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

Roger Perlmutter. Merck via webcast

'Our lega­cy mat­ter­s': Mer­ck maps out Keytru­da king­dom while spot­light­ing ad­vances in vac­cines, hos­pi­tal care

“You can for the mo­ment stop tak­ing notes. You can put down your pens and your pad. I have no slides. I have no sub­stan­tive da­ta. I have no pitch.”

So be­gan Roger Perl­mut­ter’s brief ap­pear­ance on­stage at Mer­ck’s first in­vestor day in five years, where he dived in­to the com­pa­ny’s his­to­ry dat­ing back to 1933. The first em­ploy­ees at Mer­ck Re­search Lab­o­ra­to­ries, hand­picked by founder George W. Mer­ck, were crit­i­cal to Mer­ck’s abil­i­ty to achieve clin­i­cal and com­mer­cial suc­cess.

How small- to mid-sized biotechs can adopt pa­tient cen­tric­i­ty in their on­col­o­gy tri­als

By Lucy Clos­sick Thom­son, Se­nior Di­rec­tor of On­col­o­gy Pro­ject Man­age­ment, Icon

Clin­i­cal tri­als in on­col­o­gy can be cost­ly and chal­leng­ing to man­age. One fac­tor that could re­duce costs and re­duce bar­ri­ers is har­ness­ing the pa­tient voice in tri­al de­sign to help ac­cel­er­ate pa­tient en­roll­ment. Now is the time to adopt pa­tient-cen­tric strate­gies that not on­ly fo­cus on pa­tient needs, but al­so can main­tain cost ef­fi­cien­cy.

Eli Casdin, Casdin Capital

Eli Cas­din backs Codex­is' plat­form tech with $50M eq­ui­ty buy

About a month af­ter Codex­is notched a deal with No­var­tis $NVS, the Cal­i­for­nia com­pa­ny $CDXS on Thurs­day said long-time in­vestor Cas­din Cap­i­tal is putting up $50 mil­lion in a pri­vate place­ment, which puts the New York-based in­vest­ment firm in con­trol of more than 5% of the pro­tein en­gi­neer­ing play­er’s stock.

Eli Cas­din start­ed his epony­mous in­vest­ment firm in 2012 and dates his re­la­tion­ship with Codex­is back to at least a decade. About three years ago, Cas­din Cap­i­tal be­gan in­vest­ing in the in­dus­tri­al biotech com­pa­ny, af­ter it piv­ot­ed its fo­cus to the life sci­ences — un­der the aus­pices of new chief John Nicols — away from the en­er­gy in­dus­try.

In starved an­tibi­ot­ic field, Melin­ta soars as FDA grants speedy drug re­view

Such is the state of af­fairs in an­tibi­ot­ic land that the FDA agree­ing to pri­or­i­ty re­view an ap­pli­ca­tion to ex­pand the use of an an­tibi­ot­ic can rock­et up a stock more than two-fold.

On Wednes­day, Melin­ta Ther­a­peu­tics said its ap­proved an­tibi­ot­ic Baxdela had been grant­ed pri­or­i­ty re­view for use in com­mu­ni­ty-ac­quired bac­te­r­i­al pneu­mo­nia (CAPB). The FDA is ex­pect­ed to make its de­ci­sion by Oc­to­ber 24. Shares of the Con­necti­cut drug­mak­er $ML­NT cat­a­pult­ed, clos­ing up near­ly 224% at $6.41.

Brent Saunders at an Endpoints News event in 2017 — File photo

An­a­lyst call with Al­ler­gan ex­ecs stokes an­tic­i­pa­tion of a plan to split the com­pa­ny in ‘a month or two’

So what’s up at Al­ler­gan?

Ear­li­er this week the ubiq­ui­tous Ever­core ISI an­a­lyst Umer Raf­fat was on the line with com­pa­ny ex­ec­u­tives to probe in­to the lat­est on the num­bers as well as CEO Brent Saun­ders’ re­cent de­c­la­ra­tion that he’d be do­ing some­thing de­fin­i­tive to help long-suf­fer­ing in­vestors who have watched their shares dwin­dle in val­ue.

He came away with the im­pres­sion that a sig­nif­i­cant com­pa­ny split is on the way. And not on some dis­tant time hori­zon.

In­vestors pony up $476M for the lat­est round of biotech IPOs to hit the Street

Three biotechs — and a genome se­quenc­ing play­er — have caught the lat­est tide to the Gold Coast of IPOs, round­ing out the first half of 2019 with 23 new drug de­vel­op­ers mak­ing it on Nas­daq.

Most of these com­pa­nies filed their IPOs al­most si­mul­ta­ne­ous­ly, though we’re still wait­ing on word of fel­low class­mate Bridge­Bio’s pric­ing af­ter CEO Neil Ku­mar set the terms at $14 to $16 a share on Mon­day in search of a $240 mil­lion (or so) wind­fall. If he’s suc­cess­ful, that would take the one-week haul past the $700 mil­lion mark, a fresh sign that in­vestors’ en­thu­si­asm for new­ly coined pub­lic biotechs hasn’t cooled.

John Reed at JPM 2019. Jeff Rumans for Endpoints News

Sanofi's John Reed con­tin­ues to re­or­ga­nize R&D, cut­ting 466 jobs while boost­ing can­cer, gene ther­a­py re­search

The R&D reorganization inside Sanofi is continuing, more than a year after the pharma giant brought in John Reed to head the research arm of the Paris-based company.
Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

The top 10 block­buster drugs in the late-stage pipeline — Eval­u­ate adds 6 new ther­a­pies to heavy-hit­ter list

Vertex comes in for a substantial amount of criticism for its no-holds-barred tactical approach toward wresting the price it wants for its commercial drugs in Europe. But the flip side of that coin is a highly admired R&D and commercial operation that regularly wins kudos from analysts for their ability to engineer greater cash flow from the breakthrough drugs they create.

Both aspects needed for success in this business are on display in the program backing Vertex’s triple for cystic fibrosis. VX-659/VX-445 + Tezacaftor + Ivacaftor — it’s been whittled down to 445 now — was singled out by Evaluate Pharma as the late-stage therapy most likely to win the crown for drug sales in 5 years, with a projected peak revenue forecast of $4.3 billion.

The latest annual list, which you can see here in their latest world preview, includes a roster of some of the most closely watched development programs in biopharma. And Evaluate has added 6 must-watch experimental drugs to the top 10 as drugs fail or go on to a first approval. With apologies to the list maker, I revamped this to rank the top 10 by projected 2024 sales, instead of Evaluate's net present value rankings.

It's how we roll at Endpoints News.

Here is a quick summary of the rest of the top 10:

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Robert Forrester, Verastem

Ve­rastem CEO For­rester steps to the ex­it as the board hunts com­mer­cial-savvy ex­ec for the be­lea­guered biotech

Robert For­rester is step­ping down as CEO of Ve­rastem On­col­o­gy $VSTM just 8 months af­ter the com­pa­ny nabbed an ap­proval for du­velis­ib, a PI3K drug with a sto­ried past — and what ap­pears as not much of a fu­ture.

The biotech put out word this morn­ing that For­rester will take an ad­vi­so­ry role with Ve­rastem while COO Dan Pa­ter­son steps up to take charge of the lead­er­ship team and the board looks around for a new CEO.