‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

Posted on April 2, 2018 by Tapan Ray

As often discussed, market entry of biosimilars, in general, brings a new hope not just for many patients, but also to biosimilar drug manufacturers – planning to get marketing approvals of these drugs in the United States, the El Dorado of global pharma industry.

Stakeholder expectations keep increasing manifold as biosimilars offer cheaper treatment options with biologic drugs in many life-threatening and rare diseases. However, biosimilars still remain an unfulfilled promise.

The January 2018 paper by Trinity Partners on “The State of US Biosimilars Market Access” in the largest drug market of the world makes an important observation in this regard. It says, the promise of biosimilars offering cost-saving competition in the lucrative US biologic market, remains largely unfulfilled.

As on date, adoption of biosimilars has been hindered by lack of market access due to complex contracting dynamics, besides regulatory and legal uncertainty, and a general lack of clinical comfort with biosimilars.

Consequently, current state of biosimilar acceptance and access appear too insignificant. More so, as compared to traditional small molecule generic markets where their use is fueled by automatic substitution and payer formularies, over higher priced branded reference drugs.

It would not have been difficult, especially for the innovative biologic drug makers to brush this important study aside, had the US-FDA Commissioner – Scott Gottlieb would not have voiced what he did in March this year.

With this perspective, I shall discuss in this article, how access to biosimilar drugs are getting limited. In doing so, I shall begin with what the US-FDA Commissioner has recently highlighted in this area.

Yet another barrier:

As reported by Bloomberg on March 07, 2018, the US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unambiguously expressed that biologic drug manufacturers enter into exclusive arrangements with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and insurers, who agree to cover only the old brands in return for rebates or discounts. This “rigged” payment scheme might quite literally scare the biosimilar competition out of the market altogether, he articulated, categorically.

US-FDA Commissioner delivered this speech at the National Health Policy Conference for America’s Health Insurance Plans. During this deliberation, Gottlieb criticized some unwanted and avoidable practices that stifle biosimilar development.

He observed, of the 9 approved biosimilars in the US, only 3 could be launched market. In many instances, patent litigation is the reason for such delay in launch, post FDA approval. Connecting the dots, the Commissioner observed, even after being in the market, biosimilars continue facing more uncertainty due to a ‘rigged payment scheme.’

Started with a great promise:

It is worth noting, till 2010 no regulatory pathway for marketing approval of biosimilars was in place in the world’s largest pharma market – the United States. Hence, despite biosimilar drugs being a treatment option in many countries over the last two decades, the first biosimilar was launched in the US, following this pathway, only in 2015. It was Zarxio ((Filgrastim-sndz) of Novartis – indicated for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Since then, US-FDA has approved nine biosimilars. Ironically biosimilar market size still remains small and much below the general expectations. Most biosimilar manufacturers are navigating through multiple tough hurdles for market launch of this relatively new genre of complex drugs.

Navigating through tough hurdles:

There are tough hurdles to navigate through, while launching biosimilars, especially in the US. Some of which are as follows:

Protracted litigations: The development and launch of most biosimilars get stuck in the multiple patent web-lock, created around original biologic molecules, leading to long drawn expensive litigations.

Pricing: Following small molecule generic drugs, most payers and consumers expect biosimilar pricing too will be no different. However, in practice, most biosimilars are priced just around 15 percent to 20 percent less than original biologics.

Interchangeability: Lack of interchangeability among presently approved biosimilars in the US limits payers’ and consumer choice for a shift from the reference biologic drugs to suitable biosimilars. This virtually restricts the use of biosimilars mostly to such drug-naïve patients.

Confidence: For various reasons, the confidence and familiarity of both physicians and the consumers on biosimilars remain suboptimal. Whether relatively cheaper biosimilars can be used in the same indications as the reference biologic to the new patients – as an alternative choice, is still not clear to many of them. This situation calls for increasing awareness programs involving all stakeholders.

Manufacturing: The manufacturing process of large molecule biosimilars is quite costly as compared to small molecule generic drugs. Hence, these are unlikely to follow a similar pricing pattern, attracting as high a discount as around 80 percent, compared to original branded drugs.

Some of these barriers I have discussed in my article, titled ‘Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers’, published in this blog on July 31, 2017.

Conclusion:

Be that as it may, drug manufacturers continue to see tremendous opportunity in biosimilars. The interest is heating up, as about six of the top 10 biologic drugs are expected to go off-patent in the US by 2019.

Despite all this, it is generally believed, the prevailing situation will change even in the US. The regulator is expected to facilitate smoother market entry of biosimilars, facing much less obstacles on the way. As many strongly believe, these are possibly an outcome of intense industry lobbying, with the high-level policy makers. Many of these hurdles can be removed by the regulators, themselves, including drug interchangeability.

The US-FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has already said in a meeting on March 07, 2018, the FDA will start educating doctors and patients to minimize clinical and other concerns related to biosimilars. Therefore, going forward, greater competition in the biosimilar space is expected to increase the long-awaited price differential, as compared to reference biologic.

With greater support from the regulators, biosimilars still show a unique promise of greater acceptance and access to patients – occasionally ‘Rigged’ maneuvers by the vested interests notwithstanding.

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.

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Posted on March 26, 2018 by Tapan Ray

We have entered into a new era of innovation in medical science where ‘one size fits all’ type of treatment is making a sizeable space for a new ‘made-to-measure’ variety of the same. Such medicines are being developed particularly for life-threatening and rare diseases, where individual genetic differences in patients play a key role in the choice of therapy.

The marketers of such drugs, at the same time, will need to make sure that the right sets of messages are delivered to the right person, in the right way and at the right time, for brand success. This isn’t a piece of cake, as it will be akin to finding out a needle from a haystack. It would call for craftily ferreting out from an enormous database, both the patients’ and the prescribers detail profile virtually in each stage of the treatment process.

Such information would form the bedrock for effective brand value creation and its delivery, to achieve best possible business results and also patient outcomes. Thus, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing would be a whole new ball game for many pharma marketers – a completely different situation that, very often, they know little about.

In this article, I shall dwell on this subject. Let me begin with a brief description of the emerging ‘made-to-measure’ variety of treatments.

‘Made-to-measure’ treatment:

There are many serious and life-threatening disease conditions where ‘One Size Fits All’ sort of treatment approach doesn’t work too well. One such dreaded disease is cancer. Conventionally, following standard treatment guidelines, doctors generally opt for similar treatment for patients suffering from the same type and stage of cancer. Interestingly, it has been conclusively established over a period of time that this approach often yields different outcomes to different patients.

With the progress of genetic science, the researchers have unraveled this mystery from the genetic difference of patients. This understanding heralded the dawn of a new era of targeted or ‘made-to-measure’ drug therapies. These are called “personalized medicine” or “precision medicine”. According to the National Research Council, “personalized medicine” is an older term with a meaning similar to “precision medicine.”

Personalized medicines:

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), understanding a patient’s genetic makeup and ascertaining how certain gene changes during cancerous tumor growth, doctors can now choose more effective treatment options for each patient. In other words, based on genetic test results, oncologists can now opt for a customize treatment, based on each patient’s specific needs. Such drugs can block or turn off the signals that tell malignant cells to grow and divide, keep cells from living longer than normal, or kill the cancer cells altogether.

Moreover, by performing genetic tests both on the cancer and normal cells, doctors can also:

Find out the chances of a person developing cancer and selecting the screening strategies to lower the risk
Match patients with treatments that are likely to be more effective and cause fewer side effects
Predict the risk of recurrence, which means the return of cancer

The new era began in 1998:

The era of ‘personalized medicine’ for cancer, in all practical purposes, commenced in 1998, when the US-FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab). Breast cancer patients having high levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” are more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since then, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. As reported by the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), published on January 31, 2018, one in every 4 drugs approved by the US-FDA over the past 4 years was a personalized medicine, and the agency approved a record-breaking 16 personalized therapy in 2017. The same year, US-FDA also approved the first biosimilar of a personalized medicine - trastuzumab-dkst (Ogivri) for HER-2-positive breast cancer patients. This biosimilar was developed with Herceptin as its reference.

The February 2018 report of Research and Markets titled, ‘Personalized Medicine – Scientific and Commercial Aspects’ says, the aim of ‘personalized medicine’ is to match the right drug to the right patient and, in some cases, even to design the appropriate treatment for a patient according to his/her genotype. I deliberated on genotype-based treatment in my article titled, ‘A Disruptive Innovation to Fight and Cure Intractable Diseases’, published in this blog on October 30, 2017.

At this point, let me hasten to add that the development of personalized medicine raises some ethical issues, as well. Currently, this debate is mostly limited to the area of genetic testing.

Personalized dosage:

An article published on March 23, 2015 in the ‘FDA Voice’ of the US-FDA states, since the 1990s, the agency is also working on personalized drug dosing. This is because individuals differ in how they eliminate a drug. Some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people, and thus are susceptible to overdosing, while others eliminate it much faster, and may not get the desired therapeutic effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who may have these unusual results. Personalized drug dosing makes sure that drug efficacy for such patients are not compromised, or they are not at high risk of any severe side effects.

Marketing ‘personalized medicine’ a whole new ball game:

All this vindicates that ‘personalized medicine’ is not just a flash in the pan. With each passing year, it’s moving ahead at a brisk pace. In this emerging scenario, what happens to marketing of these drugs? Will the marketing of ‘personalized medicine’ remain just the same as the conventional one, or it warrants radically different cerebral inputs?

The opportunities for personalization in pharma marketing are immense. ‘Personalized medicines’ offer a greater scope in leveraging its potential that is yet to be fathomed, meaningfully. Broadly, this will mean targeting customers or potential consumers even at the individual level, to add greater differential value.

This, in turn, will involve making the marketing content, the message format and choosing the effective value delivery platforms, virtually ‘made-to-measure’ for the target audience. Marketing interaction of this ilk, has proven to offer a cutting-edge experience to the target groups with greater outcomes, in tandem, yielding superior financial results to the concerned pharma players.

Recent reports:

On December 18, 2017, Cambridge BioMarketing – one of the world’s leading rare disease agency highlighted, as personalized medicine continues to take hold, it will be more important than ever for healthcare companies to incorporate the ‘hyperpersonalized’ experience in marketing and communications. Patients’ voice has already started becoming more important than ever before, in various facets of pharma business. In 2018, one may expect to witness more pharma companies tapping the experts who can help explain the life-changing benefits of a treatment for the patient, effectively – the report predicted.

Moving forward, patients embarking on new treatments will be better empowered to take charge of their well-being. Physicians and nurses will also be better connected to their patients, along with other care providers, with the support of enhanced digital connections and mobile apps. Interestingly, one can find it happening in several developed countries, especially, in areas like rare diseases, where ‘personalized medicines’ will be used more – underscored this agency.

On January 22, 2018, quoting the same Cambridge BioMarketing, FiercePharma also reported, more ‘personalized medicines’ also mean more ‘personalized marketing’ – and the ‘hyperpersonalization’ trend goes to extremes. Crunching data gathered from multiple sources, such drug marketers need to identify small groups that could be receptive to specific messaging. Advanced data and analytics, would facilitate the marketers to whittle down their targets and tailor messages to consumer audiences, sometimes as small as one person – the report asserted.

Conclusion:

As the February 2018 report of ‘Research and Markets’ highlights, increase in efficacy and safety of treatment by individualizing it, has benefitted in financial terms too. Available information indicates that ‘personalized medicine’ will ultimately be cost-effective in healthcare systems. This would also eliminate the need for various assumptions in the process of diagnosing a disease.

Thus, conventional pharma marketing based on the mostly segmentation strategy used for blockbuster molecules may not work for a ‘personalized medicine’. Instead, ‘personalized marketing, focused on smaller and exclusive markets – identified based on robust research and analytical data, will be the name of the new game for business excellence in this specialized area.

Thus, I reckon, as we move ahead, ‘made-to-measure’ marketing will no doubt be one of the key success requirements to make ‘made-to-measure’ medicines’ – a money spinner.

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.

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Posted on December 4, 2017 by Tapan Ray

Who says that the phenomenal success of blockbuster drugs is mostly eaten away by ‘look-alikes’ of the same, immediately after respective patent expiry? It doesn’t seem to be so any longer, not anymore! Several examples will vindicate this emerging trend. However, I shall quote just a few of these from the published reports.

In 2016, the patent of AbbVie’s Humira (Adalimumab), indicated in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, expired in the United States (US). It will also expire in Europe by 2018. This event was expected to create significant opportunities for lower priced Adalimumab biosimilars in the US market, increasing the product access to many more patients at affordable prices. Just as it happens with patent expiry of small molecule blockbuster drugs. One of the classic examples of which, is a sharp decline in sales turnover and profit from Pfizer’s Lipitor (Atorvastatin), as its patent expired on November 30, 2011.

However, Humira topped the prescription-drug list of 2016 with an annual growth of 15 percent, accounting for USD 16 billion sales, globally. More interestingly, according to a recent report of EvaluatePharma, AbbVie’s Humira will continue to retain its top most ranking in 2020 with expected sales of USD 13.9 billion. Nevertheless, possible threat from biosimilars has slightly slowed down its growth. Although, there are many other similar examples, I would quote just three more of these to illustrate the point, as follows:

Rituxan (Rituximab, MabThera) indicated in the treatment of cancer and co-marketed by Biogen and Roche, went off-patent in 2015. However, in 2016, the product held 4^th position in the prescription drug market with a revenue growth of nearly 3 percent. Even five years after its patent expiry, Rituxan is still expected to occupy the 17^thrank with an estimated turnover of over USD 5 billion in 2020, according to the EvaluatePharma report.

Remicade (Infliximab) indicated for autoimmune diseases and manufactured by J&J and Merck, lost market exclusivity in 2015. But, in 2016 it still held 5^th place in the global ranking. Five years after it goes off patent, Remicade is expected to feature in the 6^th rank in 2020, with an estimated turnover of over USD 6.5 billion, according to the same report as above.

The US product patent for Lantus – a long-acting human insulin analog manufactured by Sanofi, expired in August 2014. However, in 2016, clocking a global turnover of USD 6.05 billion, Lantus still ranked 10 in the global prescription brand league table. Six years after its patent expiry – in 2020, Lantus will continue to feature in the rank 20, as the same EvaluatePharma report estimates.

These examples give a feel that unlike small molecule blockbuster drugs, patent expiry is still not end of the road to retain this status for most large molecule biologics, across the world. In this article, I shall discuss this point taking Humira as the case study.

What about biosimilar competition?

In any way, this does not mean that related biosimilars are not getting regulatory approval in the global markets, post-patent expiry of original biologic drugs, including the United States. Nonetheless, biosimilar makers are facing new challenges in this endeavor, some of which are highly cost intensive, creating tough hurdles to make such drugs available to more patients at an affordable price, soon enough. It happened for the very first biosimilar to Humira, as well. On September 23, 2016, almost immediately after its patent expiry in 2016, the USFDA by a Press Release announced approval for the first biosimilar to Humira (adalimumab). This was Amgen’s Amjevita (adalimumab-atto), indicated for multiple inflammatory diseases.

The second biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira – Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm), was also approved by the USFDA in August 2017. So far, six biosimilars have been introduced in the United states. But, none of these got approved as an ‘interchangeable’ product. Some of these, such as Cyltezo could not even be launched, as yet. I shall discuss this point later in this article. Thus, Humira is expected to retain its top global prescription brand ranking in 2020 – over 4 years after its patent expiry.

In Europe, two marketing authorizations were reportedly granted by the European Commission (EC) in March 2017 for Amgen’s biosimilars to Humira, named Amgevita (adalimumab) and Solymbic (adalimumab). Later this year, in November 2017 Boehringer Ingelheim’s – Cyltezo also received its European marketing approval.

It is worth noting that in December 2014, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) reportedly granted marketing approval for Zydus Cadila’s Adalimumab biosimilar (Exemptia) for treating rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders in India. The company claims: “This novel non-infringing process for Adalimumab Biosimilar and a novel non-infringing formulation have been researched, developed and produced by scientists at the Zydus Research Centre. The biosimilar is the first to be launched by any company in the world and is a ‘fingerprint match’ with the originator in terms of safety, purity and potency of the product.”

Several important reasons indicate why a full throttle competition is lacking in the biosimilar market early enough – immediately after patent expiry of original biologic molecules. I shall cite just a couple of these examples to illustrate the point. One is related to aggressive brand protection, creating a labyrinth of patents having different expiry dates. And the other is a regulatory barrier in the form of drug ‘interchangeability’ condition, between the original biologic and related biosimilars:

In the labyrinth of patents:

The most recent example of innovator companies fiercely protecting their original biologic from the biosimilar competition by creating a labyrinth of patents is Boehringer Ingelheim’s Cyltezo. This is biosimilar to AbbVie’s Humira, approved by the USFDA and EC in August 2017 and November 2017, respectively.

According to reports: “BI does not intend to make the drug commercially available in Europe until the respective SPC (supplementary protection certificate) for adalimumab, which extends the duration of certain rights associated with a patent, expires in October 2018. Cyltezo is also not yet available in the US despite its approval there in August, because of ongoing patent litigation with AbbVie. AbbVie reportedly holds more than 100 patents on Humira, and believes that Boehringer could infringe 74 of these with the launch of its biosimilar. Similarly, the firm has also taken Amgen to court to block the launch of its proposed Humira biosimilar.”

Another interesting example is the epoch-making breast cancer targeted therapy Trastuzumab (Herceptin of Roche/Genentech). The patent on Herceptin reportedly expired in 2014 in Europe and will expire in the United States in 2019. The brand registered a turnover of USD 2.5 billion in 2016. However, a November 21, 2017 report says that creating a series of hurdle in the way of Pfizer’s introduction to Herceptin biosimilar, Roche has sued Pfizer for infringement of 40 patents of its blockbuster breast cancer drug. Pfizer hasn’t yet won approval for its Herceptin biosimilar, though, USFDA accepted its application in August 2017 – the report highlights

‘Interchangeability’ condition for biosimilars:

In the largest global pharma market – the United States, USFDA classifies biosimilars into two very distinct categories:

Biosimilars that are “expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product”
Biosimilars that are “interchangeable,” or able to be switched with their reference product

According to reports, experts’ argument over ‘interchangeability’ in the US range from “whether pharmacists should be allowed to switch a biologic for its biosimilar without a doctor’s notification, to whether interchangeable biosimilars might be perceived as better or safer than their non-interchangeable counterparts.” This debate has somewhat been resolved by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) issuance of draft guidance in January 2017, specifying what should be submitted to support an interchangeable application, the report says.

The article also indicates, “the draft makes clear that switching studies to help gain this designation should evaluate changes in treatment that result in two or more alternating exposures (switch intervals) to the proposed interchangeable product and to the reference product. Study design, types of data and other considerations are also included in that draft.” Nonetheless, compliance with this regulatory requirement is expected to be highly cost intensive, too.

Quoting a senior USFDA official, a report dated June 26, 2017 mentioned: “interchangeable biosimilars will come to market within the next two years, though possibly sooner. And the first interchangeable biosimilar will likely be reviewed by an FDA advisory committee of outside experts.” Still the bottom line remains no biosimilar has yet been approved by the USFDA as ‘interchangeable’. Hence, the optics related to desirable success for biosimilars continue to remain somewhat apprehensive, I reckon.

Patent related litigations on Trastuzumab (Herceptin) were filed by Roche in India, as well. However, it’s good to note that on December 01, 2017, by a Press Release, USFDA announced the approval of Mylan’s biosimilar variety of Roche’s blockbuster breast cancer drug – Herceptin. Mylan’s Ogivri was co-developed with Biocon in India to treat breast or stomach cancer, and is the first biosimilar approved in the United States for these indications. It is noteworthy that Ogivri also has not been approved as an interchangeable product.

The global and local scenario for biosimilars:

Be that as it may, the July 26, 2017 study of Netscribes – a global market intelligence and content management firm estimates that the global biosimilar market will be worth USD 36 billion by 2022. Some of the major findings of this study are as follows:

With a cumulative share of nearly 85%, North America, Europe, and Japan are the major contributors to global biological and biosimilar sales. Asia and Africa account for 13.2% and 1.2%, respectively.
Pfizer is the leading player in the biologic market, with sales of nearly USD 45.9 billion in 2016 followed by Novartis (41.6 billion) and Roche (39.6 billion).
Biosimilar approvals are estimated to be around of around 16 to 20 biosimilars between 2018 to 2021 in both US and EU.
The US is not a favorable market for biosimilars due to a number of reasons, such as poor access to biologic drugs and an unfavorable regulatory environment.
South Africa is one of the best-suited markets for biosimilars due to a favorable regulatory environment and prescriber acceptance.

According to the April 2017 analysis of Research And Markets, biosimilars have started winning key government tenders in countries like Mexico and Russia, and being purchased by a growing number of patients in self-pay markets such as India. The aggregate sales of ‘copy biologics’ in the six BRIC-MS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, and South Korea) countries would now almost certainly exceed USD 1.5 billion. Yet Another estimate expects the Indian biosimilar market to increase from USD 186 million in 2016 to USD 1.1 billion in 2020. It is up to individual experts to assess whether or not this growth trend for biosimilars is desirable to adequately benefit a large number of patients, the world over.

Conclusion:

In my view, if what usually happens to sales and profit for small molecule blockbuster drugs post patent expiry, would have happened to the large molecule biologic drugs, the market scenario for biosimilars would have been quite different. In that scenario, one would have witnessed a plethora of biosimilar competition against high priced and money churning biologics, such as Humira, being launched with a significantly lesser price than the original brand.

Prices of biosimilars would have been much lesser primarily because, the litigation cost, now built into the biosimilar prices for successfully coming out of the labyrinth of patents after the basic patent expiry, would have been minimal. Moreover, restrictions on drug ‘interchangeability’ would not have made the target market smaller, especially in the United states.

Alongside, compliance with the regulatory need to meet the ‘interchangeability’ condition in the US, would drive the product cost even higher. More so, when this specific regulatory requirement is not necessary in other developed markets, like Europe. Both these factors would adversely impact affordability and access to sophisticated biologic drugs for patients, even after the fixed period of market exclusivity.

That said, a virtually impregnable patent labyrinth mostly ensures that going off-patent isn’t end of the road for blockbuster biologic drugs to continue generating significant revenue and profit, any longer – and it would remain so at least, in the short to medium term.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Posted on July 31, 2017 by Tapan Ray

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

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

Posted on October 10, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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.

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Posted on July 18, 2016 by Tapan Ray

Competition from Biosimilar drugs poses a threat of a combined revenue loss of estimated US$ 110 billion of those pharma players who are still enjoying market monopoly with patented biologic brands. This is expected to surely happen, in the long run, if the signals picked up from the evolving scenario continue to stay on course.

Simply speaking, generic versions of original biologic drugs are termed as Biosimilars. These are large protein molecules, created from living organisms following complex processes. Thus, it is significantly more expensive to develop and market biosimilar drugs, as compared to any small molecule generic chemical ones.

Hurdle creation and the core intent:

Despite these complexities, for quite some time, global original biologic drug players had initiated intense campaign to create tough hurdles in the process of regulatory and marketing approval for biosimilar drugs, predominantly raising safety concerns. A simultaneous campaign was also launched among doctors and the payers in the developed countries, stoking the same fear, to forestall the overall acceptance of biosimilar drugs.

When drug regulators of different countries are solely responsible to ensure patient safety of any drug, why are the global pharma companies, and their trade associations are continually shouting from the roof top expressing concerns in this regards? It is often seen that such campaigns become more intense, when it comes primarily to block or delay the entry of biosimilar, many generic drugs and some IP related issues in a country. Umpteen number of such examples are available from India, Europe, United States and many other countries. Many would agree that in such cases, the core intent is as important as the issue.

I discussed on those hurdle creating campaigns in my article in this Blog, on August 25, 2014, titled, “Scandalizing Biosimilar Drugs With Safety Concerns”. Hence won’t dwell on that again here.

The campaign yielded results:

This campaign of global bio-pharma majors to restrict the entry of lower priced biosimilar drugs into the market, immediately after patent expiry, has been successful to a great extent, so far. Let me now give below a recent example, from credible sources, to vindicate this point.

Although, the world’s number 1 drug in sales – Humira (Adalimumab), with a turnover of US$ 15 Billion in 2015 (IMS Health), is going off patent in December 2016, no biosimilar version of Adalimumab is ready, just yet, to compete with this profit churning blockbuster biologic brand, in the United States. More interestingly, according to another report dated July 14, 2016 of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), even on the verge of its product patent expiration this year, U.S. sales of Humira rose 32 percent to US$ 2.2 billion in the first quarter this year, with over 16 percent jump in its prescription volume.

It is worth noting, Humira was first approved in 2002, and has long been one of the most profitable drugs, globally, contributing around 60 percent of Abbvie’s total revenue even in the last year.

The industry may well argue, in a situation like this, how can a pharma company possibly decide to remain within the ambit of just patent protection, even if it leads to sacrificing other stakeholders’ interest? That’s a ‘business ethics’ issue, and is beyond the scope of this article.

The beginning of a yo-yo syndrome:

At the very outset, let me mention that the term ‘yo-yo syndrome’ has been coined to refer to something that moves up and down quickly, or something that changes repeatedly between one level and another.

Keeping this into perspective, some of the big bio-pharma companies, such as, Amgen, which have been, reportedly, trying hard to block the on-time entry of biosimilar drugs, through litigations and lobbying, could stand as good examples in this area.

For instance, Amgen, on the one hand, seem to be vigorously shielding its over US$10 billion of annual biologic sales from the biosimilar competition through powerful lobbying. Whereas, on the other, it commenced developing its own biosimilar drugs, to reap a rich harvest from the available opportunities.

According to an Associated Press report on July 12, 2016, a panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers of the United States has voted unanimously in favor of Amgen’s version of AbbVie’s Humira. While not binding, the recommendation could help the USFDA approval of the knockoff drug.

According to reports, the companies now working on Humira biosimilars, include Novartis, Mylan and Baxter.

India did it, but a tough road ahead:

On December 9, 2014, international media flashed across the world a great news item from the Indian pharma industry: “The first biosimilar of the world’s top-selling medicine Humira (adalimumab) of AbbVie has been launched in India by Zydus Cadila.” That said, let me hasten to add that Humira does not have a valid product patent protection in India.

Yet another good news is, according to a Press Release of Biocon dated July 15, 2016, its India made Insulin – Glargine was launched in Japan on the same day by its partner FUJIFILM Pharma Co., Ltd. (FFP).

These are excellent developments, and music to many ears. However, on the flip side, intense legal battle on various regulatory grounds against the Indian biosimilar drug players, by the makers of original biologic to protect their own turf of market monopoly, has also commenced with associated acrimony.

Earlier, the Swiss drug major – Roche had objected to Biocon’s referring to Herceptin at an international scientific conference, related to clinical trial results of its own ‘biosimilar’ version Herclon (trastuzumab).

On April 2016, responding to Roche’s complaint, the Delhi High Court ordered changes to the packaging labels of the brands sold by Biocon, and other bio-pharma companies in India, such as, Reliance Life Sciences and Mylan. The court also raised questions about the DCGI’s approval processes for biosimilars, and restrained the companies from using Roche’s data related to the manufacturing process, safety, efficacy and tests.

More recently, this issue between Roche and Biocon, over breast cancer drug trastuzumab has reportedly taken another acrimonious turn with both the companies approaching the Delhi High Court on charges of contempt of court.

Roche reportedly also alleged contempt over Biocon using the name ‘Herceptin’ in the approval process of its trastuzumab drug in the United States. According to reports, Biocon is currently conducting Phase III clinical trials for marketing approval of its trastuzumab in the U.S.

Thus, to carve out a niche in the biosimilar space of the world, Indian pharma has made some good progress. Alongside, taking note of many contemporary factors and development in this area, a lurking apprehension too did creep in. It raises an awkward and uncomfortable question – do the Indian companies have pockets deep enough to overcome the expensive legal and regulatory challenges thrown by the global biologic drug makers to protect their market monopoly status for expensive drugs, much longer than what they deserve?

Let me keep my fingers crossed.

Critical global speed-bumps for biosimilar entry:

Besides, many other hurdles, as I highlighted in my article of August 25, 2014, the intricate patent shield beyond original patent expiry, is a major speed bump for biosimilar drugs’ smooth global market entry.

Maintaining the same example of Humira, a well crafted patent-shield strategy was implemented to extend market monopoly of this brand, at least for another decade. Although, the main patent of Humira expires in December 2016, it is reportedly well shielded, at least, with 70 other patents till 2027, as many reports indicate.

This is possible because, according to a January 19 2016 report by Bloomberg, the U.S. patent office in the same month rejected Amgen’s effort to knock out two patents on AbbVie’s anti-inflammatory bestseller Humira. Amgen hoped to get its Humira competitor to market by 2017. This is a bad news for other biosimilar drug makers too.

Nevertheless, the good news is, in May 2016, the Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) announced that it would embark on a review of Coherus’ challenge of Humira’s ’135 methods patent. Experts believe, even if it the PTAB upturns Humira’s IP shield, AbbVie could appeal, which could take another year or so.

Recent status:

So far, after the biosimilar guidelines were put in place for the first time in the United States, a Novartis version of Amgen’s Neupogen, got USFDA approval in March 2015, only after so many delays and protracted litigations. Novartis is also trying to to do the same for Amgen’s Enbrel. Pfizer too won the U.S drug regulator’s approval in April 2016 for a version of Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade, but the product is still not available for sale.

Currently, some constituents of Big Pharma, such as, Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer have started warming up for manufacturing copycat versions of blockbuster original biologic drugs of other companies.

High quality biosimilars:

These new biosimilars are of top quality. Even USFDA could not find any meaningful differences in the key parameters, such as, efficacy, safety, potency and purity, between the original biologic drugs and their biosimilar versions.

According to a July 12, 2016 Bloomberg report, in several cases USFDA finds the clinical results of biosimilar drugs are robust enough to support ‘extrapolation’. This could support approval of these biosimilar drugs for all indications that the original biologic brands treat, without requirement of separate clinical trials for each, facilitating the approval process and accelerating their market entry.

With these developments, the high voltage lobbying campaigns of the original biologic makers, and their trade associations, both to the drug regulators and doctors, are expected to lose steam, if not ultimately die down altogether.

However, the protracted and fierce legal battles of the originators, creating various intricate patent shields, to enjoy a brand monopoly for a much longer period, are expected to continue, if not turn fiercer.

The question of price advantage with biosimilars:

Currently the cost advantage provided by the biosimilar drugs over the original biologics, does not come anywhere near to what we see for small molecule generic drugs, post patent expiry.

For example, Zarexio of Novartis has been priced 15 percent less than the original Neupogen of Amgen. It is generally believed that in the united states this difference would continue to be around 15 to 30 percent, in the near future. Whereas in Europe, the difference is higher, as the governments regulate their prices.

In India too, the difference in the pricing trend is currently, more or less, similar.

Nonetheless, the above report of Bloomberg had quoted the global CEO of Novartis Joe Jimenez saying that biosimilar drugs would eventually cost 75 percent less than the original biologics.

Let’s hope so.

Conclusion:

The powerful constituents of Big Pharma who decided to delay, if not stall the entry of biosimilar drugs for vested interest, have now started adopting a dual strategy. They did not have any other choice either, after President Obama’s fulfillment of his election promise with the ‘Affordable Care Act’, which, among others, facilitated charting the regulatory pathway for entry of biosimilar drugs in the United States, for the first time ever.

Thus, on the one the one hand, these companies continued crafting robust patent-shields to extend market monopolies, even beyond the original patent expiries, through protracted and complicated litigations. While, on the other, started moving with great speed to develop biosimilar versions of the original blockbuster biologic drugs of other players, as they go off patent. This is mainly to cash-in the golden opportunities, which otherwise would go to different players.

India has made an entry into this space, but would still require a lot to do, including winning the expensive legal battles, in order to be recognized as a global force to reckon with, in the biosimilar segment.

To facilitate rapid growth, and universal acceptance of biosimilar drugs, for patients’ interest across the world, it will be interesting to follow the spread of the ‘yo-yo syndrome’ of the original biologic drug makers, as we move on.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Tapan Ray

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

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?

Posted on September 14, 2015 by Tapan Ray

On September 3, 2015, in a Press Release, Novartis announced, “Zarxio(TM) (filgrastim-sndz) is now available in the United States. Zarxio is the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the first to launch in the US.” Zarxio is being marketed by the generic drug unit of Novartis – Sandoz.

The company highlighted: “With the launch of Zarxio, we look forward to increasing patient, prescriber and payor access to filgrastim in the US by offering a high-quality, more affordable version of this important oncology medicine.” This statement may be interpreted as an acknowledged of a research based global pharma major that high-priced biologics create a notable access barrier to a large number of patients, even in a rich country such as the United States. It also underscores the increasing prescription opportunities for cheaper biosimilar drugs.

Zarxio will initially be available with a 15 percent discount. This needs to be viewed against usual price drop of around 20-30 percent for biosimilar drugs in Europe, as compared to the original molecules. It is expected that price differences between biosimilar drugs and the original ones, would vary widely from as low as 10 percent to a hefty 60 percent, in the global markets.

Prior to Novartis’s Press Release, USFDA announced Zarxio’s approval in a separate ‘FDA News Release on March 6, 2015, indicating that it can be prescribed by a health care professional for:

patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy
patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving induction or consolidation chemotherapy
patients with cancer undergoing bone marrow transplantation
patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection and therapy a
patients with severe chronic neutropenia.

Though such types of drugs are available in the important markets such as, Europe, Australia and India, the launch of Zarxio heralds the dawn of a new era of biosimilar drugs in the United States – the numero uno of the global pharma market.

Incidentally, USFDA’s approval of biosimilar drugs is an outcome of a relatively recent healthcare reform in the United States, when President Obama signed into law the ‘Affordable Care Act’ on March 23, 2010.

The key benefit:

In its above ‘Press Release’, Novartis captured well the key benefits of biosimilar drugs , as follows:

“While biologics have had a significant impact on how diseases are treated, their cost and co-pays are difficult for many patients and the healthcare budget in general. Biosimilars can help to fill an unmet need by providing expanded options, greater affordability and increased patient access to life-saving therapies.”

Major growth drivers:

According to July 2015 report of ‘MarketsandMarkets (M&M)’ the global biosimilars market is expected to grow to US$6.22 Billion by 2020 from US$2.29 Billion in 2015, growing at a CAGR of 22.1 percent from 2015 to 2020.

The major growth drivers of the global biosimilars market 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-patented biologics
Positive outcome in the ongoing clinical trials
Rising demand for biosimilars in different therapeutic applications such as rheumatoid arthritis and blood disorders.

European Union (EU) had a head start of 5 to 7 years to put its regulatory pathway for biosimilar drug development and approval process. Thus, at present practically most the entire value sales of biosimilar drugs take place in the EU.

As, cheaper biosimilars would continue to hit the US market, insurance companies are expected to encourage the use of such drugs instead of highly expensive original ones.

According to Express Scripts report released in December 2014, the US healthcare system could clock savings in drug costs around US$250 billion in the first decade of availability of biosimilars drugs and the approval of Zarxio would help patients saving more than US$5 billion in the the world’s largest market for biologics.

By 2020, several blockbuster biological products with global sales of more than US $67 billion would go or are going off-patent, creating great opportunities for biosimilar drugs the world over. Some of these drugs are Avastin (Roche), Humira (AbbVie), Synagis (AstraZeneca), Aranesp (Amgen) and Enbrel (Amgen, Pfizer).

However, the crux of its success, to a great extent, would lie on physicians’ confidence to prescribe large molecule biosimilar drugs, as these are new and not exact replicas of the original biologic molecules, unlike the small molecule generic drugs.

Possible growth barriers:

The success requirements of large molecule biosimilar drugs would not mimic the same for small molecule generics, anywhere in the world.

In my view, there are two types of critical barriers to success with biosimilars, both tangible and intangible in nature.

The same M&M report lists the following factors as possible tangible barriers to fast growth of biosimilar drugs:

High manufacturing complexities and costs
Stringent regulatory requirements in countries
Innovative strategies by biologic drug manufacturers to restrict the entry of new players

I would very briefly touch upon each one of these, hereunder:

I. High manufacturing complexities and costs:

This is primarily because, the therapeutic characteristics of biosimilar drugs are significantly influenced by their manufacturing methods. For example, it is quite possible that based on the manufacturing system that is adopted, the same starter ingredients may give substantially different results.

II. Stringent regulatory requirements:

Among many other stringent regulatory requirements, I would highlight in this article just the following two:

A. The labeling:

It is noteworthy that USFDA has named Zarxio with the placeholder nonproprietary name “filgrastim-sndz” and not as ‘filgrastim’, the nonproprietary name for Amgen’s, Neupogen, for which Zarxio has been approved as a biosimilar.

To quickly recapitulate its background, in July 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO), which oversees the system of International Nonproprietary Names (INN), recommended that biosimilar drugs would receive the same nonproprietary name, but with a four-letter code at the end.

This is primarily because, innovator biologic drug companies and also some doctors’ groups argue that molecular structures of biosimilar drugs are similar, but not exact replicas of the original ones. Hence, there is a need to differentiate them, while assigning INN.

They reiterate that giving biosimilars the same INN as the original biologic molecule may cause confusion among both the doctors and the patients. It could also make the tracking of adverse reactions, as and when these will be reported, more challenging.

Consequently, it has now been accepted by the regulators that biosimilars would receive the same nonproprietary name but with a four-letter code at the end to differentiate such drugs from the original biologics.

B. Interchangeability:

The above labelling issue, in turn, creates a barrier to possible interchangeability or automatic substitution of expensive original biologics with much cheaper equivalent of biosimilar drugs. I reckon, this could pose a critical obstacle in the initial take-off of the later.

According to a July 4, 2015 article, titled “Fate of cost-saving biosimilar drugs may hinge on naming policy”, published in ‘Modern Healthcare’, the USFDA has the following two pathways for licensing of biosimilar drugs:

For being designated as “similar” in efficacy and safety to an original biologic.

For being approved as being “interchangeable,” which requires a much higher review standard and could take years and millions of dollars to obtain the needed clinical trial data.

According to this article, none of the biosimilar products currently under USFDA review are in the interchangeable pathway.

III. Innovative strategies to restrict entry of new players:

All the above innovative strategic moves and arguments, where biologic drug manufacturers are allegedly involved, may seriously restrict not just the entry of newer biosimilars, but also their faster prescription throughput.

Safety concern (immunogenicity):

Additionally, a critical safety concern on biosimilar drugs is being raised by the manufacturers of original biologics. This concern involves immunogenicity, which means the way a biosimilar drug provokes an immune response in the body. Original biologic drug manufacturers contend, since biosimilar molecules are not exactly the same as originals and their long term safety, related to immunogenicity, has not been tested, these drugs cannot be construed as having the same safety profile as the innovators’ biologics.

Besides, ‘Free-Trade-Agreements (FTAs)’ are also likely to be cleverly used by the original biologic drug manufacturers through their respective Governments, to the extent possible, for safeguarding the beachhead from the marketing onslaught of biosimilar drugs.

A perception barrier too:

Here comes an important perception-based intangible barrier to desirable prescription growth for biosimilar drugs.

Probably gauging it, post Zarxio launch, none other than the CEO of Novartis – Joe Jimenez, reportedly said: “He’s not expecting too much of a splash before 2020.”

This is understandable, as the doctors’ favorable disposition towards biosimilar drugs would be a crucial factor for prescription growth of these medicines.

A recent doctor community survey from QuantiaMD primarily captures the doctors’ thoughts and feelings on biosimilar drugs. This study was done with 300 specialists and primary care physicians.

Some of the notable findings of the report are as follows:

While 78 percent of the doctors polled said they were familiar with the term “biosimilar,” only 38 percent could name a biosimilar that’s under consideration for USFDA approval and would be relevant to their patient population.

Only 33 percent could name a biosimilar at all.

Researchers then narrowed down the original 300 physicians polled into a group of 120 “prescribing specialists.” This group of 120 doctors are currently prescribing biologics and most likely to prescribe biosimilar drugs in the years ahead. The study reported:

Only 17 percent of that segment said they are “very likely” to prescribe biosimilars.

And 70 percent said they either aren’t sure or are “somewhat likely’” to prescribe a biosimilar.

Only 12 percent of prescribing specialists are “very confident” that biosimilars are as safe as the original biologic version of the drug.

That said, 12-year ‘Data Exclusivity’ period for biologics in the United States, is one additional barrier to early introduction of cheaper biosimilar drugs, as considered by many.

On this issue GPhA – the generic drug makers’ group in America 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 challenges ahead:

Considering all these together, the challenges ahead for quick acceptance of biosimilar drugs are indeed mind-boggling. The situation necessitates enough innovative and painstaking work by all concerned to gain the doctors’ confidence on biosimilar medicines. It goes without saying that success in generation of enough prescriptions for these drugs is the fundamental requirement to benefit the patients, which, in turn, would lead to significant savings in health care cost, as estimated above.

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

The status in India:

Although it appears strange, but a fact nonetheless. Biosimilar drugs approved in India till August 2012, followed the requirements of the regulators as provided mostly in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for small molecule drugs, which are incidentally quite a different kettle of fish.

According to GaBI-online, the first locally produced biosimilar drug was approved and marketed in the year 2000. India announced implementation of its ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ much later, on September 15, 2012.

Indian ‘Guidelines’ for ‘Similar Biologics’ were jointly developed by the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO). The ‘Guidelines’ outline requirements for pre-clinical evaluation of biological products, claiming ‘similar to already approved biologics’. Thus, Indian regulators will partly rely on data from the already approved products to ensure safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of these drugs.

A wide variety:

A wide variety of biosimilar drugs have been approved and marketed in India, since then.

According to International Journal of Applied Basic Medical Research (2014 Jul-Dec; 4.2: 63–66), biosimilars in India consist primarily of vaccine, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins and diagnostics, insulin, erythropoietin, hepatitis B vaccine, granulocyte colony stimulating factor, streptokinase, interferon alpha-2B and epidermal growth factor receptor.

The above article states that there are about 100 biopharmaceutical companies actively involved in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of biosimilar therapeutic products in India. Only 14 therapeutic drugs (similar biologics) were available in 50 brands in 2005. This number had grown to 20 therapeutic drugs in 250 brands in 2011.

The status of similar biologics approved and marketed in India is elaborated in this Table 1.

Some of the key Indian players of biosimilar drugs are Dr. Reddy’s Laboratory (DRL), Lupin, Zydus Cadila, Serum Institute of India, Biocon, Reliance Life Sciences, Wockhardt, Zenotech Laboratories and Intas.

I wrote on a related subject in this blog dated December 15, 2014 titled, “A Great News! But…Would This ‘Golden Goose’ Lay Golden Eggs?”

Conclusion:

Opportunities for biosimilar drugs are expected to expand significantly all over the world, basically driven by the need for affordable biologics and healthcare cost containment pressure in many countries.

As I had articulated before, unlike small molecule generics, unlocking the true potential of large molecule biosimilar drugs in a sustainable way would demand innovative, clear, razor sharp and highly focused business strategies across the value chain.

For faster growth in prescriptions, biosimilars would call for a hybrid marketing model of small molecule (branded) generics and large molecule original biologics. Ability to craft impactful value proposition and ensuring its effective delivery for each stakeholder, smart and innovative use of interactive and participative digital tools both for doctors’ and patients’ engagement, of course sans complexities, would decide the ultimate commercial fate for each of these types of products.

To effectively reap rich harvest from the new space thus being created, the challenges are also too many. The concerns expressed on biosimilars may also be genuine, but the regulators should take care of those before granting marketing approval to benefit the patients, in a meaningful way.

Overall key drivers and barriers for success with biosimilar drugs would remain almost the same, both for global and local players. However, carving out and thereafter expanding share in this market, sizably, won’t be a piece of cake for any company, understandably.

Quite naturally, the innovator companies for biologics would go all out to retain their turf as much as possible, despite the entry of cheaper biosimilars. This is expected to continue by reinforcing the belief of the physicians and the patients that biosimilars are not quite the same as the original biologic molecules.

Effective proactive measures need to be initiated, soon, by the regulators and all other stakeholders to spread the right message, protecting the patients’ interest. Otherwise, apprehension of the doctors on biosimilars in general, regarding safety, efficacy, substitution and interchangeability may persist for some time to come, negatively impacting faster and desirable prescription growth of these drugs all over the world, including India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

PILMAN

A Tapan Ray Website

Tag Archives: biosimilar

‘Rigged’ Payment System Limits Biosimilar Access

‘Made-to-Measure’ Marketing for ‘Made-to-Measure’ Medicines

Patent Expiry No Longer End of The Road

Improving Patient Access To Biosimilar Drugs: Two Key Barriers

Is Criticizing Pharma Now Just A Fad?

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.

An Emerging Yo-Yo Syndrome With Biosimilar Drugs

Biosimilar Drugs: First Indian Foot Print In An Uncharted Frontier

Biosimilar Drugs: Why Prescriptions Aren’t Still Enough?