Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Johnson & Johnson has submitted a citizen petition asking the FDA to require copies of biological products to bear names that are similar and not identical to those of their reference products.
According to J&J's Chief Biotechnology Officer Jay Siegel "Assigning names that are similar but not the same will appropriately reflect the legal and scientific reality that biosimilars are similar to but not the same as their reference products or other biosimilars.”
It’s likely that 2013 will be the year remembered as the year of the ObamaCare website fiasco. It’s a story tailor-made for the media. But the real stories lie elsewhere.
2013 should be commemorated as the year that America began to celebrate the real debut of personalized medicine. New medicines for cancers and orphan diseases were approved by the FDA using a more progressive view of the risk/benefit equation. And, for the first time, the voice of the patient really made a difference in the agency’s calculations. 2013 will be seen as the year when the FDA began to think about a greater dimensionality of benefits via functional endpoints.
2013 may also be viewed by future generations of healthcare pharmacenti as the year when “blockbuster” thinking was replaced with a focus on patient outcomes. The implications for R&D investment in new molecules as well as companion diagnostics make 2013 the year when we finally take to heart both the philosophical and business proposition that getting the right medicine to the right patient in the right dose at the right time is the best way to embrace a patient-centric care paradigm that is also cost-efficient.
But 2013 may also be viewed as the year when Uncle Sam got into the business of telling physicians (and nurse prescribers) how to practice medicine. This is, after all, the year that “government detailing” (aka, “academic detailing” or “counter-detailing”) hit the streets via our tax dollars and minus any federal oversight. It’s an issue that’s been flying under the radar screen – and that makes it more insidious and twice as dangerous.
What will define 2014? There are many possibilities. Certainly near the top of the list is the march towards American biosimilars. 2014 will be the year when the FDA decides on the INN issue. It’s the rare opportunity when we can learn from the mistakes other nations have made. I predict that the FDA will do the right thing and insist that FOBs carry a sim prefix or some such specific identifier. You cannot create comfort among prescribers and patients with therapeutic ambiguity.
Will 2014 be the year when healthcare communicators and pharmacovigilance trackers decide to embrace social media? Will 2014 be the year of more creative and aggressive use of adaptive clinical trials? Will 2014 be a year of developmental and regulatory success for new antibiotics? Only time will tell.
Let’s hope that 2014 builds upon the success of 2013, learns from its failures and surprises us in exciting ways that we didn’t even expect.
When it comes to medication adherence, is knowledge power? Or is that even the right question. Perhaps patients, and healthcare professionals (and payers and regulators) also need to learn how to share knowledge. When it comes to medication adherence in the 21st century, the medium is the medicine.
Are package inserts, hard copy med guides, brochures and “starter packages” still the best way to make important healthcare information “sticky?” Were they ever? Will the tried-and-true ways enhance safe use or drive positive therapeutic outcomes? Or do today’s patients (also known as consumers) want their healthcare intelligence the same way they’re getting enlightenment and orientation on all the other things they want and need to know about the daily details of their lives? In short, on tablets and smart phones.
Is there an app for that?
OH, East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.
Nice verse, but unacceptable R&D policy.
This morning the NEJM published "Asia's Ascent: Global Trends in Biomedical R&D Expenditures."
Co-authored by Steve Sammut, Senior Fellow, Health Care Management Lecturer, Entrepreneurial Programs Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and board member at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, the article provides data to support the positions of Francis Collins and others that the US contribution to research is rapidly eroding relative to other countries, particularly in East Asia.
In recent years, industry has reduced its investment in U.S. biomedical research and development by billions of dollars, while increasing investment in Asia–Oceania. Thus, boosting U.S. government funding alone may be inadequate for retaining long-term R&D leadership.
Francis Collins is sending the article to Congress
Attention must be paid.
India’s Efforts to Aid Poor Worry Drug Makers (New York Times, December 30, 2013) points to the price of cancer medications as the sole impediment to access. Not so.
Price is one variable, but it is not the only one.
Less than 10% of India's 45+ million citizens with cardiovascular disease get even the most common medicines like diuretics and statins. Yet there are 10,500 licensed Indian drug manufacturers producing hundreds of generic anti-hypertensives and other CVD products on the market in India.
While the Times’ story shares a sad tale, the plural of “anecdote” isn’t “data.” The truth is much more complicated and the issue of local production vs. patent protection is a red herring. Almost every drug on the WHO’s list of essential drugs is off-patent – and yet patients in India (and almost every nation in the developing world) lacks access due to poorly run government programs, failing domestic infrastructure, dearth of healthcare providers and, worst of all, lack of diagnosis.
Also, once a lifesaving drug or treatment exists, it’s seductively easy to take it for granted. We sometimes forget the years of toil these things take to develop; the millions spent to bring a new drug or treatment from theory to actuality. As Abraham Lincoln wrote, patents “add the fuel of interest to the passion of genius.”The FTC and biosimilars
Instead of playing name game, it should choose clarity
By Peter Pitts
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has started to meddle on a health issue that probably isn’t on the radar of more than a couple of health-policy wonks, but it should be of interest to anyone who treats patients or cares about patient safety.
It’s about a class of medicines called “biosimilars,” copycat versions of innovator biologics — or medicines made from living cells. Most people aren’t even familiar with biologics, let alone biosimilars. Biologics are the fastest-growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry and are primarily used to treat life-threatening or difficult-to-target diseases like cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis and epilepsy. Many people aren’t familiar with them yet and only know about traditional chemical compounds, which are vastly different.
Why is the FTC involved? Good question. The FTC’s interest here would be to ensure that “anti-competitive” or “deceptive practices” don’t compromise consumers’ ability to know which product he or she is prescribed, and to ensure it’s the one he or she actually receives. That’s because that’s what “informed consumer choice” is all about — right?
Not in this case. The issue the FTC is actually focusing on is whether any and all biosimilars that follow a particular “reference product” (the innovator biologic) ought to have the exact same name as that reference product. And all current indications point to the FTC is about to concur that they should.
This is no trivial issue. It is a fact that no two biologic products produced by different manufacturers will be the same. A biosimilar can only resemble its reference product. Therefore, how biologics are named will directly impact clarity of information around which products a patient has been using. Greater clarity will obviously occur if biologics and biosimilars have distinguishable names, and that clarity will enable better safety monitoring, “adverse event” reporting and timeliness in managing adverse events if they occur, and can even help us better understand which products work better for certain patients and specific subpopulations.
Let’s employ some common sense here. Suppose parents were to give birth to a set of fraternal twins: would it make sense to name them both “Tim,” on the grounds that it would “level the competitive playing field” as they grow and master their fate? Or do the boys have the right — and the rest of world an interest — in being able to tell them apart? And while we’re on the subject of names, let’s remember that the name “biosimilar” was coined for a reason — as with fraternal twins, who are not identical. (Even if they were — and you wanted to marry one of them — you’d probably want your “choice” to be “informed” by their having distinguishable names.)
In the FTC’s eyes, it seems to come down to clarity of information versus eking out every possible cent of cost savings. It’s not worth the trade-off. Biosimilars have the potential to provide quality alternative medicines and to improve prices in the biologics space. Because of the complexities associated with all biologics (including biosimilars), however, cost savings from biosimilars are not expected to exceed 10 percent to 20 percent over branded products. Chemical compound generics can realize savings of up to 80 percent over brands.
If we go in the direction of non-unique names, and issues arise, we might not have the information we need to quickly understand which among similar products is causing the issue. That can unnecessarily affect trust across a class of drugs and biosimilars as a whole, and that could significantly affect uptake.
Biosimilars are already available in other parts of the world. This gives us a unique opportunity to learn from the experiences of those markets. In Europe, where biosimilars share the same names as the originator product, they’re experiencing an increased number of adverse events, and it can take months for manufacturers to determine if their product is causing the problem.
Thailand also uses nondistinguishable names and rapidly approved biosimilars to treat certain diseases, which has led to both a dramatic increase in the number of cases of life-threatening blood-related adverse events and near futility in efforts to track back to which products are causing the problems. Australia opted for distinguishable codes for all biologics, and they appear to be experiencing successful rollout and uptake of biosimilars.
It’s a universal reality: What’s in a name is a fundamental ability to tell things apart. Nothing more informs American competitiveness and informed consumer choice. No one more than the FTC should recognize that fact — and be its champion.
Peter J. Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner, is president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.
According to the FDA Law Blog:
There’s a hot debate brewing over whether or not a biosimilar biological product licensed under Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (“PHS Act”), as added by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), should share the same non-proprietary name – or International Nonproprietary Name (“INN”) – as its brand-name reference product counterpart. Last Friday, Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) further turned up the heat when the company announced the submission of extensive comments (89 pages in length) to two citizen petitions submitted to FDA earlier this year requesting that the Agency require that a biosimilar be identified by the same INN as the reference product it relies on for approval.
The first petition (Docket No. FDA-2013-P-1153) was submitted by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (“GPhA”) in September and requests that FDA “implement its INN naming policy equally to all biologics” such that all biosimilars “share the same INN name as the” reference product (see our previous post here), The second petition (Docket No. FDA-2013-P-1398) was submitted in October by the Novartis Group of companies (“Novartis”) and requests that FDA “require that a biosimilar[] be identified by the same [INN] . . . as the reference product.” (see our previous post here).
According to Amgen:
Contrary to the position of GPhA and Novartis . . . , we believe that a policy of identical non-proprietary names would pose significant public health risks, and is inconsistent with applicable legal requirements. Petitioners fail to take into account fundamental scientific principles of biological products as well as their distinctive posology and methods of administration in clinical practice. We believe that, both as a matter of public health and as a matter of law, biological products licensed under the BPCIA should have distinguishable non-proprietary names—that is, non-proprietary names comprised of common roots and distinguishable prefixes or suffixes, as deemed appropriate by FDA, to achieve the goals of patient safety through effective post-market surveillance, and widespread physician and patient acceptance and appropriate use of this important new class of medicines.
Amgen lays out its case for distinguishable non-proprietary names – and opposition to the GPhA and Novartis petitions – in seven parts, arguing along the way that:
(1) “Biosimilars licensed under the BPCIA are appropriately neither required nor expected to be structurally identical either to their reference counterparts or to each other. Indeed, the product quality attributes for biosimilars may fall outside even the range of variability that is acceptable for the reference product, and differences in both structure and function will become increasingly prevalent as the complexity of the reference products increases. Because biosimilars cannot be—and are not—brought to market through the same abbreviated pathway as generic drugs, the legal requirements applicable to generic drugs (including the requirement that generics bear the same labeling and established names as their reference counterparts) do not apply to biosimilars. This difference in regulatory treatment is both appropriate and critically important to development of biosimilar medicines using state of the art technology.”
(2) “Distinct safety and immunogenicity profiles are found among structurally related biological products. Similar biological products cannot be fully characterized in premarket clinical trials, but instead must be subject to effective post-market surveillance that distinguishes accurately among related products. . . . [I]t is especially important that pharmacovigilance measures account for the possibility of differences in the safety profiles of related biological products. These differences could be intrinsic to products as a result of their distinct methods of manufacture, or they could be emergent as a result of post-approval manufacturing changes.”
(3) “Because FDA’s spontaneous reporting/post-market surveillance system does not encompass the separate tracking of [products] sharing the same non-proprietary name to be separately tracked, biosimilars with the same non-proprietary names but potentially different immunogenic profiles will be difficult to distinguish, hampering immunogenicity tracking and optimal pharmacovigilance.”
(4) GPhA and Novartis include in their petitions “numerous unsupported and erroneous objections to the use of distinguishable names for biological products.”
(5) A biosimilars naming policy that would mirror the naming rules for generic drugs “would create a significant risk of confusion regarding a biosimilar product’s bioequivalence or identity to its reference product. Moreover, given FDA’s obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act to treat like cases alike and to explain any departures from precedent, FDA would need to reconcile any naming policy with its past statements recognizing the potential safety risks of using identical established names for similar biological products, as well as instances in which FDA has required, for safety reasons, the use of distinguishable names for similar products.”
(6) “[T]the need for better pharmacovigilance measures for all drug products does not obviate the need for distinguishable names to facilitate post-market risk management in the context of biosimilars.”
(7) Alternative pharmacovigilance mechanisms, such as those suggested by GPhA in its citizen petition, “are not sufficient to address the need for robust post-market surveillance of biological products.” Efforts to create a federal tracing system “is not capable of ensuring the robust pharmacovigilance systems necessary for biological products if biosimilars are assigned identical non-proprietary names to their respective reference products.”A short missive from White Oak that may portend broader consequences:
“Rachel Sherman has decided to retire after many years of service to both FDA and CDER. We will miss her leadership and guidance as the OMP Office Director and wish her well in future endeavors!”
Wow.
Very few words to announce a very big loss.
While Medicare as a whole is a fiscal basket case -- due to run out of money in 2024 -- Part D has been the very model of a well functioning federal program since its implementation in 2006.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that, between 2004 and 2013, Part D will cost an extraordinary 45 percent below what was initially estimated. Premiums for the program, meanwhile, are roughly half of the government’s original projections. Part D enrollees pay, on average, $30 a month -- a rate that has remained essentially unchanged for years. It’s no wonder that beneficiaries are so pleased with the program. In fact, 96 percent of those enrolled in Part D say that their coverage works well.
These unprecedented results are largely due to Part D’s market-based structure. Beneficiaries are free to choose from a slate of private drug coverage plans, forcing insurers to compete to offer the best options to American seniors. It’s hardly surprising that the program has led to low prices and satisfied customers.
Through their own negotiations with drugmakers, private insurance plans that operate under Part D have already had great success in keeping pharmaceutical prices down. In fact, the CBO has observed that Part D plans have “secured rebates somewhat larger than the average rebates observed in commercial health plans.”
What’s more, the CBO has said time and again that doing away with the non-interference clause “would have a negligible effect on federal spending.” In a report from 2009, they reiterated this view, explaining that such a reform would “have little, if any, effect on [drug] prices.”
Smart partnerships between government and the free market work. They work at keeping costs low and – most importantly – improving care. As JAMA reported, “Implementation of Medicare Part D was followed by increased use of prescription medications, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and improved medication adherence.” And this, in no small measure, significantly reduces more drastic medical interventions -- which in turn reduces our overall national health care spending.
A new report from the Manhattan Institute, “A Decade of Success: How Competition Drives Savings in Medicare Part D,” details many of the reasons why a free-market approach to healthcare access is not only working – but a model for how to design future healthcare partnerships between Uncle Sam and the private sector.
Here is the report’s executive summary:
National trends are not a sufficient explanation for Part D’s success.
While patent expirations are part of the story—national drug spending as a whole slowed during the period we examine—they are far from the full explanation for large overestimates in Part D spending (indeed, patent expirations were likely captured in the original projections). Instead, the available evidence indicates that private-sector firm-level innovations, including preferred pharmacy networks and aggressive negotiations with drug manufacturers, have played a significant role in keeping the program’s costs below projections. We find that broader market trends (e.g., patent expirations and other changes) account for only about half (56 percent) of the program’s performance. The remainder—44 percent—of Part D’s lower-than-estimated cost savings is attributable to factors not captured in national prescription drug trends, which should include competition between Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). This is strong evidence indicating that consumer-driven competition in Part D has been critical to the program’s financial success.
Consumer-driven competition is a relatively new tool in the government’s effort to control health-care costs.
In hindsight, government overestimates of Part D’s costs are not surprising, since the program utilizes a model of consumer choice (robust competition among dozens of regional drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans) that has no perfect analogue in other government health plans, such as Medicaid.
Part D is an excellent model for future health-care and entitlement reforms.
Arguably, Part D and Medicare Advantage plans represent the first national health-care exchange (the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] is a close cousin). While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) operates a similar exchange concept, there are important differences. First, Part D plans compete in large regional areas, not states (this creates much bigger risk pools because even large states are incorporated into larger regions), as the ACA exchanges do. Even the federal exchange is layered on top of a state-regulated insurance market. This potentially limits the ability of plans to create economies of scale to bargain with providers and to utilize innovative tools to arbitrage cost and quality differences across state markets (preferred pharmacy and mail-order networks in Part D; telemedicine and medical tourism to “centers of excellence” for health-insurance plans). Notably, while Part D includes higher subsidies for sicker seniors (typically, the low-income subsidy population), it does not penalize healthier seniors through higher premiums, as the ACA’s community rating provisions do. Arguably, a better approach would be to rely more on backdoor (non-cross-subsidized) risk adjustment of plans and larger subsidies for sicker or older patients, while allowing plans to charge actuarially fair premiums to younger enrollees. The cross-subsidies in the Part D approach are more transparent in that sense, since they come from tax revenues rather than from private premiums.
The complete MI report can be found here.
Per a new draft guidance:
While generic formulations of these drug products are required to be both pharmaceutically and therapeutically equivalent to a reference listed drug (RLD), we are concerned that differences in physical characteristics (e.g., size and shape of the tablet or capsule) may affect patient compliance and acceptability of medication regimens or could lead to medication errors. We believe these patient safety concerns are important, and we are recommending that generic drug manufacturers consider physical attributes when they develop quality target product profiles (QTPPs) for their generic product candidates.
This is important and even more significant considering the agency’s recent proposed rule that would permit generic drug makers to update their labels if they received information about potential safety problems.
(For more on this, see here.)
Next up: tighter ranges for bioequivalency
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
