FDA re­vers­es course, de­cides not to add suf­fix­es to old­er bi­o­log­ics’ non­pro­pri­etary names

The FDA has de­cid­ed not to go back and re­name bi­o­log­ics’ non­pro­pri­etary names with non­sense suf­fix­es, as it once said it would, rais­ing ques­tions about the con­fu­sion that will like­ly come from a sub­set of bi­o­log­ics’ and biosim­i­lars’ names con­tain­ing suf­fix­es while an­oth­er sub­set of bi­o­log­ics’ names will not con­tain suf­fix­es.

Since 2015, the FDA has been adding the mean­ing­less suf­fix­es to biosim­i­lars’ non­pro­pri­etary names as part of an ef­fort to im­prove phar­ma­covig­i­lance. And since No­vem­ber 2017, the agency al­so be­gan adding the suf­fix­es to new­ly ap­proved bi­o­log­ics’ names, with the in­ten­tion of go­ing back and adding suf­fix­es to all bi­o­log­ics’ non­pro­pri­etary names.

Cur­rent­ly, all 17 ap­proved biosim­i­lars have been ap­proved with the four-let­ter suf­fix­es, as have the prop­er names of 27 orig­i­na­tor bi­o­log­ics.

Scott Got­tlieb

But now, ac­cord­ing to draft guid­ance re­leased Thurs­day, the FDA says that the non­pro­pri­etary names of pre­vi­ous­ly ap­proved prod­ucts “need not be re­vised in or­der to ac­com­plish the ob­jec­tives of the nam­ing con­ven­tion.” The FDA in Jan­u­ary 2017 pub­lished its fi­nal guid­ance on how the suf­fix­es would be added.

The ob­jec­tives from that plan — “phar­ma­covig­i­lance and safe use” — can be ac­com­plished, the FDA says, by ap­ply­ing the nam­ing con­ven­tion to bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts “at the time they are li­censed” and “with­out ap­ply­ing it to li­censed bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts that do not con­tain a suf­fix in their prop­er names.”

So why is the FDA de­cid­ing not to go back and re­name bi­o­log­ics with the suf­fix­es?

“This ap­proach is in­tend­ed to min­i­mize the po­ten­tial bur­den for spon­sors and the health­care sys­tems, and to avoid po­ten­tial con­fu­sion for health­care providers and pa­tients, giv­en that the non­pro­pri­etary names of drugs sel­dom change postap­proval,” the draft guid­ance says.

But the guid­ance will al­so mean that all biosim­i­lars will have ran­dom non­sense suf­fix­es, while their ref­er­ence prod­ucts will not have the suf­fix­es — po­ten­tial­ly rais­ing ques­tions about whether the prod­ucts are sim­i­lar.

The Biosim­i­lars Fo­rum said in a state­ment that the FDA’s “de­ci­sion aban­dons the ret­ro­spec­tive ad­di­tion of a suf­fix to orig­i­na­tion bi­o­log­ics, lead­ing to an un­sub­stan­ti­at­ed no­tion that strict phar­ma­covig­i­lance is on­ly es­sen­tial for biosim­i­lars.”

FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb said in a state­ment: “We ex­pect that as time goes on, and more bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts are in­tro­duced to the mar­ket with dis­tin­guish­able suf­fix­es, pa­tients and providers in­creas­ing­ly will un­der­stand that the suf­fix­es re­flect a con­sis­tent nam­ing con­ven­tion and are not an in­di­ca­tor of prod­uct qual­i­ty.”

And for in­ter­change­able prod­ucts, the draft guid­ance says unique suf­fix­es will be used to “fa­cil­i­tate man­u­fac­tur­er-spe­cif­ic phar­ma­covig­i­lance.”

“An ap­pli­cant for a pro­posed in­ter­change­able prod­uct sub­mit­ted un­der sec­tion 351(k) of the PHS Act should pro­pose a suf­fix com­posed of four low­er­case let­ters for use as the dis­tin­guish­ing iden­ti­fi­er in­clud­ed in the prop­er name des­ig­nat­ed by FDA at the time of li­cen­sure. Such sub­mis­sions can be made dur­ing the in­ves­ti­ga­tion­al new drug ap­pli­ca­tion (IND) phase or at the time of BLA sub­mis­sion. An ap­pli­cant should sub­mit up to 10 pro­posed suf­fix­es, as de­scribed in the Nam­ing Guid­ance, in the or­der of the ap­pli­cant’s pref­er­ence,” the draft says.

But the FDA al­so says that it “does not in­tend to ap­ply the nam­ing con­ven­tion de­scribed in the Nam­ing Guid­ance to tran­si­tion bi­o­log­i­cal prod­ucts.”

Sim­i­lar­ly, the FDA is “re­con­sid­er­ing whether vac­cines should be with­in the scope of the nam­ing con­ven­tion.” Sanofi wrote to the FDA last month ex­plain­ing how the ad­di­tion of suf­fix­es to vac­cine la­bels could cause con­fu­sion among health care providers and neg­a­tive­ly im­pact pub­lic health.

“In view of the ex­ist­ing frame­work for en­sur­ing safe­ty re­port­ing and mon­i­tor­ing for vac­cines, the agency is care­ful­ly con­sid­er­ing whether the in­for­ma­tion that’s al­ready avail­able to us through iden­ti­fi­ca­tion sys­tems as­so­ci­at­ed with the ad­min­is­tra­tion of vac­cines is suf­fi­cient­ly ro­bust for en­sur­ing phar­ma­covig­i­lance such that we may not need dis­tin­guish­able prop­er names with suf­fix­es for vac­cines,” Got­tlieb added.

The FDA’s use of the non­sense suf­fix­es is al­so unique in that no oth­er coun­try in the world has em­ployed their use. Cana­da re­cent­ly de­cid­ed to not use suf­fix­es in the non-pro­pri­etary names of bi­o­log­ics or biosim­i­lars.

Read more: Pro­ce­dures for Han­dling Re­quests for Non­pro­pri­etary Name Suf­fix Re­view for Bi­o­log­i­cal Prod­ucts New­ly Li­censed Un­der Sec­tion 351of the PHS Act​


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.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

John Hood [file photo]

UP­DATE: Cel­gene and the sci­en­tist who cham­pi­oned fe­dra­tinib's rise from Sanofi's R&D grave­yard win FDA OK

Six years after Sanofi gave it up for dead, the FDA has approved the myelofibrosis drug fedratinib, now owned by Celgene.

The drug will be sold as Inrebic, and will soon land in the portfolio at Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is finalizing a deal to acquire Celgene.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: AveX­is sci­en­tif­ic founder was axed — and No­var­tis names a new CSO in wake of an ethics scan­dal

Now at the center of a storm of controversy over its decision to keep its knowledge of manipulated data hidden from regulators during an FDA review, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan has found a longtime veteran in the ranks to head the scientific work underway at AveXis, where the incident occurred. And the scientific founder has hit the exit.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ab­b­Vie gets its FDA OK for JAK in­hibitor upadac­i­tinib, but don’t look for this one to hit ex­ecs’ lofty ex­pec­ta­tions

Another big drug approval came through on Friday afternoon as the FDA OK’d AbbVie’s upadacitinib — an oral JAK1 inhibitor that is hitting the rheumatoid arthritis market with a black box warning of serious malignancies, infections and thrombosis reflecting fears associated with the class.

It will be sold as Rinvoq — at a wholesale price of $59,000 a year — and will likely soon face competition from a drug that AbbVie once controlled, and spurned. Reuters reports that a 4-week supply of Humira, by comparison, is $5,174, adding up to about $67,000 a year.

The top 10 fran­chise drugs in bio­phar­ma his­to­ry will earn a to­tal of $1.4T (tril­lion) by 2024 — what does that tell us?

Just in case you were looking for more evidence of just how important Amgen’s patent win on Enbrel is for the company and its investors, EvaluatePharma has come up with a forward-looking consensus estimate on what the list of top 10 drugs will look like in 2024.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Sci­en­tist-CEO ac­cused of im­prop­er­ly us­ing con­fi­den­tial in­fo from uni­corn Alec­tor

The executive team at Alector $ALEC has a bone to pick with scientific co-founder Asa Abeliovich. Their latest quarterly rundown has this brief note buried inside:

On June 18, 2019, we initiated a confidential arbitration proceeding against Dr. Asa Abeliovich, our former consulting co-founder, related to alleged breaches of his consulting agreement and the improper use of our confidential information that he learned during the course of rendering services to us as our consulting Chief Scientific Officer/Chief Innovation Officer. We are in the early stage of this arbitration proceeding and are unable to assess or provide any assurances regarding its possible outcome.

There’s no explicit word in the filing on what kind of confidential info was involved, but the proceeding got started 2 days ahead of Abeliovich’s IPO.

Abeliovich, formerly a tenured associate professor at Columbia, is a top scientist in the field of neurodegeneration, which is where Alector is targeted. More recently, he’s also helped start up Prevail Therapeutics as the CEO, which raised $125 million in an IPO. And there he’s planning on working on new gene therapies that target genetically defined subpopulations of Parkinson’s disease. Followup programs target Gaucher disease, frontotemporal dementia and synucleinopathies.

But this time Abeliovich is the CEO rather than a founding scientist. And some of their pipeline overlaps with Alector’s.

Abeliovich and Prevail, though, aren’t taking this one lying down.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chi­na has be­come a CEO-lev­el pri­or­i­ty for multi­na­tion­al phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies: the trend and the im­pli­ca­tions

After a “hot” period of rapid growth between 2009 and 2012, and a relatively “cooler” period of slower growth from 2013 to 2015, China has once again become a top-of-mind priority for the CEOs of most large, multinational pharmaceutical companies.

At the International Pharma Forum, hosted in March in Beijing by the R&D Based Pharmaceutical Association Committee (RDPAC) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), no fewer than seven CEOs of major multinational pharmaceutical firms participated, including GSK, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. A few days earlier, the CEOs of several other large multinationals attended the China Development Forum, an annual business forum hosted by the research arm of China’s State Council. It’s hard to imagine any other country, except the US, having such drawing power at CEO level.

As dis­as­ter struck, Ab­b­Vie’s Rick Gon­za­lez swooped in on Al­ler­gan with an of­fer Brent Saun­ders couldn’t say no to

Early March was a no good, awful, terrible time for Allergan CEO Brent Saunders. His big lead drug had imploded in a Phase III disaster and activists were after his hide — or at least his chairman’s title — as the stock price continued a steady droop that had eviscerated share value for investors.

But it was a perfect time for AbbVie CEO Rick Gonzalez to pick up the phone and ask Saunders if he’d like to consider a “strategic” deal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

CEO Pascal Soriot via Getty Images

As­traZeneca's jug­ger­naut PARP play­er Lyn­parza scoops up an­oth­er dom­i­nant win in PhI­II as the FDA adds a 'break­through' for Calquence

AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group under José Baselga keeps churning out hits.

Wednesday morning the pharma giant and their partners at Merck parted the curtains on a successful readout for their Phase III PAOLA-1 study, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival for women with ovarian cancer in a first-line maintenance setting who added their PARP Lynparza to Avastin. This is their second late-stage success in ovarian cancer, which will help stave off rivals like GSK.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 57,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

ICER blasts FDA, PTC and Sarep­ta for high prices on DMD drugs Em­flaza, Ex­ondys 51

ICER has some strong words for PTC, Sarepta and the FDA as the US drug price watchdog concludes that as currently priced, their respective new treatments for Duchenne muscular dystrophy are decidedly not cost-effective.

The final report — which cements the conclusions of a draft issued in May — incorporates the opinion of a panel of 17 experts ICER convened in a public meeting last month. It also based its analysis of Emflaza (deflazacort) and Exondys 51 (eteplirsen) on updated annual costs of $81,400 and over $1 million, respectively, after citing “incorrect” lower numbers in the initial calculations.