The comment period has recently closed for the FDA’s proposed approach to the transition of insulins and other products that have historically been regulated as drugs and follow-ons to regulation as biologics and biosimilars, and among the comments from stakeholders is a suggestion that one drug maker may be interested in selling biosimilars of its own products.
The comment period has recently closed for the FDA’s proposed approach to the transition of insulins and other products that have historically been regulated as drugs and follow-ons to regulation as biologics and biosimilars, and among the comments from stakeholders is a suggestion that one drug maker may be interested in selling biosimilars of its own products.
In its comments, Eli Lilly and Company voiced its support of the FDA’s proposed approach to the transition of products that are currently addressed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to regulation under the Public Health Service Act in 2020. Notably, however, the company called on the FDA to clarify whether drug product developers can introduce “second versions” of their innovator biologics, calling these potential products “branded biosimilars” or “authorized biologics.”
“Clarity regarding the appropriate regulatory mechanisms for launch of these products as well as applicable naming and interchangeability policies will provide stakeholders with greater certainty, help all sponsors plan their development programs and, ultimately, help to give patients more therapeutic options,” wrote Salvador Manuel Garcia de Quevedo Pérez, senior regulatory director of the company, in his comment letter.
The comment calls on the FDA to explain whether a branded biosimilar would need to have a different 4-letter suffix than the reference product, and whether any special naming considerations could be applied to such product (for example, whether the products could have the same or different proprietary names as their references).
“Sponsors of innovative biological products already are endeavoring to market second versions of their products in ways that allow them to increase patient access,” wrote Pérez, adding, “Clear direction from FDA on marketing these second versions of innovative products will help all sponsors plan their product development programs and, ultimately, benefit patients.”
Lilly’s comments suggest that the company may be interested in selling its drugs under brand names as well as under a structure similar to that used for authorized generic drugs; authorized generics are the same products as brand-name small-molecules with respect to active ingredients, conditions of use, dosage, strength, and route of administration, but may have minor differences (such as different inactive ingredients or different colors or markings) and are not sold under the branded drug’s name.
Examples of such authorized generics are versions of Gilead’s hepatitis C treatments Harvoni and Epclusa that carry list prices of approximately one-third of the originator drugs.
Lilly’s products that will be affected by the transition, and which may be subject to Lilly’s interest in branded biosimilar development, are insulin glargine (Basaglar, a follow-on insulin referencing Lantus), human insulin (Humalin), insulin lispro (Humalog, which already faces follow-on competition form Sanofi’s Admelog), and the growth hormone somatropin (Humatrope).
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.