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.


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


Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

2019 Trin­i­ty Drug In­dex Eval­u­ates Ac­tu­al Com­mer­cial Per­for­mance of Nov­el Drugs Ap­proved in 2016

Fewer Approvals, but Neurology Rivals Oncology and Sees Major Innovations

This report, the fourth in our Trinity Drug Index series, outlines key themes and emerging trends in the industry as we progress towards a new world of targeted and innovative products. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2016, scoring each on its commercial performance, therapeutic value, and R&D investment (Table 1: Drug ranking – Ratings on a 1-5 scale).

How to cap­i­talise on a lean launch

For start-up biotechnology companies and resource stretched pharmaceutical organisations, launching a novel product can be challenging. Lean teams can make setting a launch strategy and achieving your commercial goals seem like a colossal undertaking, but can these barriers be transformed into opportunities that work to your brand’s advantage?
We spoke to Managing Consultant Frances Hendry to find out how Blue Latitude Health partnered with a fledgling subsidiary of a pharmaceutical organisation to launch an innovative product in a
complex market.
What does the launch environment look like for this product?
FH: We started working on the product at Phase II and now we’re going into Phase III trials. There is a significant unmet need in this disease area, and everyone is excited about the launch. However, the organisation is still evolving and the team is quite small – naturally this causes a little turbulence.

Aymeric Le Chatelier, Ipsen

A $1B-plus drug stum­bles in­to an­oth­er big PhI­II set­back -- this time flunk­ing fu­til­i­ty test -- as FDA hold re­mains in ef­fect for Ipsen

David Meek

At the time Ipsen stepped up last year with more than a billion dollars in cash to buy Clementia and a late-stage program for a rare bone disease that afflicts children, then CEO David Meek was confident that he had put the French biotech on a short path to a mid-2020 launch.

Instead of prepping a launch, though, the company was hit with a hold on the FDA’s concerns that a therapy designed to prevent overgrowth of bone for cases of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva might actually stunt children’s growth. So they ordered a halt to any treatments for kids 14 and under. Meek left soon after to run a startup in Boston. And today the Paris-based biotech is grappling with the independent monitoring committee’s decision that their Phase III had failed a futility test.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: FDA’s golodirsen CRL: Sarep­ta’s Duchenne drugs are dan­ger­ous to pa­tients, of­fer­ing on­ly a small ben­e­fit. And where's that con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al?

Back last summer, Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram told Duchenne MD families and investors that the FDA’s shock rejection of their second Duchenne MD drug golodirsen was due to some concerns regulators raised about the risk of infection and the possibility of kidney toxicity. But when pressed to release the letter for all to see, he declined, according to a report from BioPharmaDive, saying that kind of move “might not look like we’re being as respectful as we’d like to be.”

He went on to assure everyone that he hadn’t misrepresented the CRL.

But Ingram’s public remarks didn’t include everything in the letter, which — following the FDA’s surprise about-face and unexplained approval — has now been posted on the FDA’s website and broadly circulated on Twitter early Wednesday.

The CRL raises plenty of fresh questions about why the FDA abruptly decided to reverse itself and hand out an OK for a drug a senior regulator at the FDA believed — 5 months ago, when he wrote the letter — is dangerous to patients. It also puts the spotlight back on Sarepta $SRPT, which failed to launch a confirmatory study of eteplirsen, which was only approved after a heated internal controversy at the FDA. Ellis Unger, director of CDER’s Office of Drug Evaluation I, notes that study could have clarified quite a lot about the benefit and risks associated with their drugs — which can cost as much as a million dollars per patient per year, depending on weight.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Roche's check­point play­er Tecen­triq flops in an­oth­er blad­der can­cer sub­set

Just weeks after Merck’s star checkpoint inhibitor Keytruda secured FDA approval for a subset of bladder cancer patients, Swiss competitor Roche’s Tecentriq has failed in a pivotal bladder cancer study.

The 809-patient trial — IMvigor010 — tested the PD-L1 drug in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer (MIUC) who had undergone surgery, and were at high risk for recurrence.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead claims Tru­va­da patents in HHS’ com­plaint are in­valid

Back in November, the Department of Health and Human Services took the rare step of filing a complaint against Gilead for infringing on government-owned patents related to the HIV drug Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

But on Thursday, Gilead filed its own retort, making clear that it does not believe it has infringed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Truvada patents because they are invalid.

Gilead dusts off a failed Ebo­la drug as coro­n­avirus spreads; Ex­elix­is boasts pos­i­tive Ph I/II da­ta

→ Less than a year ago Gilead’s antiviral remdesivir failed to make the cut as investigators considered a raft of potential drugs that could be used against an Ebola outbreak. But it may gain a new mission with the outbreak of the coronavirus in China, which is popping up now around the world.

Gilead put out a statement saying that they’re now in discussions with health officials in the US and China about testing their NUC against the virus. It’s the latest in a growing lineup of biopharma companies that are marshaling R&D forces to see if they can come up with a vaccine or therapy to blunt the spread of the virus, which has now sickened hundreds, killed at least 17 people and led the Chinese government to start quarantining cities.

Alex Karnal (Deerfield)

Deer­field vaults to the top of cell and gene ther­a­py CD­MO game with $1.1B fa­cil­i­ty at Philadel­phi­a's newest bio­phar­ma hub

Back at the beginning of 2015, Deerfield Management co-led a $10 million Series C for a private gene therapy startup, reshaping the company and bringing in new leaders to pave way for an IPO just a year later.

Fast forward four more years and the startup, AveXis, is now a subsidiary of Novartis marketing the second-ever gene therapy to be approved in the US.

For its part, Deerfield has also grown more comfortable and ambitious about the nascent field. And the investment firm is now putting down its biggest bet yet: a $1.1 billion contract development and manufacturing facility to produce everything one needs for cell and gene therapy — faster and better than how it’s currently done.

Tri­fec­ta of sick­le cell dis­ease ther­a­pies ex­tend life ex­pectan­cy, but are not cost-ef­fec­tive — ICER

Different therapeutic traits brandished by the three approved therapies for sickle cell disease all extend life expectancy, but their impact on quality of life is uncertain and their long-term cost-effectiveness is not up to scratch according to the thresholds considered reasonable by ICER, the non-profit concluded in a draft guidance report on Thursday.

Sickle cell disease (SCD), which encompasses a group of inherited red blood cell disorders that typically afflict those of African ancestry, impacts hemoglobin — and is characterized by episodes of searing pain as well as organ damage.