On the whole, the FDA’s plan, says Robert Cerwinski, JD, is “net good news for the biosimilar developers,” and should provide “tailwinds” for the industry by giving greater clarity, streamlining processes, and reducing the time and expense that biosimilar developers will need to bring their products to the marketplace.
When the FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, last week unveiled the FDA’s Biosimilar Action Plan, many of the document’s features centered around actions already taken by the FDA or reiterating promises to release expected deliverables. However, according to Robert Cerwinski, JD, a partner at Goodwin who focuses on litigation involving pharmaceuticals and biologics, some novel elements of the plan are cause for strong interest.
First, Cerwinski told The Center for Biosimilars® in an interview, is the fact that the FDA is working on guidance that will provide clarity on “label carveouts,” or approval for fewer than all of the indications for which a reference product is approved. In cases in which some of the indications of a reference product are covered by a patent while others are not, current guidance is unclear as to how a biosimilar product sponsor can seek approval for a portion of the drug label in a manner similar to the way in which a generic product sponsor might.
“The machinery for doing that and the law that permits that is fairly well developed in the generic world,” explained Cerwinski, and given that providing the option for label carveouts has proven to be a useful way to reduce barriers to market entry, “It’s very interesting that Commissioner Gottlieb and his staff have picked up on that and are trying to give biosimilar applicants some more clarity,” he said.
If a biosimilar were approved for an indication not covered by a patent, the biosimilar could potentially launch in that indication sooner than it would if it gained approval in all indications of the reference product. That is a possibility that could raise concerns among innovator product sponsors about a biosimilar being prescribed for off-label indications. However, “it’s unclear the extent to which a biosimilar would be prescribed for off-label uses,” said Cerwinski.
What is clear is that for biosimilar product developers, anticipated label carveouts should help companies determine their overall litigation strategies; planning well in advance which indications should be challenged through the inter partes review process will be key and could potentially streamline the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act litigation process.
The second feature of the plan that Cerwinski found notable is that the FDA appears to be “a little bit more activist” in terms of working with other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to remove barriers to biosimilar market entry that are not within the FDA’s purview—including cracking down on rebates provided by drug manufacturers. “In the past, FDA has not always wanted to weigh in to such disputes,” he said.
Finally, a feature of the plan that notes that the FDA is exploring the possibility of allowing the use of non—US-licensed comparator products in clinical programs that support a biosimilar application could have an impact upon yet another newly announced action of the FDA: considering the importation of drugs in cases of supply issues.
“I see no reason why, in a case of a true supply constraint, it would matter whether it was a biosimilar or a small molecule drug” that would be considered for importation, said Cerwinski. However, if a biosimilar considered for importation was approved with respect to a foreign-licensed reference product, “What sort of bridges into the US approval process can the biosimilar applicant take advantage of to make sure that the clinical trials they spend their money on abroad give them some benefit in the approval process the [United States]?” The potential for approval of biosimilars using foreign-licensed comparators could bring some clarity to that question, and to the question of which drugs could potentially be imported for US use.
On the whole, the FDA’s plan, says Cerwinski, is “net good news for the biosimilar developers,” and should provide “tailwinds” for the industry by giving greater clarity, streamlining processes, and reducing the time and expense that biosimilar developers will need to bring their products to the marketplace.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
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.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
The Subcutaneous Revolution: Zymfentra and the Future of IBD Care With Dr Andres Yarur
December 17th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Andres Yarur, MD, a researcher and associate professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, discusses the significance of the FDA approval for Zymfentra, the world's first subcutaneous infliximab product, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.