On January 26, the Biosimilars Council (a division of the Association for Accessible Medicines) filed an amicus brief opposing Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Pfizer over its biosimilar infliximab, Inflectra, which references Johnson & Johnson’s innovator product, Remicade.
On January 26, the Biosimilars Council (a division of the Association for Accessible Medicines) filed an amicus brief opposing Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Pfizer over its biosimilar infliximab, Inflectra, which references Johnson & Johnson’s innovator product, Remicade.
Pfizer alleged in its lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in September 2017, that Johnson & Johnson has engaged in exclusionary contracting and anti-competitive practices that have effectively denied patients access to biosimilar therapies. Pfizer’s complaint says that the Remicade maker threatened to withhold rebates from both insurers and physicians unless they agreed to exclude biosimilars from formularies or impose fail-first preconditions for biosimilars (an arrangement sometimes referred to as a “rebate trap”). At the same time, according to the complaint, Johnson & Johnson raised Remicade’s price.
In its amicus brief supporting Pfizer’s position, the Biosimilars Council claims that Johnson & Johnson’s attempts to keep its market share of the blockbuster reference product were intended to “prevent Inflectra from competing” with Remicade. It also argues that, if the court sides with Johnson & Johnson, it would effectively provide a roadmap for other innovator product sponsors to follow suit in quashing biosimilar competition for high-cost biologics.
The brief lays out 5 key points:
The brief also argues that, as a result of Johnson & Johnson’s strategies, Inflectra’s market share has remained artificially small at a mere 4% of the infliximab market, which will deliver a low return on investment and diminish economic incentives needed to spur greater biosimilar development.
“Replication of these tactics across biologics markets will dramatically diminish incentives for developing future biosimilars, and competition in this critical, growing sector of the healthcare industry will suffer,” writes the Biosimilars Council. “In short, this case will help define the scope of antitrust protections for biosimilars for years to come and determine the viability of the industry that Congress sought to create through the BPCIA.”
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Webinar Addresses Solutions to Improve Adalimumab Biosimilar Uptake
March 18th 2024Government policies, including those related to prescribing incentives and interchangeability, need to be reworked to encourage biosimilar adoption and create meaningful savings for health systems, according to speakers at a recent webinar.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
BioRationality: EMA Announces Readiness to Waive Comparative Efficacy Studies of Biosimilars
March 4th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, takes a look at the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) announcement that it will investigate whether comparative efficacy tests should be needed for a biosimilar to receive regulatory approval.