Limited distribution networks, which are established when a drug maker contracts with either 1 or a limited number of distributors, can allow a manufacturer to efficiently manage the supply chain for a given product. However, as a recent paper argues, LDNs can have an anticompetitive impact on the marketplace.
Limited distribution networks (LDNs), which are established when a drug maker contracts with either 1 or a limited number of distributors, can allow a manufacturer to efficiently manage the supply chain for a given product. However, as a recent paper argues, LDNs can have an anticompetitive impact on the marketplace.
Writing in the April issue of The American Journal of Managed Care®, a sister publication of The Center for Biosimilars®, Laura Karas, MD, MPH, and colleagues explain how LDNs have been used to prevent generic and biosimilar companies from accessing samples of drugs that are necessary to perform testing that will support drug applications to the FDA.
Karas and her fellow authors point to a recent experience with Turing Pharmaceuticals, maker of pyrimethamine (Daraprim), an antiparisitic drug whose price was increased from $13.50 per pill to $750.00 per pill under the leadership of then-CEO Martin Shkreli. According to the paper, the director of patient access at Turing commented that he would not have approved a generic drug developer’s attempt to purchase the drug for testing, fearing that competition could undercut the high cost of the product.
The authors explain that the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) are often used as a pretext for creating LDNs. REMS programs, despite their stated purpose of ensuring that the benefits of high-risk drugs outweigh potential risks, have come under fire from a variety of stakeholders, including FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, who said that REMS programs “can block the timely entry of a generic competitor” despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 specifies that REMS programs must not be used to delay approval of generic drugs.
While a REMS program may require a product to be sold only to named patients with valid prescriptions, the FDA does not recommend or mandate the use of an LDN as a way to achieve drug safety. However, those manufacturers who elect to contract with a small number of distributors may include in contract terms that the drug only be sold to individual patients, not to generic or biosimilar developers.
According to the FDA’s Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the agency has fielded more than 150 inquiries from generic and biosimilar companies who say they have had testing samples withheld by brand name drug makers.
Not only can withholding of samples result in costly litigation for companies, it can also have a negative impact on the healthcare system when drug makers raise the price of treatments that have no alternatives available. In addition to pyrimethamine, corticotropin (H.P. Acthar Gel), a systemic corticosteroid approved by the FDA in 1952, has seen a 116,575% increase in price from 2001 to 2018 (from $40 per vial to $46,670 per vial). Similarly, hydroxyl-progesterone caproate (Makena), a synthetic progestin approved first in 1956, saw a 14,900% price increase when it rose to from $10 to $1500 in 2011.
Karas and colleagues suggest 3 potential solutions to the misuse of LDNs:
“Misuse of LDNs to deter generic competitors may result in billions of dollars in lost savings each year, so effective legislation addressing this practice could yield tremendous financial benefits,” the authors conclude.
Reference
Karas L, Shermock KM, Proctor C, Socal M, Anderson GF. Limited distribution networks stifle competition in the generic and biosiilar drug industrites. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(4):e122-e127. ajmc.com/journals/issue/2018/2018-vol24-n4/limited-distribution-networks-stifle-competition-in-the-generic-and-biosimilar-drug-industries.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Denosumab Biosimilars Earn Positive CHMP Opinion for Bone Loss and Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
November 26th 2024The European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for the denosumab biosimilars SB16 for all indications referencing Prolia and Xgeva.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.