Challenges to Biosimilar Substitution

Ancillary Product Patents to Extend Biologic Patent Life

This study examines all patents associated with biologic litigation to understand how manufacturers use ancillary product patents to delay biosimilar market entry.

Delivery of biologics: Topical administration

Biologics are unaffordable to a large majority of the global population because of prohibitively expensive fermentation systems, purification and the requirement for cold chain for storage and transportation. Limitations of current production and delivery systems of biologics were evident during the recent pandemic when <2.5% of vaccines produced were available to low-income countries and ∼19 million doses were discarded in Africa due to lack of cold-chain infrastructure. Among FDA-approved biologics since 2015, >90% are delivered using invasive methods. While oral or topical drugs are highly preferred by patients because of their affordability and convenience, only two oral drugs have been approved by FDA since 2015. A newly launched oral biologic costs only ∼3% of the average cost of injectable biologics because of the simplified regulatory approval process by elimination of prohibitively expensive fermentation, purification, cold storage/transportation. In addition, the cost of developing a new biologic injectable product (∼$2.5 billion) has been dramatically reduced through oral or topical delivery. Topical delivery has the unique advantage of targeted delivery of high concentration protein drugs, without getting diluted in circulating blood. However, only very few topical drugs have been approved by the FDA. Therefore, this review highlights recent advances in oral or topical delivery of proteins at early or advanced stages of human clinical trials using chewing gums, patches or sprays, or nucleic acid drugs directly, or in combination with, nanoparticles and offers future directions.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.

How to solve financing gap to ensure patient access to patented pharmaceuticals in CEE countries? - the good, the bad, and the ugly ways

Introduction: There is significant difference in utilization of patented medicines in the EU, as pharmaceuticals at Western European price levels are usually not cost-effective in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The article reviews options to solve the 'financing gap' posed by the challenge of covering patented medicines from more restricted resources in countries with greater unmet medical need.Areas covered: Hidden volume restrictions to patented pharmaceuticals implemented by payers to facilitate financial sustainability may increase European inequity in patient access. Confidential price discounts and financial risk-sharing agreements improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with limited impact on the European floor price. Narrowing the eligible group of patients on the positive drug list can help to target the medicines to patients with potentially greater health benefit whilst reducing the budget impact. Pay-for-performance schemes can improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with significant uncertainty or heterogeneity in the magnitude of added therapeutic value. Increased utilization of off-patent pharmaceuticals can increase patient access through re-investing the savings from generic or biosimilar price erosion.Expert opinion: Transparent and sustainable pharmaceutical policies aiming to improve the allocative efficiency of scarce resources should be implemented in CEE to reduce financing gap and improve patient access to high-cost medicines.

Regulatory and Clinical Experiences with Biosimilar Filgrastim in the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and Canada

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim.

The evolution of value with filgrastim in oncology

The recombinant G-CSF filgrastim was first approved in 1991, and its value has been evolving ever since. Initial health technology assessments suggested low value due to high drug cost and no evidence for significant gain in overall survival. However, more recent meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trial data show falling costs due to biosimilar competition and absolute overall survival gains of 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1-4.2%) from filgrastim support of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The launch of biosimilar alternatives merits a re-evaluation of decisions by health technology assessments and explains the first inclusion of filgrastim in the WHO Essential Drug List for cancer >20 years after its original approval in 1991, thus demonstrating the power of biosimilar medicines in transforming healthcare.