The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will work more closely to support a more competitive market for biosimilars and interchangeable products. In addition, the FDA published draft guidance for industry about how to advertise and promote biologic products truthfully and announced a public workshop.
The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Monday they agreed to “enhanced collaboration” to support a more competitive market for biosimilars and interchangeable products. In addition, the FDA published draft guidance for industry about how to advertise and promote biologic products without making false or misleading statements.
These issues will be discussed at an FDA public workshop on March 9, which will bring together stakeholders from industry, academia, and government agencies; such statements, the departments said, might be discouraging biosimilar uptake.
In addition, the FTC said it will review patent settlement agreements involving biosimilars to prevent antitrust violations.
The guidance, Promotional Labeling and Advertising Considerations for Prescription Biological Reference and Biosimilar Products, addresses questions developers may have when creating FDA-regulated promotional materials for reference products and biosimilars. FDA guidance documents do not set legally enforceable regulations but describe the agency’s current thinking on a topic. Comments on the draft guidance are being accepted today to April 6, and the FDA said that the measures announced this week are a deliverable of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which created the pathway for biosimilar approval in the United States.
The guidance addresses how firms should identify reference and biosimilar products in promotional materials. According to the FDA, both types of biological products, originator products and biosimilars, may be identified by their proprietary name, nonproprietary or proper name, or core name, depending on the context. A proprietary name means the trademark or brand name, a proper name is the nonproprietary name designated by the FDA, and a core name is the component shared among the reference product and any related biological product, biosimilar product, or interchangeable product.
The guidance also addresses what kind what data from studies should be used in the advertising materials that are relevant for both. As an example, the FDA cited a situation where a biosimilar is licensed for fewer conditions than a reference product; in this case, the biosimilar's FDA-approved labeling would contain the information from the reference product’s approved labeling that is relevant to the approved conditions for the biosimilar.
What is likely to be deemed false or misleading question? According to the FDA, “Representations or suggestions that create an impression that there are clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and its biosimilar, such as promotional presentations representing or suggesting that a reference product is safer or more effective than its biosimilar product, or that a biosimilar is safer or more effective than its reference product, are likely to be false or misleading.” This also goes for impressions that a biosimilar is not highly similar to the originator, the document says.
The subject of the FTC’s involvement in the biosimilars market came up several times in 2019 in various congressional hearings about drug pricing as well as proposed legislation.
A role for the FTC was included in the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019 (S. 1416) but the bipartisan bill was blocked late last year by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York.
Another bipartisan bill introduced in the House of Representative, HR 2387, Stop the Overuse of Petitions and Get Affordable Medicines to Enter Soon Act of 2019, codified the FDA’s plan to the decide if citizen petitions are abusive and meant to stall a generic drug’s approval, and it directs the HHS secretary to report such petitions to the FTC.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cordavis Report Outlines Strategies for Biosimilar Development, Access in the US Health Care Market
May 8th 2024Cordavis, a CVS Healthspire company, released a report detailing the current hurdles faced in developing and commercializing biosimilars in the US and highlighting efforts by the organization to enhance access and affordability for these products.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.