- Bone Health
- Immunology
- Hematology
- Respiratory
- Dermatology
- Diabetes
- Gastroenterology
- Neurology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Rare Disease
- Rheumatology
Robert Cerwinski: Hatch-Waxman Litigation of Follow-On Insulins
Robert Cerwinski, JD, partner at Goodwin, explains why Hatch-Waxman litigation may provide a smoother path than does the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Transcript:
FDA granted tentative approval to Merck for an insulin glargine follow-on pending the outcome of Hatch-Waxman litigation; does the fact that FDA regulates insulin as a drug have an impact on the litigation process?
I think it does. The Hatch-Waxman laws were enacted in 1984 and we’ve had a lot of practice with these litigations in the district courts and appellate courts, and the metes and bounds and contours of the Hatch-Waxman laws have been pretty well defined through decades of adjudication. It’s a pretty rapid and efficient timeline from [Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA] filing to final resolution of the appeal—pretty well-oiled litigation procedure. We have a lot more uncertainty with the [Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, BPCIA]. It’s a new statute, courts are just adjudicating it now for the first time, and we are seeing a lot of—I wouldn’t say confusion—but a lot of testing of the gray areas of the statute, for example, with Amgen v Hospira. Litigants are really trying to take advantage of every perceived advantage in the statue and are bringing motions and are litigating those. So, the pace of litigation is likely to be quite a bit slower in the context of the BPCIA, at least initially. Also, we see a lot more patents typically being brought to bear in and BPCIA litigation. So, the fact that Lantus is being brought along this sort of well-oiled generic drug litigation track, I think [that] in general, although the specifics will vary from case to case, I think that in general that’s going to be a faster timeline right now, than BPCIA litigation.
Treatment Persistence, Safety After Switching to Infliximab Biosimilars in Canadians With IBD
October 5th 2024A retrospective study of a mandatory nonmedical switch in Canada found no significant differences in rates of treatment persistence, loss of response, or adverse events in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on maintenance therapy 1 year post-switch.
Eye on Pharma: EC Approved Ustekinumab; Zymfentra Expansion; Biosimilar Policy Briefing
September 26th 2024The European Commission (EC) approved Celltrion's ustekinumab biosimilar for chronic inflammatory diseases, Celltrion expanded access to Zymfentra (subcutaneous infliximab-dyyb) through partnerships with Cigna and Express Scripts, and the Association for Accessible Medicines held a policy briefing addressing barriers to biosimilar adoption.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
AAM Report: Despite Massive Savings, Patient OOP Costs on Biosimilars, Generics Remain High, Part 2
September 24th 2024Part 2 of our series diving into the Association for Accessible Medicines' (AAM) latest report discusses that while generics and biosimilars saved $445 billion in 2023, their potential is hindered by high patient costs, drug shortages, and ineffective policies, underscoring the need for reforms to fully realize their benefits.
French Study Finds High Patient Satisfaction With Adalimumab Biosimilar Treatment for IBD
September 21st 2024An observational study assessing patient satisfaction with adalimumab for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reported a high level of satisfaction with all adalimumab product, including biosimilars.
