug companies’ now getting clearer with the widely reported credible examples, as above?

Is there still a paradox between their two different strategic business approaches – one entry into off-patent drug development, such as biosimilars, and the other in blocking or delaying entry of such drugs, whenever possible, even after enjoying a specified period of product pricing monopoly?

Does it then mean, what a large section of pharma industry constituents is now publicly demonstrating, at least in the above areas, more than negates their protracted sound bites on ‘patient centric’ focus?

Despite these facts, would pharma related criticism in this space be termed as just a fad of the stakeholders?

If not, what should be the way forward from here to ensure that remedial measures are taken in so important an area of ‘patient-centric’ outlook, soon enough?

By: Tapan J. Ray 

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion. 

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on by
Reply

A homegrown Indian biologic manufacturer is now about to leave behind its first foot-print, with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug, in one of the largest pharma market of the world. This was indeed an uncharted frontier, and a dream to realize for any Indian bio-pharma player.                                                      

On March 28, 2016, by a Press Release, Bengaluru based Biocon Ltd., one of the premier biopharmaceutical companies in India, announced that the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) of Japan has approved its biosimilar Insulin Glargine in a prefilled disposable pen. The product is a biosimilar version of Sanofi’s blockbuster insulin brand – ‘Lantus’.

The Company claims that Glargine is a high quality, yet an affordable priced product, as it will reportedly cost around 25 percent less than the original biologic brand – Lantus. This ‘made in India’ biosimilar product is expected to be launched in Japan in the Q1 of 2017. Incidentally, Japan is the second largest Glargine market in the world with a value of US$ 144 Million. Biocon will co-market this product with its partner Fujifilm.

Would it be a free run? 

Although it is a very significant and well-deserved achievement of Biocon, but its entry with this biosimilar drug in Japan’s Lantus market, nevertheless, does not seem to be free from tough competition. This is because, in 2015, both Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim also obtained Japanese regulatory approval for their respective biosimilar versions of Lantus. In the same year, both these companies also gained regulatory approval from the US-FDA, and the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for their respective products.

Moreover, Sanofi’s longer acting version of Lantus – Lantus XR, or Toujeo, to treat both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, has already been approved in Japan, which needs to be injected less, expectedly making it more convenient to patients.

Key barriers to a biosimilar drug's success: 

Such barriers, as I shall briefly outline below, help sustaining monopoly of the original biologic even after patent expiry, discourage investments in innovation in search of biosimilars, and adversely impacts access to effective and much less expensive follow-on-biologics to save patients’ precious lives. 

These barriers can be broadly divided in two categories: 

A. Regulatory barriers:

1. Varying non-proprietary names:

A large number of biosimilar drug manufacturers, including insurers and large pharmacy chains believe, just as various global studies have also indicated that varying non-proprietary names for biosimilars, quite different from the original biologic, as required by the drug regulators in the world’s most regulated pharma markets, such as, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia, restrict competition in the market for the original biologic brands. 

However, the innovator companies for biologic drugs hold quite different views. For example, Roche (Genentech), a developer of original biologic, reportedly explained that “distinguishable non-proprietary names are in the best interest of patient safety, because they facilitate Pharmacovigilance, and mitigate inadvertent product substitution.”

Even, many other global companies that develop both original biologic and also biosimilar products such as, Amgen, Pfizer and others, also reportedly support the use of ‘distinguishable nonproprietary names’.

That said, the Biosimilars Council of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association argues that consistent non-proprietary naming will ensure robust market formation that ultimately supports patient access, affordability, Pharmacovigilance systems currently in place and allow for unambiguous prescribing, 

2. Substitution or interchangeable with original biologics:

Besides different ‘non-proprietary names’, but arising primarily out of this issue, automatic substitution or interchangeability is not permitted for biosimilar drugs by the drug regulators in the major pharma markets of the world, such as, the United States, Europe and Japan.

The key argument in favor of interchangeability barrier for biosimilar drugs is the fact that the biological drugs, being large protein molecules, can never be exactly replicated. Hence, automatic substitution of original biologic with biosimilar drugs does not arise. This is mainly due to the safety concern that interchangeability between the biosimilars and the original biologic may increase immunogenicity, giving rise to adverse drug reactions. Hence, it would be risky to allow interchangeability of biosimilar drugs, without generating relevant clinical trial data.

On the other hand, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) and the Biosimilars Council, vehemently argue that a biosimilar drug has a lot many other unique identifying characteristics “including a brand name, company name, a lot number and a National Drug Code (NDC) number that would readily distinguish it from other products that share the same nonproprietary name.”

Further, the interchangeable status for biosimilar drugs would also help its manufacturers to tide over the initial apprehensions on safety and quality of biosimilar drugs, as compared to the original ones.

3. 12-year Data Exclusivity period for biologics in the United states:

Currently, the new law for biologic products in the United States provides 12 years of data exclusivity for a new biologic. This is five years more than what is granted to small molecule drugs. 

Many experts believe that this system would further delay the entry of cost-effective biosimilar drugs, restrict the biosimilar drug manufacturers from relying on the test data submitted to drug regulator by the manufacturers of the original biologic drugs while seeking marketing approval.

A rapidly evolving scenario in the United States:

The regulatory space for approval of biosimilar drugs is still evolving in the Unites States. This is vindicated by the fact that in March 2016, giving a somewhat positive signal to the biosimilar drug manufacturers, the US-FDA released another set of a 15-page draft guidelines on how biosimilar products should be labeled for the US market. Interestingly, it has come just around a year of the first biosimilar drug approval in the United States – Zarxio (filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis.

The US-FDA announcement says that all ‘comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance.’ Besides labeling issues, this draft guidance document, though indicates that the ‘interchangeability’ criteria will be addressed in the future, does not still throw enough light on how exactly to determine ‘interchangeability’ for biosimilar drugs.

That said, these key regulatory barriers are likely to continue, at least in the foreseeable future, for many reasons. The biosimilar drug manufacturers, therefore, would necessarily have to work within the set regulations, as applicable to different markets of the world.

I deliberated a related point in my article of August 25, 2014, titled “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns” 

B. Prescribers’ skepticism:  

Initial skepticism of the medical profession for biosimilar drugs are, reportedly, due to the high voltage advocacy of the original biologic manufacturers on the ‘documented variability between original biologic and biosimilars. Which is why, any substitution of an original biologic with a related biosimilar drug could lead to increase in avoidable adverse reactions.

‘The medical platform and community QuantiaMD’, released a study just around September 2015, when by a Press Release, Novartis announced the launch of the first biosimilar approved by the US-FDA – Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz). However, in 2006, Novartis after suing the US-FDA, got the approval for its human growth hormone – Omnitrope, which is a biosimilar of the original biologic of Genentech and Pfizer. At that time a clear regulatory guideline for biosimilar drugs in the United States, was not in place.

The QuantiaMD report at that time said, “Only 12% of prescribing specialists are ‘very confident’ that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug. In addition, a mere 17% said they were ‘very likely’ to prescribe a biosimilar, while 70% admitted they were not sure if they would.” 

Since then, this scenario for biosimilar drugs is changing though gradually, but encouragingly. I shall dwell on that below.

The major growth drivers:

The major growth drivers for biosimilars, especially, in the world’s top pharmaceutical markets are expected to be:

  • Growing pressure to curtail healthcare expenditure
  • Growing demand for biosimilar drugs due to their cost-effectiveness
  • Rising incidences of various life-threatening diseases
  • Increasing number of off-patent biologics
  • Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
  • Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications, such as, rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders. 

This in turn would probably usher in an unprecedented opportunity for the manufacturers of high quality biosimilar drugs, including in India.

Unfolding a huge emerging opportunity with biosimilars: 

This unprecedented opportunity is expected to come mainly from the world’s three largest pharma market, namely the United States, Europe and Japan, due to very high prices of original biologic drugs, and simultaneously to contain rapidly escalating healthcare expenditure by the respective Governments. 

Unlike in the past, when the doctors were apprehensive, and a bit skeptic too, on the use of new biosimilars, some new studies of 2016 indicate a rapid change in that trend. After the launch of the first biosimilar drug in the US, coupled with rapidly increasing incidences of various complex, life-threatening diseases, better knowledge of biosimilar drugs and their cost-effectiveness, doctors are now expressing much lesser concern, and exhibiting greater confidence in the use of biosimilars in their clinical practice.

Yet another, March 2016 study indicates, now only 19.5 percent of respondents feel little or no confidence in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies compared to 61percent of respondents to a previous version of the survey undertaken in 2013 by the same market research group. The survey also shows that 44.4 percent of respondents consider that the original biologic and its biosimilar versions are interchangeable, as compared with only 6 percent in the 2013 survey.

As a result of this emerging trend, some global analysts of high credibility estimate that innovative biologic brands will lose around US$110 billion in sales to their biosimilar versions by 2025.

Another March, 2016 report of IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics states that lower-cost biosimilar versions of complex biologic, could save the US and Europe’s five top markets as much as US$112 billion by 2020,

These encouraging developments in the global biosimilar arena are expected to encourage the capable Indian biosimilar drug players to invest in this high-tech format of drug development, and reap a rich harvest as the high priced blockbuster biologic brands go off-patent.

Conclusion:

Putting all these developments together, and considering the rapidly emerging scenario in this space, it now appears that challenges ahead for rapid acceptance of biosimilar drugs though are still many, but not insurmountable, at all.

The situation necessitates application of fresh and innovative marketing strategies to gain doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines, in total conformance with the regulatory requirements for the same, as they are, in the most important regulated markets of the world.

It goes without saying that success in the generation of enough prescriptions for biosimilar drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above, creating a win-win situation for all, in every way.

As more innovator companies start joining the biosimilar bandwagon, the physicians’ perception on these new varieties of medicines, hopefully, would also change, sooner.

Biocon’s grand announcement of its entry with a ‘made in India’ biosimilar drug in one of the word’s top three pharma markets, would probably be a great encouragement for all other Indian biosimilar drug manufacturers. It clearly showcases the capabilities of an Indian drug manufacturer to chart in an uncharted and a highly complex frontier of medicine.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Does Patent Expiry Matter Less For Difficult To Copy Drugs?

Posted on by
Reply

“Patent expiry matters much less for difficult to copy drugs”.

Not so long ago, this is what many used to believe in the pharma industry. However, looking at the current trend involving the tech savvy generic players, it appears, gone are those days even for the home grown companies in India. As we witness today, a number of global generic players, including some from India, are overcoming the tough challenge of technological barrier of the original drugs with technology, boldly and squarely, and that too with reasonably good speed.

A global CEO felt quite the same:

Possibly encouraged by this commercial dogma, the Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Sir Andrew Witty reportedly felt in not too distant past that his company’s blockbuster drug Advair/Seretide, used for the treatment of asthma, would continue to remain a major product, despite losing US patent in end 2010. Witty thought so considering the intricate technology involved in making its high tech inhalation drug delivery system with exacting precision.

Technology based entry barrier:

Although, Advair/Seretide is a respiratory inhalation drug, it is not quite like a typical aerosol inhaler consisting of a pressurized canister filled with liquid medicine formulation. In such system, as the canister is compressed, the liquid inside comes out as a spray that is breathable in an amount as required for desirable clinical efficacy for the patients.

With the application of complex technology, Advair/Seretide was formulated not as a liquid, but as pre-determined fixed dose combination of powders that patients inhale into their respiratory tracts with a device called ‘Diskus’, which involves a complex and difficult to copy inhaler technology with a long patent life.

This precision technology was expected to create the requisite entry barrier for generic equivalents of this important medicine.

“Diskus” patent to continue:

It is important to note, though Advair/Seretide had gone off patent in end 2010, the patent protection for the “Diskus” device that dispenses the powder version of the fixed dose drugs combination, continues till 2016. For the inhaler device that dispenses the aerosol version of the same drugs, the patent remains valid until 2025.

New USFDA guidance:

Keeping these factors in mind, the USFDA in its latest guidance has clearly enunciated the characteristics that an inhaler should have, including a similar size and shape to Diskus. This new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, like Advair/Seretide, now requires only “relatively basic” preclinical tests and a short clinical trial.

Many believe that this new guidance is mainly to ensure that other generic devices also qualify for the GSK’s asthma drug combo, after its patent expiry.

Nevertheless a challenging task:

Despite this new USFDA guidance for inhaled drugs, some large generic manufacturers apprehended, even way back in 2010, that they doubt whether it will be possible for them to adequately replicate Advair/Seretide to meet the stringent “substitution” requirements of the USFDA on generics. This is exactly what Witty had envisaged earlier.

Almost two years after its patent expiry, in October 2012, the world’s largest generic drug maker Teva also announced that the company does not expect to see true substitutes for Advair/Seretide before 2018.

No immediate sales impact post-patent expiry:

As a result, in 2012, even a couple of years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide could successfully weather the impending storm, though GSK reported a lackluster overall business performance. The brand at that time was virtually immune to substitution threats from generic equivalents. The key reason being, as stated above, much unlike a patented chemical drug substance, the ‘Diskus’ system of the GSK inhaler is a hell of a task to copy by meeting the regulatory requirements of substitution.

In 2013, close to three years after its patent expiry, Advair/Seretide ranked fourth within the top 10 global best-selling drugs of that year, clocking annual revenue of US $8.25 billion.

The first competition:

In the midst of all these, the first generic equivalent of Advair/Serevent with a new inhalation device, carrying a name AirFluSal Forspiro from the Sandoz unit of Novartis, started warming up to obtain regulatory approval from several countries within the European Union (EU).

The product was first approved in Denmark on December, 2013 with subsequent marketing authorizations received in Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Norway.

The heat started being felt now:

The overall position of the brand started changing thereafter. According to published reports, sales trend of Advair/Seretide in Europe and other markets are on the decline in 2014. In Europe, the drop was around 3 percent and in the US around 19 percent in the last quarter, due to a combined impact of many factors.

According to Bloomberg, the sales of Advair/Seretide are expected to drop from US$8.25 billion in 2013 to US$5.9 billion in 2016 with the entry of generics.

A large and growing market to invest into:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in every 10 seconds, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that includes conditions such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema kills one person globally. It is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030.  However, though more number of people suffers from asthma globally, its mortality rate is still much less, WHO says.

Bloomberg estimates that COPD market, including asthma, is expected to reach over US$30 billion by 2018.

Cipla came next crossing the ‘technology hurdle’:

Though the leader in the global generic market – Teva, expressed its inability to introduce the generic version of Advair/Seretide before 2018, this month, the Indian pharma major Cipla introduced its version of the product in two European countries, just next to Novartis. Consequently, Cipla demonstrated its ability to overcome the technological hurdle of the product faster than most others and mastering the intricate NDDS technology in record time, with precision.

The Cipla product is named as ‘Serroflo’ in Germany and ‘Salmeterol/Fluticasone Cipla’ in Sweden. As reported in the media quoting Cipla Chairman Dr. Yusuf Hamied, the product has also been launched in Croatia. By now, Cipla has obtained regulatory approvals of this product in 10 countries in total, with an approval pending in the GSK’s own domestic turf, the United Kingdom (UK). Other country-wise launches in Europe would probably take place much before the end of 2014, according to Dr. Hamied.

The product is expected to be launched in the US in the next three to four year’s time, though one media report mentioned about its 2015 launch in that market. Dr. Hamied also said that his company is now planning its first-ever manufacturing plant in America, which might focus on producing HIV medicines.

On a conservative estimate, the market analysts expect Cipla to generate around US$50 million in sales from the EU markets by 2016 and around US$110 million by 2018, as the company gains increasing market access with not more than 4-5 generic competitors competing in this segment.

Be that as it may, getting regulatory approval for launch of a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the regulated markets, by itself, is a huge achievement of technological prowess that Cipla has demonstrated, yet again.

Not too many generic competition expected:

Because of high quality technological requirements to develop a replaceable generic version of the GSK product, not too much competition is expected in this segment.

Thus far, another global generic drug major Mylan is expected to file for a generic version of Advair/Seretide in the US by the third quarter of 2015 for a 2016 launch. Besides Cipla and Novartis, Mylan, Teva and Actavis are expected come out with the generic version of this drug.

Opportunities in ‘difficult to copy’ drugs:

According to a recent ‘RnR Market Research Report’, over 1,400 drugs with New Drug Delivery System (NDDS) have since been approved globally. This includes inhalation devices too.

The oral drugs contribute the largest share of the overall NDDS market with over 52 percent of the total pie. This segment is expected to attain a turnover of over US$90 billion by 2016 at a CAGR of 11 percent. The injectable new drug delivery market is expected to reach a turnover of over US $29billion by 2015, according to this report.

I have deliberated this subject in one of my earlier blog posts titled. “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Another high tech area – biosimilar drugs:

As the high priced biologic drugs of the innovator companies go off patent, large molecule biosimilar drugs, involving high technology, would emerge as another lucrative growth opportunity for the generic players having requisite wherewithal.

Recombinant vaccines, erythropoietin, recombinant insulin, monoclonal antibody, interferon alpha, granulocyte cell stimulating factor like products are now being manufactured by a number of domestic biotech companies. Some of the Indian companies that have already entered into the biosimilar segment are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Lupin, Biocon, Panacea Biotech, Wockhardt, Glenmark, Emcure, Bharat Biotech, Serum Institute, Hetero, Intas and Reliance Life Sciences, besides others.

The ultimate objective of all these Indian companies is to get regulatory approval of their respective biosimilar products in the US and the EU either on their own or through collaborative initiatives.

Overall improvement in the quality of ANDA filings:

In the last few years, overall quality of ANDA filings of the domestic Indian pharma players has also improved significantly. Their regulatory filing schedules now include many complex molecules, injectibles, oral contraceptives, ophthalmic preparations, inhalers/other drug delivery systems and biosimilars, beside Para IV/FTFs. All these are now contributing a growing share in their new product initiatives for the regulated markets.

Conclusion:

In the largest pharma market of the world – the United States, global generic companies are increasingly facing cutthroat price competition with steep price erosion, registering mixed figures of business performance and growth.

However, a new trend is fast emerging. Even when global innovator companies are including increasing number of difficult to copy medicines in their product portfolio, some pharma players are reaping a rich harvest by moving up the value chain with the generic versions of those products, post patent expiry. These copycats offer much higher margin than non-differentiated generics.

Some Indian generic companies too have started focusing on building value added, difficult to manufacture, and technology intensive generic product portfolios in various therapy areas. DRL is reportedly all set to take its complex generic drug Fondaparinux sodium injection to Canada and two other emerging markets.

Those Indian pharma companies, which would be able to develop a robust product portfolio of complex generics and other differentiated formulations for the global market, would now be much better placed in positioning themselves significantly ahead of the rest, both in terms of top and the bottom line performance.

The myth, as epitomized in the good old saying, “Patent expiry matters less for difficult to copy drugs”, seems to be partly true in delaying entry of generics immediately after the end of the monopoly period, at least, for now. However, I reckon, this gap of delay would eventually get much reduced, if not eliminated altogether, as we move on. Armed with cutting edge technology Cipla has almost busted the myth, as it came close second to Novartis with the launch of a complex generic equivalent of Advair/Seretide in the EU and other markets.

Pharma majors of the country, such as, DRL, Cipla, Lupin and Biocon, to name a few, are taking great strides, setting examples for many others to emulate and excel in this area. The groundswell has already begun for a long haul global journey of the Indian pharma into the El Dorado of high tech generics fetching higher rewards.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns

Posted on by
Reply

With the patent expiry of exorbitantly priced biologic medicines, introduction of biosimilar drugs are expected to improve their access to millions of patients across the world, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the subsequent years. According to an article published in Forbes, it is estimated that the potential savings in the United States alone from just 11 biosimilar drugs over a period ranging from 2014 to 2024 could easily be U$250 billion.

However, the flip side of this much awaited development would make commensurate dent on the sales performance of original brand name biologics, now being marketed by the global pharma majors armed with patent monopoly rights.

Innovating hurdles to negate the impact:

Facing this stark reality, global innovators of biotech drugs allegedly want to fast germinate a strong apprehension in the minds of all concerned on the safety and replaceability of biosimilar drugs. Consequently, this would severely restrict the usage of this new class of products, sacrificing patients’ health interest.

To translate this grand plan into reality, garnering additional support from ten medical societies and a physicians’ group, the global players, which mostly hold various patents on biologics, reportedly urged the USFDA to require biosimilars to have distinct names from the original biologics, on the pretext that different names would make it easier for prescribers to distinguish between medicines that “may differ slightly” and also track adverse events and side effect reports that appear in patient records.

However, other stakeholders have negated this move, which is predominantly to make sure that no substitution of high priced original biologics takes place with the cheaper versions of equivalent biosimilars to save on drug costs.

Intense lobbying to push the envelope:

Interestingly, this intense lobbying initiative of big pharma to assign a distinct or different name for biosimilar drugs, if accepted by the USFDA, would provide a clear and cutting-edge commercial advantage to the concerned pharma and biotech majors, even much after their respective biologic drugs go off patent.

Thus, the above allegedly concerted move does not surprise many.

Mounting protests against industry move:

Biosimilar drug makers, on the other hand, have suggested to the USFDA to make biosimilars fall under the same International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) system, like all generic prescription drugs.  They believe that new names would create confusion and the physicians and pharmacists may face difficulties in ascertaining whether biosimilar drugs serve the same purpose with similar dosing and regimens.

The protest seems to have a snowballing effect. In July 2014, by a letter to the Commissioner Hamburg of USFDA, different groups representing pharmacy, labor unions, health insurance plans and others, have reportedly urged her not to go for different INNs for the original biologic and a biosimilar drug, for the same reason as cited above. The letter reinforces that the industry move, if accepted by the USFDA could increase the possibility of medication errors, besides adversely affecting the substitution required to bring down overall health care costs for high priced specialized biologics, thereby slowing down the uptake of biosimilars significantly.

Global pharma investors also raising voices in support of biosimilars:

Another similar and major development followed soon. A letter titled, “Investor Statement on Board Oversight of Biosimilar Issues”, written by a group of 19 institutional investors that manages about US$430 billion in assets, to the boards of several big pharma and biotech companies, flagged that some pharma majors have been scandalizing the safety concerns of biosimilar drugs. This is happening despite the fact that this class of drugs already has a well-established track record in Europe.

They emphasize that recent actions taken by some big pharma companies could raise concerns on the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs, which would forestall any projected savings on that subject. They also reportedly expressed serious concern that shareholder interests could be adversely affected, if the pharma and biotech players pursue those policies that undermine corporate transparency and medical innovation.

The letter underscores, “Companies seeking to downplay the patient safety record of European biosimilars have also challenged the capacity of the FDA to promulgate rules and determine when biosimilars may be substituted for biologics.”

Among other points, the letter reiterates:

  • Though the important role of biologics in treating cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, anemia, multiple sclerosis and many other conditions is well recognized, the costs of these medicines are on an unsustainable trajectory, with some biologics costing as much 22 times more than other drugs. This critical issue seriously impedes patients’ access to biologics, as well as, acceptance by providers and insurance companies.
  • Biosimilars hold the promise of lowering costs of treating conditions for which biologics are indicated. At the same time, the recent adoption of a regulatory pathway to approval of biosimilars in the US market and the continued growth of biosimilars in the European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia and South Korea, pose a formidable business challenge for the companies that market patented biologic medicines.
  • Financial experts project that biosimilars too have the potential for significant market penetration and attractive returns on investments.
  • Assigning different INN would communicate to providers that the biosimilar is less effective, prompting them not to prescribe this class of medicines and making it difficult for the pharmacists to dispense too. Besides, different names could lead to prescribing errors.
  • In short, the boards of directors of the pharma and biotech majors were urged by these investors to use the following principles to guide their decision-making related to biosimilars:

-       Policy and educational information provided on biosimilars should be balanced, accurate and informed by the patient safety experience of biosimilars in the European Union and other biosimilar drug markets.

-       Lobbying expenditures for federal and state activities related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed and the boards should ensure that political activities are aligned with the interests of investors and other stakeholders.

-       Key information about any partnership or business deal related to biosimilars should be fully disclosed to investors, including information about the value, terms and duration of the deal.

The WHO proposal:

In this context it is worth recapitulating, the World Health Organization (WHO) that oversees the global INN system has held a number of meetings to resolve this issue. The WHO proposal suggests that the current system for choosing INNs to remain unchanged, but that a four-letter code would be attached at the end of every drug name. However, individual regulatory agencies in each country could choose whether to adopt such coding or not.

Let us wait to see what really pans out of this flexible WHO proposal on the subject.

Biosimilars go through stringent regulatory review:

It is important to note that the drug regulators carefully review biosimilars before giving marketing approval for any market, as these drugs must prove to be highly similar without any clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic molecules. The interchangeability between biosimilars and the original biologics must also be unquestionably demonstrated to be qualified for being substitutable at the pharmacy level without the need for intervention by a physician.

Thus, there does not seem to be any basis for different INN, other than to severely restrict competition from biosimilars.

12-year data exclusivity period for biologics – another hurdle created earlier:

Another barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs in the United States is the 12-year data exclusivity period for biologics.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in the United States reportedly issued a statement, criticizing a paper of Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), saying:

“Market exclusivity acts as an absolute shield to their weak patents. Thus, from a practical perspective, extending market exclusivity beyond the Hatch-Waxman period would block the introduction of generic competition for almost 20 years, derailing any potential cost savings by Americans.”

The market potential of biosimilars:

A new report by Allied Market Research estimates that the global biosimilars market would reach US$35 billion by 2020 from the estimated US$1.3 billion in 2013. During the next four years, over 10 blockbuster biologic drugs clocking aggregated annual sales turnover of US $60 billion would go off patent in the United States and in Europe. Humira – a US$10 billion drug of Abbvie that loses patent protection in 2016 is at the top of list.

In tandem, facilitation of regulatory pathways of marketing approval for this class of drugs in many developed markets is expected to drive its growth momentum through greater market penetration and access.

Asia Pacific region is likely to emerge as the leader in the biosimilar drugs market, primarily due to heightened interest and activity of the local players. Collaboration between Mylan and Biocon to commercialize biosimilar version of trastuzumab of Roche in India and the approval of first biosimilar version of monoclonal antibody drug by Hospira in Europe are the encouraging indications.

High growth oncology and autoimmune disease areas are expected to attract more biosimilars developers, as many such biologics would go off patent during 2014 to 2019 period.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and erythropoietin would possibly be key to the growth drivers. Similarly, follitropins, interferons, and insulin biosimilars would emerge as high potential product segments over a period of time.

As we know, among the developed markets, Europe was the first to draft guidelines for approval of biosimilars in 2006. Consequently, the first biosimilars version of Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was introduced in the European Union under the regulatory guidance of European Medical Agency (EMA) in 2008. At present, there are three biosimilar versions of G-CSF available in the European market. Insulin biosimilars also show a good potential for the future.

India:

India is now well poised to encash on this opportunity, which I had deliberated in one of my earlier blog post titled, “Moving Up The Generic Pharma Value Chain”.

Current global usage of biosimilars:

Though regulatory pathways for biosimilar drugs are now in place in the United States, no biosimilar has yet been approved there. However, the US drug regulator has for the first time accepted an application for the approval of a biosimilar version of Neupogen (Filgrastim) of Amgen, which treats patients with low white blood cell counts. Sandoz has already been selling the biosimilar version of this drug in more than 40 countries outside the US.

According to the research organization ‘Pharmaceutical Product Development’, as on March 2013, at least 11 countries and the European Union (EU) approve, regulate and allow clinical trials of biosimilars. As of February 2012, the EU has approved at least 14 biosimilar medicines. The following table shows these countries by region:

Region

Countries
North America Canada
Europe E.U. (including U.K.)
Asia and Pacific China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan
Central and South America Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Eastern Europe Russia, Turkey

Source: Pharmaceutical Product Development

Conclusion:

With the opening up of the United States for biosimilar drugs, the entire product class is expected to be catapulted to a high growth trajectory, provided of course no more allegedly concerted attempts are made to create regulatory hurdles on its path, as we move on. This is mainly because around 46 percent of the world biologic market as on 2010 was in the United States.

However, intense lobbying and power play against biosimilar or interchangeable biologics, allegedly sponsored by the big pharma, are acting as a barrier to this much awaited development solely to benefit the patients. Such activities also undermine attractiveness of investing in safer and more affordable interchangeable biologics.

It is indeed intriguing that all these are happening, despite the fact that the regulatory approval standards for biosimilars are very stringent, as each of these drugs:

  • Must be highly similar to the reference product
  • Cannot have clinically meaningful differences from the original ones
  • Must perform the same in any given patient
  • Would have the same risk associated with switching as the reference product

Thus, scandalizing biosimilar drugs by raising self-serving ‘safety concerns’ in an orchestrated manner, just to extend product life cycles of original biologics even beyond patent expiries, is indeed a very unfortunate development. In this process, the vested interests are creating a great commercial uncertainty for this new class of medicines in the global scenario.

Be that as it may, all these seemingly well synchronized moves against biosimilars, solely to protect business interest, pooh-poohing patients’ health interests, have once again caste a dark shadow on not so enviable image of the big pharma…without even an iota of doubt.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

Biologic Drugs: The hunt for the ‘Magic Bullets’ is on

Posted on by
Reply

The global pharmaceutical industry is now navigating its way through very cautiously while negotiating an unprecedented ‘patent cliff’, simultaneously with gradually drying-up R&D pipelines. This unique situation has triggered off several global mega Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) not only involving better protected biologic drugs business, but also in the large generic space mostly in the emerging markets of the world, which used to be ignored by many before the turn of the new century.

Patent Expiry in next 12 months:

According to an article published in the ‘FiercePharma’ dated October 24, 2011 titled, ‘10 largest U.S patent losses’, over the next 12 months the following best-selling drugs, ranked not by US sales volume but by their weight in each company’s US revenue stream, will face patent expiry:

Company Brand
1 Forest Laboratories Lexapro
2 Takeda Pharmaceuticals Actos
3 Bristol-Myers Squibb Plavix
4 AstraZeneca Seroquel
5 Eli Lilly Zyprexa
6 Pfizer Lipitor*
7 Merck Singulair
8 Novartis Diovan
9 Teva Pharmaceuticals Provigil
10 Abbott Laboratories TriCor

* Patent expired on November 30, 2011

Opening a new vista of opportunity:

In the midst of such a critical situation within the global pharmaceutical industry, application of biotechnology in the drug discovery process opened up a new vista of a broad range of new class of therapies. These include monoclonal antibodies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines tissue growth factors, cell or gene therapies and vaccines, just to name a few.

A recent report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that 80% of the total biotech products, which are expected to be commercialized by 2030, will be medicines and medical diagnostics.

Old business model signals a diminishing return:

Over a period of decades, the business model of small-molecule based blockbuster drugs has successfully catapulted the global pharmaceutical business to a high-margin, dynamic and vibrant industry. However, a time has now come when the golden path from the ‘mind to market’ of the drug discovery process is becoming increasingly arduous and prohibitively expensive.

Deploying expensive resources to discover a New Chemical Entity (NCE) with gradually diminishing returns in the milieu of ‘me too’ types of new drugs, does no longer promise a strong commercial incentive.

A shift in focus from ‘small molecules’ to ‘large molecules’:

Since last several years, the success of biologic drugs compared to conventional small-molecule chemical drugs, has been changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A.

As per published data, although the market capitalization of the top ten large pharmaceutical companies dropped more than US$ 700 billion since 2001, the same for the biotech companies, on the other hand,  has gone up by more than 50% during this period. This trend signifies proliferation of biotech drugs in the years ahead for meeting unmet needs of the patients.

To keep pace with the biotech led growth of the global pharmaceutical industry, many companies have started imbibing biotech-like R&D structure within their respective organizations. For examples, the pharmaceutical majors GsK and Pfizer have already articulated the strategic intent to restructure their respective large monolithic R&D set-ups to smaller independent drug discovery units.

Such restructuring is expected to foster ‘can do’ spirit of the biotech entrepreneurs within the recreated smaller units of large R&D setups to accelerate overall R&D productivity for enrichment of the new product pipelines. However, future will be the best judge to evaluate the success of this experiment.

As if to vindicate this emerging scenario, on November 30, 2011 Bloomberg reported, “U.K.’s largest drug maker has broken up research into competitive teams and put scientists back at the center of the process. But freedom carries a price: researchers who don’t adapt must go. Scientists now ‘live or die with their project.’ This month, Glaxo (GsK) completed the first appraisal of its new model. The company is now deciding which teams deserve more funding and which ones don’t. The conclusions will probably be made public in February when Glaxo (GsK) reports full-year earnings.”

Biologic drugs offer greater promise to meet more unmet needs:

Unlike conventional chemical drugs, most genetically modified biologic drugs work with a very high degree of precision and accuracy on the cells of the diseased organ. Many clinical studies have amply demonstrated that such drugs not only ensure faster recovery, but also help saving incremental treatment cost because of their excellent safety profile.

As we see today, more and more of those global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales for R&D projects are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in the fast evolving market of biologic drugs mainly through M&A. This strategy well justifies their strategic intent to make good the loss of income from the blockbuster drugs going off-patent quite in tandem with their fast dwindling R&D pipeline, as it were.

The bottom-line impact of a successful well targeted new biologic molecule to treat intractable ailments like, various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, are expected to be huge.

Faster growth of biologic drugs:

Despite patent cliff, large molecule biologic drugs like Enbrel, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira continue to contribute more than the small molecule drugs of chemical origin to overall growth of the large global pharmaceutical majors. Many of these drugs were sourced by them either through acquisitions or collaborative arrangements.

Cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules falling in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factor are becoming attractive acquisition targets of the small molecules dominated large pharmaceutical companies having deep pockets.

Global Market Scenario:

According to IMS Health, biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$ 120 billion during MAT March 2009

In 2010 Biologic drugs increased their turnover to US$ 140 billion in the total market of US$ 850 billion. The sale of Biosimilar drugs outside USA exceeded US$ 1 billion.

Six biologic drugs featured in the top 12 and eight in the top 20 best selling global brands. Remicade emerged as the highest-selling biologics in 2010, ahead of Enbrel. Roche remained the top company by sales for biologics with anticancer and monoclonal antibodies. (source: Knol 2010)

Major acquisitions from 2005-2011 for Biologic drugs:

The opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologic drugs, especially in high-growth therapy areas, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust in the recent times.

Following are the major acquisitions in the field of biologic drugs from 2005 to 2011:

Company

Target company

The deal: $billion

Products
Roche Genentech 47 Rituxan, Avastin, Herceptin, MoAbs, Oncology
Sanofi Aventis Genzyme 20 Orphan biologicsCerezyme, Fabrazyme, Renagel, Synvisc
AstraZeneca MedImmune 15.6 Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck Serono 13.5 Biologics
Takeda Millennium 8.8 Velcade, Oncology
Lilly ImClone 6.0 Erbitux, Oncology
Novartis Chiron 5.8 Vaccines
Teva Cephalon 6.2 Nuvigil, Provigil, Treanda CNS, Oncology
Abraxis American BioScience 4.2 Oncology
Astellas OSI Pharma 4.0 Tarceva, oncology
Eisai MGI Pharma 3.9 Aloxi, Salagen, Hexalen, Oncology
Celgene Pharmion 2.9 Oncology
Celgene Abraxis 2.9 Oncology
Gilead Myogen 2.5 Biotechnology
BMS Medarex 2.4 Monoclonal antibodies
J&J Crucell 2.3 Vaccines
Amgen Abgenix 2.2 Monoclonal antibodies
Boehringer Ingelheim MacroGenics 2.1 Monoclonal antibodies
Gilead CV Terapeutics 1.4 Cardiovascular
Genzyme Osiris 1.4 Prochymal, Stem cells
GSK ID Biomed 1.3 Biologics
AstraZeneca Cambridge Antibody Technology 1.3 Monoclonal Antibodies
Merck Sirna 1.1 RNAi
Amgen BioVex 1 OncoVex

(Source: Mergers and Acquisitions Review2005-2011 Pharma Biotech by Knol)

Why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space?

The answer to the key question of why do so many companies want to enter into the biotech space of the business, in summary, could lie in the following:

  1. Truly innovative small molecule discovery is becoming more and more challenging and expensive with the low hanging fruits already being plucked.
  2. More predictable therapeutic activity of biologics with better safety profile.
  3. A higher percentage of biologic drugs have turned into blockbuster drugs in the recent past.
  4. Market entry barrier for biosimilar drugs, after patent expiry of the original molecule, is much tougher than small molecule generics.
  5. A diverse portfolio of both small and large molecules will reduce future business risks.

A recent study:

In one of their recent collaborative studies published in an article titled, “Is R&D Earning its Investment?” Deloitte and Thomson Reuters (2009) have reported that the top 12 global pharma majors have 21% to 66% biologic drugs in their late stage product pipeline with the average being at 39%.

Another interesting trend:

Besides mega acquisitions, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory disease segments. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs. In November 2011, Gilead acquired ‘Pharmasset’ for US$ 11 billion to include in its product pipeline a future Hepatitis C drugs offering 95% cure rates.

Smaller biotech companies usually do not get engaged in very large deals unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and successful smaller deals more effectively.

Much less generic competition for biologic space:

After patent expiry of NCEs, innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion. This happens as the small molecules are relatively easier to replicate by the generic manufacturers. Moreover, the process of getting regulatory approval of NCEs is also not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biosimilar drugs involving difficult, complex and expensive processes for development with stringent regulatory requirements for getting their marketing approval in the developed markets of the world like the EU and the USA, offer significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after the patent expiry.

Mainly due to this reason, brands like the following are expected to go strong for some more time without any significant competition from the biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Smaller biotech companies to be the prime targets:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&A, will ultimately subside due to various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials, without wherewithal to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be the prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Cost of treatment:

Despite so many positives, high priced biologic drugs do raise a critical concern about the incremental load on already ballooning healthcare costs to the patients.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in its September 29, 2010 issue highlighted that biologic drugs can cost as much as $1.5 million annually to the user. Similarly Forbes.com on April 12, 2009 reported, “Biologic drugs can cost up to 22 times more than traditional medications – some as much as $400,000 a year”.

This is indeed a very serious issue that needs to be resolved sooner. Speedy entry of biosimilar drugs will partly address this critical issue.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors have already started experimenting to work with the pure biotech companies in terms of M&A and strategic alliances, it will be interesting to watch the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ of the business models, organization/ work/employee culture and market outlook of these two different types of organizations while improving the global business performance of the overall entity, significantly.

Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged entities.

Be that as it may, despite serious cost concern, experts still believe that biologic drugs have all the potential to deliver the ‘magic bullets’ in the fight against many intractable diseases of mankind in not too distant future.

Hence the hunt is on.

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.