The South Centre, an intragovernmental organization of developing nations headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, has issued a new report on biosimilars that calls on regulatory bodies to institute an approval pathway for “biological generics” in favor of biosimilars.
The South Centre, an intragovernmental organization of developing nations headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, has issued a new report on biosimilars that calls on regulatory bodies to institute an approval pathway for “biological generics” in favor of biosimilars.
The report, titled “The International Debate on Generic Medicines of Biological Origin” and authored by German Velasquez, PhD, explains that the cost of biologic medicines is just as significant a barrier, if not an even higher one, to patient access in the developing world as it is elsewhere. “Whether or not there is an adequate supply of generic biological drugs available will be crucial to ensuring the economic viability of health systems in both developing and developed countries,” writes Velasquez.
Among the hurdles to affordable biologic therapies that the report addresses are the following:
Patents and Data Exclusivity
Velasquez argues that, while drugs are under patent protection, manufacturers are free to set prices based not on production or development costs, but on the supposed value of the medicine to an individual or to society, with an emphasis on the value of a product in terms of days of life gained or labor force recovered. “This new price-setting trend threatens the economic viability of our health systems,” he says, adding that data exclusivity—protection of a drug’s clinical data from competitors for a limited period of time—compounds the problem. Even in nations where a product is not protected by a patent, Velasquez argues, the inability of a competitor to gain access to data in order to develop a competitive product can “…[give] rise to the same type of monopolies as patents do.”
Approval Pathways
Velasquez says that the approval and regulation of biologic drugs is more complex than that of small-molecule drugs in part because the World Health Organization (WHO) has not set a global standard. This lack of a unifying regulatory approach has led nations like the United States to construct their own approval pathways, thereby complicating the biosimilar approval process.
Furthermore, Velasquez argues, guidelines for demonstrating biosimilarity in the European Union serve to block or delay biosimilar availability, because, he says, these guidelines are not intended to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence, but instead to demonstrate that 2 proteins are highly similar. “Indeed, the debate over whether two chemical substances or two proteins are or can be identical is of little interest in evaluating their biosimilarity from the perspective of public health since the aim is to establish therapeutic equivalency,” writes Velasquez.
The report also argues against the WHO’s adoption of a biological qualifier, or a code that would be assigned to biological products and used in conjunction with the drugs’ international nonproprietary names (INNs), which Velasquez says could cause unnecessary confusion in the prescribing and dispensing of drugs. (The WHO announced in October 2017 that it would not proceed with the use of biological qualifiers in the foreseeable future.)
Industry Strategies
Velasquez points to pay-for-delay settlements—arrangements under which an innovator product sponsor agrees to pay a biosimilar or generic developer a sum of money in order to delay market entry of its product—as a barrier to competition. So-called “authorized generics,” or drugs produced by a brand-name manufacturer under separate labels, are also “clearly contrary to the principle of free competition that should apply once a patent has expired,” he adds. Finally, Velasquez states that industry lobbying has made importation of international products into nations like the United States all but impossible.
The report concludes that the growing cost of biologic drugs hinges on a new focus on the “value” of a drug rather than on the cost of its development or production, and that patent and data protection erect further barriers to market competition.
Instead of allowing for biosimilars, Velasquez writes, regulatory bodies should instead focus on approving “biological generics,” or drugs that can produce the same patient outcomes as biologic medicines regardless of the generic’s molecular similarity to its reference. “What matters to the patient, after all,” he writes, “is whether or not the drug can prevent, cure, or mitigate the effects of the illness.”
The report does not address the feasibility of transitioning or switching between innovator biologics and so-called biological generics, nor does it propose guidelines for demonstrating therapeutic equivalence of these therapies.
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.