New study ques­tions the need for 12 years of mar­ket ex­clu­siv­i­ty for bi­o­log­ics

The lengthy pre­clin­i­cal and clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment nec­es­sary to bring a bi­o­log­ic to mar­ket has of­ten been cit­ed as one of the cen­tral rea­sons why bi­o­log­ics de­serve 12 years of mar­ket ex­clu­siv­i­ty, or about five years more ex­clu­siv­i­ty than their small mol­e­cule coun­ter­parts.

But a new study pub­lished Tues­day in Na­ture Biotech­nol­o­gy shows that the de­vel­op­ment time of a new bi­o­log­ic is gen­er­al­ly about the same as the de­vel­op­ment time of a small mol­e­cule drug.

The au­thors from the Pro­gram On Reg­u­la­tion, Ther­a­peu­tics, And Law (POR­TAL), Di­vi­sion of Phar­ma­coepi­demi­ol­o­gy and Phar­ma­coeco­nom­ics, De­part­ment of Med­i­cine, Brigham and Women’s Hos­pi­tal and Har­vard Med­ical School, note that “al­though bi­o­log­ics are of­ten thought to be more time-con­sum­ing to de­vel­op than small-mol­e­cule drugs, de­vel­op­ment times for bi­o­log­ics are sim­i­lar to, or pos­si­bly some­what short­er than, for small-mol­e­cule drugs.”

The study found that of the 275 new drugs ap­proved by the FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search (CDER) be­tween 2007 and 2016 (77% were small-mol­e­cule drugs and 23% were bi­o­log­ics), me­di­an to­tal de­vel­op­ment times—from first patent fil­ing to FDA ap­proval—were about 12 years for both types of prod­ucts.

Reed Beall Twit­ter

First au­thor Reed Beall, as­sis­tant pro­fes­sor with the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­gary, ex­plained to Fo­cus: “The main ra­tio­nales giv­en aca­d­e­m­ic de­bate around this is­sue of longer ex­clu­siv­i­ties has been that (#1) bi­o­log­ics are es­pe­cial­ly cost­ly in term of time/com­plex­i­ty/etc. to de­vel­op and man­u­fac­ture; and (#2) patents will not pro­vide ad­e­quate pro­tec­tion for a long enough ex­clu­siv­i­ty pe­ri­ods to re­coup in­vest­ments and prof­it.”

“We know now in hind­sight that #2 is like­ly un­ground­ed,” Beall said, point­ing to mul­ti­ple bi­o­log­ics that have staved off biosim­i­lar com­pe­ti­tion in the US de­spite be­ing on the mar­ket for more than 12 years. And this lat­est study shows how the tim­ing of de­vel­op­ment is not dif­fer­ent be­tween bi­o­log­ics and small-mol­e­cule drugs.

“As the tech sur­round­ing bi­o­log­ics is new­er, it’s nat­ur­al to ex­pect that get­ting off the ground will be dif­fi­cult in the be­gin­ning and will even­tu­al­ly be­come more ef­fi­cient. How­ev­er, if pol­i­cy sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly gives bet­ter mar­ket pro­tec­tions for bi­o­log­ics in the long term, it may in­cen­tivize in­vest­ment in the de­vel­op­ment of bi­o­log­ics over small-mol­e­cule drug, even though there’s no ob­vi­ous rea­son why we should pre­fer larg­er mol­e­cules to small ones. Now that the sci­ence is more ma­ture, it may be time to re­vis­it the da­ta and poli­cies sur­round­ing longer bi­o­log­ic ex­clu­siv­i­ties and pric­ing,” Beall said.

The study al­so notes how guar­an­teed ex­clu­siv­i­ty pe­ri­ods for bi­o­log­ics are short­er in oth­er, sim­i­lar coun­tries.

“For both bi­o­log­ics and small-mol­e­cule drugs, the Eu­ro­pean Union pro­vides 10 years of ex­clu­siv­i­ty, and Aus­tralia and New Zealand pro­vide 5 years of ex­clu­siv­i­ty. By con­trast, the Unit­ed States pro­vides 5 years of guar­an­teed ex­clu­siv­i­ty for small mol­e­cules that are new chem­i­cal en­ti­ties, al­though in prac­tice this ex­clu­siv­i­ty pro­vides clos­er to 7 years of mar­ket pro­tec­tion for small mol­e­cules be­cause the FDA can­not be­gin re­view­ing ap­pli­ca­tions from gener­ic com­peti­tors un­til the 5 years of da­ta ex­clu­siv­i­ty have ex­pired. This dis­par­i­ty in ex­clu­siv­i­ty in the Unit­ed States—12 years for bi­o­log­ics ver­sus rough­ly 7 years for small mol­e­cules—may in­cen­tivize in­vest­ment in the de­vel­op­ment of bi­o­log­ics over small-mol­e­cule drugs,” the study says.

But Beall al­so notes lim­i­ta­tions of the study, such as that it on­ly con­sid­ered drugs ap­proved by CDER, and did not in­clude prod­ucts that failed at some point dur­ing the de­vel­op­ment process or the rel­a­tive­ly small­er num­ber of prod­ucts ap­proved by the FDA’s Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion Re­search.

The study fol­lows a pol­i­cy pro­pos­al from Pew Health in 2017, which al­so sug­gest­ed re­duc­ing the ex­clu­siv­i­ty pe­ri­od for bi­o­log­ics, not­ing that the costs to de­vel­op bi­o­log­ics and small-mol­e­cule drugs are sim­i­lar.

Study


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

So­cial im­age: Shut­ter­stock

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.

Penn team adapts CAR-T tech, reengi­neer­ing mouse cells to treat car­diac fi­bro­sis

After establishing itself as one of the pioneer research centers in the world for CAR-T cancer therapies, creating new attack vehicles to eradicate cancer cells, a team at Penn Medicine has begun the tricky transition of using the basic technology for heart repair work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks. Moderna

The mR­NA uni­corn Mod­er­na has more ear­ly-stage hu­man da­ta it wants to show off — reach­ing new peaks in prov­ing the po­ten­tial

The whole messenger RNA field has attracted billions of dollars in public and private investor cash gambled on the prospect of getting in on the ground floor. And this morning Boston-based Moderna, one of the leaders in the field, wants to show off a few more of the cards it has to play to prove to you that they’re really in the game.

The whole hand, of course, has yet to be dealt. And there’s no telling who gets to walk with a share of the pot. But any cards on display at this point — especially after being accused of keeping its deck under lock and key — will attract plenty of attention from some very wary, and wired, observers.

“In terms of the complexity and unmet need,” says Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer, “this is peak for what we’ve accomplished.”

Moderna has two Phase I studies it wants to talk about now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

It's not per­fect, but it's a good start: FDA pan­elists large­ly en­dorse Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py

Two days after a fairly benign review from FDA staff, an independent panel of experts largely endorsed the efficacy and safety of Aimmune’s peanut allergy therapy, laying the groundwork for approval with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).

Traditionally, peanut allergies are managed by avoidance, but the threat of accidental exposure cannot be nullified. Some allergists have devised a way to dose patients off-label with peanut protein derived from supermarket products to wean them off their allergies. But the idea behind Aimmune’s product was to standardize the peanut protein, and track the process of desensitization — so when accidental exposure in the real world invariably occurs, patients are less likely to experience a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rit­ter bombs fi­nal PhI­II for sole lac­tose in­tol­er­ance drug — shares plum­met

More than two years ago Ritter Pharmaceuticals managed to find enough silver lining in its Phase IIb/III study — after missing the top-line mark — to propel its lactose intolerance toward a confirmatory trial. But as it turned out, the enthusiasm only set the biotech and its investors up to be sorely disappointed.

This time around there’s little left to salvage. Not only did RP-G28 fail to beat placebo in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms, patients in the treatment group actually averaged a smaller improvement. On a composite score measuring symptoms like abdominal pain, cramping, bloating and gas, patients given the drug had a mean reduction of 3.159 while the placebo cohort saw a 3.420 drop on average (one-sided p-value = 0.0106).

Ear­ly snap­shot of Ad­verum's eye gene ther­a­py sparks con­cern about vi­sion loss

An early-stage update on Adverum Biotechnologies’ intravitreal gene therapy has triggered investor concern, after patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) saw their vision deteriorate, despite signs that the treatment is improving retinal anatomy.

Adverum, on Wednesday, unveiled 24-week data from the OPTIC trial of its experimental therapy, ADVM-022, in six patients who have been administered with one dose of the therapy. On average, patients in the trial had severe disease with an average of 6.2 anti-VEGF injections in the eight months prior to screening and an average annualized injection frequency of 9.3 injections.

Alex Ar­faei trades his an­a­lyst's post for a new role as biotech VC; Sanofi vet heads to Vi­for

Too often, Alex Arfaei arrived too late. 

An analyst at BMO Capital Markets, he’d meet with biotech or pharmaceutical heads for their IPO or secondary funding and his brain, trained on a biology degree and six years at Merck and Endo, would spring with questions: Why this biomarker? Why this design? Why not this endpoint? Not that he could do anything about it. These execs were coming for clinical money; their decisions had been made and finalized long ago.

Arde­lyx bags its first FDA OK for IBS, set­ting up a show­down with Al­ler­gan, Iron­wood

In the first of what it hopes will be a couple of major regulatory milestones for its new drug, Ardelyx has bagged an FDA approval to market Ibsrela (tenapanor) for irritable bowel syndrome.

The drug’s first application will be for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), inhibiting sodium-hydrogen exchanger NHE3 in the GI tract in such a way as to increase bowel movements and decrease abdominal pain. This comes on the heels of two successful Phase III trials.