US biosim­i­lar launch­es about to turn a cor­ner

The US biosim­i­lar in­dus­try has lin­gered in the shad­ow of the Eu­ro­pean mar­ket since the US path­way for ap­provals was ini­ti­at­ed in 2009.

Ten years lat­er (or less than five years since the first FDA ap­proval of a biosim­i­lar), and just 42% (11 out of 26) of FDA-ap­proved biosim­i­lars have launched. But in the next three months (see chart be­low), a clutch of new biosim­i­lars will hit the mar­ket, in­clud­ing new ones in on­col­o­gy, hint­ing at a wave of up­take.

For in­stance, Pfiz­er is ex­pect­ed to launch three biosim­i­lars soon: one for Avastin (be­va­cizum­ab) lat­er this month, one for Rit­ux­an (rit­ux­imab) next month, and one in Feb­ru­ary for Her­ceptin (trastuzum­ab). Two oth­er trastuzum­ab biosim­i­lars may al­so launch soon, which would mean more than 60% of biosim­i­lars ap­proved in the US will have launched by ear­ly next year.

The ris­ing num­ber of launch­es, com­bined with an in­creas­ing amount of quick up­take, may put biosim­i­lar foes on their heels.

For in­stance, Neu­las­ta (peg­fil­gras­tim) biosim­i­lars have found re­cent suc­cess, with Co­herus’ Udeny­ca (peg­fil­gras­tim-cbqv) and My­lan and Bio­con’s Ful­phi­la (peg­fil­gras­tim-jmdb) cap­tur­ing 25% mar­ket share in just over a year, ac­cord­ing to a re­port re­leased last week from Bern­stein.

Sim­i­lar­ly, a sign of rapid up­take can be seen with Am­gen’s Mvasi (be­va­cizum­ab-awwb), which has cap­tured 10% of the Avastin mar­ket in just four months.

“Biosim­i­lars are grow­ing their mar­ket share and lead­ing to mean­ing­ful price ero­sion over time; with the more re­cent biosim­i­lar launch­es show­ing a lot of suc­cess – re­flect­ing per­haps the grow­ing mar­ket so­phis­ti­ca­tion of the biosim­i­lar com­pa­nies,” for­mer FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb, re­fer­ring to the Bern­stein re­port, not­ed re­cent­ly.

And in the fu­ture, Hu­mi­ra (adal­i­mum­ab) and En­brel (etan­er­cept) biosim­i­lars (sev­en ap­proved, ze­ro launched in the US) may look more like out­liers in a larg­er pool of ap­provals and sub­se­quent launch­es. By con­trast, in the EU, Hu­mi­ra biosim­i­lars have al­ready cap­tured 35% of the mul­ti-bil­lion-dol­lar mar­ket in one year, and biosim­i­lars have cap­tured 50% of the En­brel mar­ket in about three years, ac­cord­ing to Bern­stein.

The US Rem­i­cade (in­flix­imab) biosim­i­lar mar­ket is al­so an eye­sore (Bern­stein refers to it as “es­sen­tial­ly a failed mar­ket”) as the two biosim­i­lar en­trants have on­ly amassed 12% mar­ket share in more than two years. Am­gen’s in­flix­imab biosim­i­lar was re­cent­ly ap­proved last week and may hit the mar­ket soon. And John­son & John­son said the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion has launched an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to its con­tract­ing prac­tices for Rem­i­cade, al­though sim­i­lar in­ves­ti­ga­tions in Cana­da and the UK yield­ed lit­tle.

“We should ban an­ti-com­pet­i­tive re­bat­ing” in mar­kets where biosim­i­lars en­tered, Got­tlieb added.

Biosim­i­lars (in or­der by FDA ap­proval date) Launched in the US?
Zarxio
(Fil­gras­tim-sndz)
Yes, Sept. 2015
In­flec­tra
(In­flix­imab-dyyb)
Yes, late 2016
Erelzi
(Etan­er­cept-sz­zs)
No, launch date un­known
Am­je­vi­ta
(Adal­i­mum­ab -at­to)
No, com­ing on 31 Jan­u­ary 2023
Ren­flex­is
(In­flix­imab-ab­da)
Yes, Ju­ly 2017
Cyl­te­zo
(Adal­i­mum­ab-adbm)
No, com­ing on 1 Ju­ly 2023
Mvasi
(Be­va­cizum­ab-awwb)
Yes, launched in Ju­ly 2019
Ogivri
(trastuzum­ab-dkst)
Yes, launched 2 De­cem­ber 2019
Ix­i­fi
(in­flix­imab-qbtx)
Not plan­ning to launch
Re­tacrit
(epo­et­in al­fa-ep­bx)
Yes, No­vem­ber 2018
Ful­phi­la
(peg­fil­gras­tim-jmdb)
Yes, Ju­ly 2018
Nivestym
(fil­gras­tim-aafi)
Yes, 1 Oc­to­ber 2018
Hy­ri­moz
(adal­i­mum­ab-adaz)
No, com­ing on 30 Sep­tem­ber 2023
Trux­i­ma
(rit­ux­imab-abbs)
Yes, No­vem­ber 2019
Udeny­ca
(peg­fil­gras­tim-cbqv)
Yes, 3 Jan­u­ary 2019
Herzu­ma
(trastuzum­ab-pkrb)
No, un­known
On­truzant
(trastuzum­ab-dt­tb)
No, un­known
Traz­imera
(trastuzum­ab-qyyp)
No, launch­ing on 15 Feb­ru­ary 2020
Eti­co­vo
(etan­er­cept-ykro)
No, un­known
Kan­jin­ti
(trastuzum­ab-anns)
Yes, launched in Ju­ly 2019
Zirabev
(be­va­cizum­ab-bvzr)
No, launch­ing on 31 De­cem­ber 2019
Hadli­ma
(adal­i­mum­ab-bwwd)
No, launch­ing af­ter 30 June 2023
Rux­ience
(rit­ux­imab-pvvr)
No, launch­ing Jan­u­ary 2020
Abri­la­da (adal­i­mum­ab-afzb) No, ex­pects to launch in 2023
Ziex­ten­zo
(peg­fil­gras­tim-bmez)
No, launch­ing be­fore 31 De­cem­ber 2019
Av­so­la (in­flix­imab-axxq) No, un­known

RAPS: 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

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.

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 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.

UP­DAT­ED: Eli Lil­ly’s $1.6B can­cer drug failed to spark even the slight­est pos­i­tive gain for pa­tients in its 1st PhI­II

Eli Lilly had high hopes for its pegylated IL-10 drug pegilodecakin when it bought Armo last year for $1.6 billion in cash. But after reporting a few months ago that it had failed a Phase III in pancreatic cancer, without the data, its likely value has plunged. And now we’re getting some exact data that underscore just how little positive effect it had.

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.

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.