Photo credit: Jacquelyn Martin

Where are the in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars?

In June 2017, Leah Christl, for­mer biosim­i­lar lead at FDA, told a con­fer­ence in Chica­go that in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars were like­ly com­ing to the US mar­ket with­in two years.

And al­though no in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lar has been ap­proved by FDA yet, and Christl has since moved on to Am­gen, progress on in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars has been slow in the in­ter­ven­ing years.

Most re­cent­ly, Boehringer In­gel­heim an­nounced that it has com­plet­ed, as of last April, a switch­ing study nec­es­sary for launch­ing an in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lar for Hu­mi­ra (adal­i­mum­ab), al­though the com­pa­ny did not of­fer any fur­ther de­tails on the tim­ing of its sub­mis­sion to FDA or whether there will be an ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee to re­view the da­ta. Boehringer al­ready has an adal­i­mum­ab biosim­i­lar ap­proved by FDA, which it will launch in the US on 1 Ju­ly 2023.

In ad­di­tion, next March, in­sulin prod­ucts will make the tran­si­tion from be­ing reg­u­lat­ed un­der the FD&C Act to the PHS Act, which, ac­cord­ing to for­mer FDA Com­mis­sion­er Scott Got­tlieb means in­ter­change­able in­sulin prod­ucts are like­ly com­ing. FDA held a meet­ing in May on in­ter­change­able in­sulins, which will be par­tic­u­lar­ly im­por­tant as on­ly three fol­low-on in­sulin prod­ucts — Basaglar, Lus­duna and Ad­mel­og — have been ap­proved since 2015.

But out­side of the one po­ten­tial adal­i­mum­ab in­ter­change­able and sev­er­al pos­si­ble in­sulin in­ter­change­able prod­ucts (none of which have been pub­licly dis­closed), no oth­er com­pa­nies have even dis­closed be­gin­ning a switch­ing study. And al­though how such switch­ing stud­ies nec­es­sary for achiev­ing this des­ig­na­tion was on­ly fi­nal­ized last May, with FDA’s guid­ance on biosim­i­lar in­ter­change­abil­i­ty, com­pa­nies have known about the switch­ing study re­quire­ments since at least when the draft was re­leased in Jan­u­ary 2017.

Bern­stein an­a­lyst Ron­ny Gal told Fo­cus via email that Am­gen and San­doz have said they will pur­sue in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lars but switch­ing stud­ies have not list­ed yet.

Got­tlieb al­so said re­cent­ly in an in­ter­view that he be­lieves the use of switch­ing stud­ies to get an in­ter­change­abil­i­ty claim “is fair­ly ef­fi­cient, but I think there’s things that you can con­tin­ue to look at in terms of us­ing re­al-world ev­i­dence [RWE] and look­ing at how you struc­ture those switch­ing stud­ies to po­ten­tial­ly make it more ef­fi­cient.”

An­tho­ny Maf­fia, head of reg­u­la­to­ry af­fairs, North Amer­i­ca at San­doz, told Fo­cus in a phone in­ter­view that he agrees with Got­tlieb on the pos­si­ble use of RWE, “but the way it’s ap­plied needs flush­ing out.”

He al­so said he thinks the in­ter­change­abil­i­ty des­ig­na­tion is “cre­at­ing an ad­di­tion­al bar­ri­er to ac­cess, and we keep em­pha­siz­ing that and feel strong­ly that it’s unique to the US and sets us apart from oth­er glob­al health au­thor­i­ties.”

A lot of the dis­cus­sion on the sav­ings from biosim­i­lars is al­so cen­tered on the fact that state phar­ma­cy laws (45 states and Puer­to Ri­co have passed leg­is­la­tion, ac­cord­ing to Am­gen) stip­u­late that biosim­i­lars may on­ly be sub­sti­tut­ed at the phar­ma­cy if FDA has des­ig­nat­ed them as in­ter­change­able to their ref­er­ence prod­ucts.

“Un­less and un­til we change the way we pay for drugs more broad­ly, in­ter­change­ables are re­al­ly the cen­tral path to re­al com­pe­ti­tion and low­er prices,” Aaron Kessel­heim, di­rec­tor of the Pro­gram on Reg­u­la­tion, Ther­a­peu­tics and Law at Brigham and Women’s Hos­pi­tal, Har­vard Med­ical School, pre­vi­ous­ly ex­plained to Fo­cus.

But many bi­o­log­ics are ad­min­is­tered by physi­cians so the in­ter­change­abil­i­ty des­ig­na­tion will like­ly not be pur­sued in those in­stances. Oth­ers al­so have said in­ter­change­ables will not nec­es­sar­i­ly hit the mar­ket with as large of a dis­count as biosim­i­lars with­out the des­ig­na­tion.

In ad­di­tion, there is a lot of room for mis­in­for­ma­tion among phar­ma­cists and doc­tors. Hil­lel Co­hen, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of sci­en­tif­ic af­fairs at San­doz, pre­vi­ous­ly ex­plained how an in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lar is not more high­ly sim­i­lar than a non-in­ter­change­able biosim­i­lar, al­though the des­ig­na­tion may pro­vide the false per­cep­tion of a bet­ter prod­uct.

Maf­fia added that he thinks FDA “ab­solute­ly” must clar­i­fy when cer­tain com­pa­nies are spread­ing mis­in­for­ma­tion on biosim­i­lars. “We have to get to a com­mon set of lan­guage and that’s some­thing that FDA has a role in,” he said.


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.

At the In­flec­tion Point for the Next Gen­er­a­tion of Can­cer Im­munother­a­py

While oncology researchers have long pursued the potential of cellular immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer, it was unclear whether these therapies would ever reach patients due to the complexity of manufacturing and costs of development. Fortunately, the recent successful development and regulatory approval of chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T (CAR-T) cells have demonstrated the significant benefit of these therapies to patients.

All about Omi­cron; We need more Covid an­tivi­rals; GSK snags Pfiz­er’s vac­cine ex­ec; Janet Wood­cock’s fu­ture at FDA; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

The slate of products we’re offering here at Endpoints is continuing to grow, and it’s not just limited to editorial. If you haven’t, do visit your reader profile to see if there are any other weekly newsletters you’re interested in — as each comes with its own exclusive content. And don’t miss the publisher’s note from Arsalan Arif on Endpoints Studio, our latest avenue for advertising on Endpoints.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 124,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Merck's new antiviral molnupiravir (Quality Stock Arts / Shutterstock)

As Omi­cron spread looms, oral an­tivi­rals ap­pear to be one of the best de­fens­es — now we just need more

After South African scientists reported a new Covid-19 variant — dubbed Omicron by the WHO — scientists became concerned about how effective vaccines and monoclonal antibodies might be against it, which has more than 30 mutations in the spike protein.

“I think it is super worrisome,” Dartmouth professor and Adagio co-founder and CEO Tillman Gerngross told Endpoints News this weekend. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel echoed similar concerns, telling the Financial Times that experts warned him, “This is not going to be good.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 124,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pfiz­er, Am­gen and Janssen seek fur­ther clar­i­ty on FDA's new ben­e­fit-risk guid­ance

Three top biopharma companies are seeking more details from the FDA on how the agency conducts its benefit-risk assessments for new drugs and biologics.

While Pfizer, Amgen and Janssen praised the agency for further spelling out its thinking on the subject in a new draft guidance, including a discussion of patient experience data as part of the assessment, the companies said the FDA could’ve included more specifics in the 20-page draft document.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 124,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Janet Woodcock (AP Images)

Janet Wood­cock plots her fu­ture at FDA, with se­nior ad­vi­sor role to fall back on if Califf wins con­fir­ma­tion

Acting FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock has been the face of just about every drug approval decision at the agency since the turn of the century. Since the pandemic began, she’s moved between the top of the drugs center to the head of therapeutics at Operation Warp Speed, leading the drive for work on Covid-targeted mAbs and antivirals.

Looking forward — and pending a quick Senate confirmation to cement Rob Califf’s return to the top of FDA early next year — Woodcock’s role at the agency will again be in flux.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 124,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Richard Pazdur (via AACR)

Ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval re­forms need mean­ing­ful con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al im­prove­ments, pro­fes­sors write in Sci­ence

Outside of Covid-19, 2021 has been the year of the accelerated approval.

Beginning last spring, FDA openly challenged six “dangling” accelerated approvals (hadn’t confirmed their clinical benefit yet), three of which were later pulled by the companies.

Then in June, FDA pulled out the accelerated approval pathway, seemingly out of nowhere, to sign off on Biogen’s controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. It hadn’t even been mentioned at the drug’s adcomm.

Lisa Deschamps, AviadoBio CEO

Ex-No­var­tis busi­ness head hops over to a gene ther­a­py start­up — and she's reeled in $80M for a dash to the clin­ic

Neurologist and King’s College London professor Christopher Shaw has been researching neurodegenerative diseases like ALS and collaborating with drugmakers for the last 25 years in the hopes of pushing new therapies forward. But unfortunately, none of those efforts have come anywhere close to fruition.

“So, you know, after 20 years in the game, I said, ‘Let’s try and do it ourselves,’” he told Endpoints News. 

In­cor­po­rat­ing Ex­ter­nal Da­ta in­to Clin­i­cal Tri­als: Com­par­ing Dig­i­tal Twins to Ex­ter­nal Con­trol Arms

Most drug development professionals are familiar with the nerve-racking wait for the read-out of a large trial. If it’s negative, is the investigational therapy ineffective? Or could the failure result from an unforeseen flaw in the design or execution of the protocol, rather than a lack of efficacy? The team could spend weeks analyzing data, but a definitive answer may be elusive due to insufficient power for such analyses in the already completed trial. These problems are only made worse if the trial had lower enrollment, or higher dropout than expected due to an unanticipated event like COVID-19. And if a trial is negative, the next one is likely to be larger and more costly — if it happens at all.

Lan Huang, BeyondSpring CEO

Months af­ter shock­ing in­vestors with lung can­cer win, Be­yond­Spring's lead drug hits road­block at the FDA

BeyondSpring shocked investors in early August after its once-marginal lead drug suddenly showed a lot of promise in a common form of lung cancer. With hopes high, the FDA has now slammed the door on that drug in another indication — does that spell bad news for BeyondSpring’s Cinderella story?

The FDA issued BeyondSpring a complete response letter for its plinabulin in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, effectively shutting down the drug’s immediate chances at a marketing approval, the biotech said Wednesday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 124,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.