Tag: biosimilar news

Biosimilar Bytes: Golimumab Patent Litigation, Positive Keytruda Biosimilar Trial Results

Janssen files BPCIA patent suit against an impending Alvotech golimumab biosimilar, and Samsung Bioepis releases positive phase 3 trial results

Golimumab Patent Battle for Alvotech and Bio-Thera Biosimilars

Alleging patent infringement, Janssen Biotech filed BPCIA litigation in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Alvotech involving AVT05, its golimumab biosimilar candidates. According to Janssen, 14 patents each are at issue on its reference products Simponi and Simponi Aria.

Janssen BIotech v Alvotech patent litigation

Alvotech and its commercialization partner Teva resubmitted its 351(k) application for approval of ATV05 on June 4. It is not known why Janssen did not file the BPCIA patent suit once Alvotech first sent its biologic licensing application to the FDA in January 2025.

Bio-Thera Solutions and its marketing partner Accord BioPharm received the first FDA approval for golimumab biosimilars on May 15, 2026. Of course, they are also in the midst of patent litigation with Janssen to prevent a delay in marketing of this biosimilar as well. Janssen first filed its complaint in March 2026, involving 17 patents. In response, Bio-Thera filed for Inter Partes Review on 4 patents involving methods of treatment, while claiming the others were either obvious or publicly available. According to Big Molecule Watch, a District Court hearing is scheduled for September 1. The principal patents on Simponi have already expired. Accord BioPharm had previously announced an expected launch later this year.

Samsung Bioepis’ SB27 Phase 3 Results

Despite several other prospective pembrolizumab biosimilar makers foregoing or discontinuing phase 3 trials, Samsung Bioepis has plowed forward, announcing preliminary positive results for its investigational product SB27.

Although the phase 1 and phase 3 trials are not yet completed, the initial results announced indicated equivalent pharmacokinetic data for SB27 compared with the reference product Keytruda, as well as clinically similar outcomes (i.e., objective response rates) in the double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 investigation at week 24.

The FDA announced last October that late-stage clinical trials will no longer be routinely required for biosimilar development and approval. Most manufacturers pulled the plug on ongoing or planned trials for pembrolizumab biosimilars, as we reported in November.

Samsung reported that it expects to complete both the phase 1 and phase 3 trials by the end of 2026.

This article was written by our Director of Content, Stanton Mehr. Stan has been writing commentary and reporting news about the biosimilar industry since the submission of the first biosimilar 351(k) application to the FDA 13 years ago. Since that time, BR&R has been tracking the US biosimilar marketplace, with the industry’s original, comprehensive and updated biosimilar approval database.

When is a Biosimilar a Biosimilar?

In 2026, is the definition of a biosimilar the same for countries’ drug regulatory systems around the globe? A recently published scoping survey attempted to answer the question.

Although there has been a decade of interest in moving towards global biosimilar regulatory standards, we first must answer a more foundational question: Is the definition of a biosimilar the same worldwide?

You may suspect that the answer is obvious, but then again, why are we asking it? Is it a trick question? Years ago, the answer was not so simple. Those of us covering the biosimilar field in the 2010s will recall that some Indian companies, for example, were producing what might be considered “follow-on” medicines by the FDA’s regulatory standards, but were promoting them as biosimilars.

No Guidances by FDA on Follow-on vs. Biosimilar Products

Global biosimilar regulation

The FDA’s own regulatory definition was not set in stone: Basaglar, the second insulin glargine product to receive FDA approval, is a biosimilar but technically not a biosimilar. Even today, there may be some confusion as to whether Basaglar is considered a biosimilar or a follow-on product. It was indeed approved by the FDA under a 505(b)2 application, principally because insulins were not considered eligible for the 351(k) approval pathway until 2020. The FDA would probably support that it is clinically equivalent to Lantus in any way that matters. Yet, from a regulatory perspective, it was not evaluated as part of the biosimilar pathway, so it cannot be designated a biosimilar.

The same can be said for Granix, the second filgrastim product approved by the FDA, which underwent its approval process before the 351(k) was implemented (and under which Zarxio was licensed). It is important to note that the FDA itself has not tried to improve clarity by announcing retrospectively that these agents can be considered either biosimilar or an equivalent.

A Survey of Biosimilar Definitions

So, is a biosimilar a biosimilar throughout the world? An article published in JAMA Health Forum described a survey of 19 countries’ biosimilar regulatory guidelines. These included 12 with emerging and developing economies and 7 with advanced economies, according to the World Health Organization classification. The authors, from the University of San Francisco and GlaxoSmithKline, found that most countries define “biosimilarity as the absence of differences in the medicine’s quality, safety, and efficacy compared with the RP. Sixteen countries explicitly required comparability exercises to demonstrate biosimilarity, and 13 countries specified that the same RP must be used in these studies.

“Of the 19 countries in the study sample, 17 (89%) have adopted the WHO’s biosimilar terminology; the exceptions were Indonesia, which uses the term follow-on biological in addition to biosimilar, and Tanzania, which uses the term similar biotherapeutic product. A total of 17 countries (89%; except India and South Korea) define biosimilarity according to the absence of differences in quality, safety, and efficacy between the biosimilar and the reference product, although in some countries (Egypt, Turkey, UK, and US), this is heavily implied rather than explicitly stated. Most countries (n = 16 [84%]) require comparability exercises (by definition), but 3 (Mexico, Indonesia, and China) do not explicitly include this requirement.”

The authors also stated that all advanced economies waived the need for clinical efficacy and immunogenicity testing when justifiable, but guidelines from emerging and developing economies differed on clinical study waivers.”

Interestingly, one of the areas of least consensus is that of biosimilar naming and labeling guidance provided. Countries such as France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea do not specify any requirements, whereas the UK, US, and Canada do, among the WHO advanced economic sector. Among countries in the emerging and developing economic region, China and Mexico do have naming and labeling guidelines, whereas Brazil, India, and Indonesia do not. The area of greatest agreement seemed to be in acceptance of extrapolation, with all but Saudi Arabia among the surveyed countries with published extrapolation guidelines.

Scoping surveys such as this are necessary steps in a march towards global regulatory standards for biosimilars. They show not only how far we’ve come in reaching basic agreements, but also how far we need to go. Perhaps, most importantly, they show us areas where a push for global standards would have the least likelihood of success.

This article was written by our Director of Content, Stanton Mehr. Stan has been writing commentary and reporting news about the biosimilar industry since the submission of the first biosimilar 351(k) application to the FDA 13 years ago. Since that time, BR&R has been tracking the US biosimilar marketplace, with the industry’s original, comprehensive and updated biosimilar approval database.

Sunshine Lake Pharma and Lanexa Biologics Get Their First FDA Biosimilar Approval

The Guangdong, China–based generics manufacturer and its commercialization partner Lanexa Biologics, received FDA approval for their insulin glargine biosimilar Langlara. In addition to its insulin glargine product, which is approved in China, other biosimilars may follow based on Sunshine Lake’s other existing insulin formulations.

Another insulin glargine biosimilar has joined the ranks of Semglee and Rezvolglar. A new, lesser-known manufacturer from China has received its first FDA approval, joining the ranks of insulin glargine competitors in the US. The product, Langlara (insulin glargine-aldy) was approved by the FDA in late April. Langlara is manufactured by Guandong, China–based Sunshine Lake Pharma Co, Ltd (we think–see below).

insulin glargine biosimilar approved

The drug will be commercialized in the US by a Lannett subsidiary called Lanexa Biologics. Lannett had an insulin glargine biosimilar in the pipeline, and was expected to file for FDA approval several years ago. Instead, it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Lannett emerged from bankruptcy in June 2023. In July 2025, Aurobindo Pharma began the process of acquiring Lannett. According to Lannett, upon completion of the acquisition, Lanexa Biologics will become a free-standing company, and will focus exclusively on biosimilar commercialization in the US.

Tim Crew, CEO of Lannett, stated, “Often, the greatest barrier to care for patients living with diabetes is the cost or the availability of the medicine itself. Upon the launch of Langlara, supported by the tremendous manufacturing scale of our partner, patients will have expanded access to a safe, affordable and available treatment option.”

It is unknown at present whether (or how) this biosimilar approval is related to the earlier Lannett drug candidate. However, Lannett’s press release also refers to a collaboration with Sunshine Lake Pharma on the latter’s short-acting insulin aspart biosimilar candidate, which is also approved in China. Sunshine Lake Pharma also has an R human insulin and 70/30 mix insulin among its product portfolio.

The Chinese-end of this partnership is possibly even more complex. Clicking on the website for Sunshine Lake Pharma leads to HECpharm.com, which also operates under the name Guangdong Dongguangyang Pharmaceutical. The HECpharm.com website explains that Dongguangyang Pharmaceutical was founded in 2003, the same date as listed for Sunshine Lake Pharma. A merger occurred between Sunshine Lake and a Dongguangyang Changjiang Pharmaceutical, in 2025, and yet another name is mentioned on the website—Dongguangyang Lake. In the US, a subsidiary named HEC Pharm USA Inc is based in Plainsboro, New Jersey, but that website’s link was inoperative when checked for this article. Yet, the FDA’s approval letter for Langlara was directed to “Sunshine Lake Pharma Co, Ltd, c/o HEC Pharm USA Inc,” indicating that HEC Pharm USA was operating as the liaison with the FDA during the approval process. Perhaps HEC Pharm is a parent company in this maze of entities. In any case, there is a new insulin glargine biosimilar approved in the US on behalf of a confusing organization in China!

This article was written by our Director of Content, Stanton Mehr. Stan has been writing commentary and reporting news about the biosimilar industry since the submission of the first biosimilar 351(k) application to the FDA 13 years ago. Since that time, BR&R has been tracking the US biosimilar marketplace, with the industry’s original, comprehensive and updated biosimilar approval database.

Alvotech Submits First Entyvio Biosimilar Application to FDA

The first 351(k) application for a vedolizumab (Entyvio) biosimilar has been submitted by Alvotech. If approved, the biosimilar would be marketed by Teva. Alvotech also resubmitted biosimilar applications for golimumab and aflibercept.

On June 8, Alvotech announced that the FDA has accepted its biologic licensing application for AVT16, a biosimilar candidate for the reference drug Entyvio. This marks the first FDA 351(k) drug application for a vedolizumab biosimilar.

vedolizumab biosimilar, Entyvio biosimilar

In its press release, Joseph McClellan, Chief Operating Officer  of Alvotech, stated, “FDA acceptance of the BLA for AVT16 is another important step in advancing our mission to increase access to biologic medicines for patients worldwide. Our proposed interchangeable biosimilar to Entyvio builds on our experience in immunology and reflects the strength of our fully integrated development and manufacturing platform.”

Vedolizumab, an integrin-receptor antagonist, is currently approved to treat adults with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. The reference product is available in both intravenous infusion and subcutaneous injections.

Takeda’s US Entyvio net revenues were over $4 billion in 2024, but the biologic has been targeted for Medicare maximum fair price negotiation. The negotiated price will be implemented on January 1, 2028, unless biosimilar launch is imminent. The original drug patent is set to expire in 2026.

Intravenous Infusion vs. Subcutaneous Injection

AVT16 would be available only as an intravenous infusion. Alvotech’s biologic licensing application does not cover the subcutaneous injectable. A separate investigational product, AVT80, promises a biosimilar version of the prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration. Alvotech noted that the European Medicines Agency has received a marketing application for both AVT16 and AVT80. It is not clear whether Alvotech and its marketing partner Teva, intends to market these products under separate brand names if approved. The patent on the subcutaneous formulation may not expire until the 2030s, according to some sources, which may play into Alvotech’s decision to separate the FDA applications.

In Other Alvotech Biosimilar News  

In November 2025, Alvotech received complete response letters from the FDA on two products—its biosimilar versions of golimumab and aflibercept. On June 4, 2026, the biosimilar manufacturer revealed that it had resubmitted its 351(k) applications to the FDA for both products (AVT05 for golimumab and AVT06 for aflibercept). Alvotech noted that it expects an FDA decision within 6 months. The complete response letters cited production facility issues, and not data or clinical quality questions. The latest FDA surveillance inspection of the Reykjavik production facility was completed by May 11, according to the company.  

This article was written by our Director of Content, Stanton Mehr. Stan has been writing commentary and reporting news about the biosimilar industry since the submission of the first biosimilar 351(k) application to the FDA 13 years ago. Since that time, BR&R has been tracking the US biosimilar marketplace, with the industry’s original, comprehensive and updated biosimilar approval database.

How Comfortable Are Neurologists With Biosimilar Prescribing?

With the October 2025 launch of Tyruko (natalizumab), neurologists have now been exposed to three different biosimilar categories, and one has been around since before the COVID-19 pandemic.    

Biosimilar prescribing by neurologists

It’s logical to assume that when a specialty is exposed to biosimilar competition for the first time, acceptance and uptake of the biosimilar might be slow. The effort to educate specialists around the safety and efficacy of the biosimilar(s) may take time. In the past, manufacturers of the reference products countered competition with misleading marketing efforts to preserve their revenues. To cite just two examples, this occurred with gastroenterologists with the introduction of infliximab and with ophthalmologists with the launch of the first ranibizumab biosimilar. And then of course, there was the slow acceptance of adalimumab, based on different formulations.

Last October, the natalizumab biosimilar Tyruko was launched by Sandoz, primarily for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Will neurologists’ biosimilar prescribing follow this stunted path? Only if you think natalizumab marks the first foray of biosimilars into the field of neurology medicine. In reality, this is not the case.

Eculizumab and Rituximab Biosimilars in the Neurology Toolbox

One reason that neurologists’ biosimilar prescribing will be quicker is that natalizumab is actually the third biosimilar used by these specialists. Eculizumab is usesd to treat patients with the neurological condition generalized myasthenia gravis. That drug has been available as a biosimilar since March 2025.

Although many neurologists have moved from the eculizumab reference drug Soliris to the follow-on brand Ultomiris, the appearance of biosimilars has likely exposed them to more prior authorization and/or step therapy, encouraging the use of lower-cost eculizumab biosimilars. Additionally, their experience with buy-and-bill eculizumab biosimilars gave them a brief preview of buy-and-bill reimbursement for the natalizumab biosimilar.

Another factor impacting neurologists’ biosimilar prescribing is not so obvious: A significant portion have been prescribing rituximab and its biosimilars off label to treat some neurologic disorders, including myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis, and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. And rituximab biosimilars were approved since 2018.

Neurologists May Be More Comfortable With Biosimilars Than You Think

In working on a survey of 40 practicing neurologists for a biosimilar manufacturer and marketer, it became apparent that the respondents were far more familiar with biosimilars than we may have assumed.

In the case of the present survey, which was conducted just before the launch of Tyruko, 41% of the neurology sample had indicated they had experience with rituximab biosimilar prescribing s within the previous 12 months. This may have contributed to the view by 40% of the sample that the use of either eculizumab or natalizumab biosimilars would not have any effect on their practice. An additional 22% believed the biosimilars might actually result in greater profits. This should certainly make it easier for makers of biosimilar forms of market-leading Ocrevus, when they are launched in 2028.

Watch for further insights from this survey project in the next month, once the full results are published.

This article was written by our Director of Content, Stanton Mehr. Stan has been writing commentary and reporting news about the biosimilar industry since the submission of the first biosimilar 351(k) application to the FDA 13 years ago. Since that time, BR&R has been tracking the US biosimilar marketplace, with the industry’s original, comprehensive and updated biosimilar approval database.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching: The Data Say Its Fine

The question of interchangeability for biosimilars has haunted the US Food and Drug Administration since the promulgation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2010. The FDA’s draft guidelines on interchangeability evolved very slowly, and the biosimilar industry had to work to (1) keep up with the guidelines as they gained clarity, (2) tirelessly wage war on misinformation as to what an interchangeable biosimilar actually represented, and (3) grasp the value of interchangeability as a for-profit enterprise and whether to charge forward with the necessary clinical trials.

In this column, we have often addressed the interchangeability designation, and how it may be perceived. Leaders in the industry, like Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, Executive Director, Scientific Affairs, Sandoz, have hammered home strong arguments that interchangeable biosimilars are not “better drugs” than their noninterchangeable brethren. They are simply subject to additional switching studies to confirm their clinical similarity to the reference product. That does not mean they are more similar to the reference product than a standard biosimilar.

At the 2021 DIA Biosimilars conference held virtually this week, Dr. Cohen restated logic that may be obvious but less often discussed: if two biosimilars are deemed highly similar to the same reference product, those two biosimilars, through the Law of Transitivity, should be highly similar to each other.

Though logical, the concept of biosimilar-to-biosimilar interchangeability is not acknowledged on a regulatory basis. However, the potential for biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is undeniably real.

Biosimilar-to-Biosimilar Switching Likely to Occur

A large proportion of patients receiving chronic therapy with biologics will no doubt change health plans or insurers over time. This happens voluntarily (e.g., they may choose a lower-price plan from year to year) or involuntarily (i.e., their employer changes the plan offering from one year to the next). These plans utilize their own drug formularies. Considering the launch of perhaps eight adalimumab biosimilars in 2023, health plans will likely prefer different preferred adalimumab products, based on the contracting offers they receive or the characteristics of the biosimilar (e.g., citrate free, high-dose formulation, interchangeable). The same can be said for insulin products, infliximab, ranibizumab, and even chronically used oncology agents. Assuming that is the case, biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching may be somewhat common in 2025.

Is that an issue? Likely not, said Dr. Cohen. He believes that any immunogenicity concern is a hypothetical argument, “and no empiric evidence exists to support the concern. Furthermore, no data has been published to support immunogenicity on a mechanistic basis.” The biosimilar is highly similar not only in efficacy and safety but also with regard to immunogenicity.

What the Data Say

Most of the available data on biosimilar switching comes from Europe, where biosimilars have accumulated over 2 billion patient treatment-days of exposure. Countries adopt whichever biosimilar has the lowest price, based on tendering systems. This may mean that more than one biosimilar is accepted, and these tenders can change from year to year. The regulatory concept of interchangeability does not exist in the EU, and switching may occur in both infusible as well as injectable agents.

Dr. Cohen pointed out that published studies of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, based on the European experience, amount to 12 trials, all of which used observational data. Two trials involved adalimumab, eight infliximab, one etanercept, and one involved rituximab. These totaled 1,223 patients. Additionally, 8 studies were reported as meeting abstracts, six of evaluated infliximab biosimilars, and one each for adalimumab and etanercept. Those trials totaled 1,295 patients. Although the studies varied in terms of their limitations and design rigor, they were consistent in finding no differences in patient clinical outcomes, immunogenicity, or pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

“From a scientific matter, we can trust biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching,” stated Dr. Cohen. “There have been no safety issues, and we’ll very likely have more (observational) data in upcoming years.” If the data continue to show no significant issues, “it would be reasonable to conclude that biosimilar to biosimilar switching does not have any clinical impact.”

Observational data will have to do here, as no biosimilar manufacturer would reasonably spend the money to conduct a randomized, controlled head-to-head trial with another biosimilar.

The Declining Value of Interchangeability Over Time

The inevitability of this discussion has a noteworthy effect: It lowers the value of an interchangeable designation over time. Consider the adalimumab situation, which is similar to one we posed a few years ago: A health plan decides to prefer biosimilar C, which is designed by FDA to be interchangeable to Humira®, around mid-2023. In doing so, the plan places an NDC block on the reference product, and moves to convert as many patients as possible to interchangeable biosimilar C. It achieves more than 80% conversion through substitution at the pharmacy or specialty pharmacy. However, the plan is offered a far better price in 2024 on biosimilar F, a noninterchangeable drug. Biosimilar C no longer has an interchangeability advantage. All of the patients who were converted from Humira were already converted. And biosimilar C is not considered interchangeable (by the FDA) with any approved biosimilar. Payers, however, will likely consider these agents freely switchable with each other, depending on how much weight the payer gives to citrate status and dose concentration characteristics of the products.

What does interchangeability mean in the realm of insulin products? We’ll delve into that rabbit hole in the next post.

Sandoz Resubmits Its Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar Application

Sandoz may be chomping at the bit to market its long-delayed pegfilgrastim biosimilar. First rejected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016, the manufacturer of Zarxio® (filgrastim) has completed its 351(k) biosimilar resubmission for its pegylated filgrastim agent.

The FDA’s complete response letter to Sandoz required new pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics data, which Sandoz has provided. According to Sandoz’s press release, “The resubmission includes new data from a pivotal pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) study. This was a single-dose, three-period cross-over study comparing Sandoz pegfilgrastim with US-sourced reference pegfilgrastim; Sandoz pegfilgrastim with EU-sourced reference pegfilgrastim; and US with EU-sourced reference pegfilgrastim.” Branded Ziextenzo™, this agent was approved in Europe and launched in November 2018.

Sandoz was hoping that its pegfilgrastim biosimilar would be first to market before its 2016 set back. Several other prospective pegfilgrastim biosimilar makers also received rejections from the FDA, including Mylan/Biocon’s Fulphila® and Coherus Biosciences’ Udenyca®, both of which are now marketed. If approved, Sandoz would be (at best) third to market. However, of the competitors, Sandoz is the only manufacturer that can boast both a filgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilar. Of course, Amgen produces both Neupogen® and Neulasta®, the respective reference products.

A FDA decision date has not yet been announced; a decision in the late third quarter of 2019 would be a reasonable expectation.

Besides Zarxio, Sandoz already has received approval for two other biosimilars (Hyrimoz®, a biosimilar of trastuzumab, and Erelzi®, a biosimliar of etanercept, but these two have not yet been launched because of outstanding patent litigation or settlements. Despite having received approval in the EU for its biosimilar of Rituxan®, Sandoz decided not to press for US approval after receiving a complete response letter from the FDA about a year ago.

Is It About the Rebates, Net Costs, or Both?

It sounds a bit absurd, but we shouldn’t be surprised at this point: Health plans may not be satisfied if pharma companies simply dropped their drugs’ retail prices. They still want their drug rebates on top of this, says one well-known industry analyst. The pharmaceutical industry is stunned, because its members believed that the net price was the only thing that really mattered (or so they were told). It seems that payers’ addiction to rebates is even tougher to kick than originally thought.

Drug rebates
Ronny Gal

Ronny Gal, an analyst from Sanford Bernstein, told Fierce Pharma  on February 11 that UnitedHealthcare will be seeking “equivalent” rebates on medications, regardless of whether a company drops its price. According to the article, UHC executives confirmed the statement. Their logic isn’t completely crazy, but it is problematic. The rebates, plans have argued, help minimize consumer premium increases.

Let’s assume that this is the case: larger plans would lose millions of dollars in revenue if their 20% rebate, for example, were exchanged for simply a 20% decrease in wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). If the plan is truly using this revenue to subsidize higher medical costs, then members’ premiums would have to rise a commensurate amount.

Well, that just puts the pharmaceutical companies (and even biosimilar makers) in a difficult position. If drug A costs $600 per month, and to comply with the federal government’s efforts (and those of some pharmacy benefit managers [PBMs]) to lower medication prices, they drop their price to $400 per month. Don’t scoff, the makers of the PCSK9 hypercholesterolemia drugs just cut their WAC by 60%. Similarly, makers of hepatitis C virus treatments whacked their WACs by significant amounts in 2018. Assume the manufacturer of drug A was giving the PBM a 20% (or $120 per month per prescription) rebate to maintain co-preferred position, and the PBM shared half that rebate with the health plan ($60 per month per prescription). Now, let’s also assume that the pharmaceutical company refuses to add a rebate on top of this amount. Who will make up the difference, if the health plan insists upon it? The PBM? Don’t bet on it.

For biosimilar manufacturers, this lower price plus rebate scenario can be very discouraging. If you agree that a biosimilar maker can only gain access if it maintains a 25%+ discount to the reference drug manufacturer’s WAC, then the prospect of an additional rebate puts further price reduction pressure on their profitability. That could bolster the argument that pharma should steer clear of the biosimilar marketplace.

We always understood that from a payer standpoint, net cost was the primary objective. We were told many times that although it didn’t matter as much how the number was arrived at, the health plans preferred lower WAC as opposed to higher rebates. Now, we’re not so sure whether the rebate trap hasn’t ensnared those health plan executives.

Secretary Azar Announces Plan to Remove Safe Harbor Protection for Drug Rebates

One of the more challenging lines of attack on high pharmaceutical pricing has been solving the “rebate trap.” Although not a singular item in the Trump administration’s Biosimilar Action Plan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar had begun the process of reviewing how to begin the offensive against the current system of pharmaceutical rebating last summer. On January 31, HHS announced that they have a plan. An open question is how that plan will affect biosimilar access.  

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar

“We are taking action to encourage the industry to shift away from the opaque rebate system and provide true discounts to patients at the point of sale,” Secretary Azar told the New York Times.

What Is Known to Date

In releasing its proposed rule, HHS will seek to strip pharmaceutical rebates from the existing safe harbor legislation pertaining to public plans, such as Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and part D providers. The rule “proposes to amend the safe harbor regulation concerning discounts, which are defined as certain conduct that is protected from liability under the Federal anti-kickback statute, section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act),” according to the announcement. “The amendment would revise the discount safe harbor to explicitly exclude from the definition of a discount eligible for safe harbor protection certain reductions in price or other remuneration from a manufacturer of prescription pharmaceutical products to plan sponsors under Medicare part D, Medicaid managed care organizations as defined under section 1903(m) of the Act (Medicaid MCOs), or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under contract with them.” The expectation is that, although the rule would apply to federal health benefits, it would trickle down to private payers.

At the same time, HHS is proposing to establish two new safe harbors. To encourage the passing of rebates or other discounts directly to patients at the pharmacy counter, the first safe harbor “would protect certain point-of-sale reductions in price on prescription pharmaceutical products.” A second proposed move would protect “certain PBM service fees” under a safe harbor. This alludes to the use of contracts between a PBM and manufacturer in which the PBM receives a fixed fee in return for services that assist manufacturers (in other words, not for services provided to payers).

The pharmaceutical rebating safe harbor would be eliminated in January 2020, if the rule is enacted as written. The public comment period began immediately and will end on March 31. It will take far less time before the stakeholders publicize their views. According to the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (a trade association representing the PBM industry), the elimination of the current safe harbor protection could create access problems. “While we are reviewing the proposed rule, we stand ready to work with the Administration to achieve our shared goal to reduce high drug costs. Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are part of the solution to high cost prescription drugs. Drug makers alone set and raise prices,” stated JC Scott, President and CEO of the Association.

The trade association for pharmaceutical manufacturers stated that the proposal would benefit patient access, by lowering the cost of medications like insulin.

Leveling the Playing Field for Biosimilars

The move away from drug rebates may actually create problems for health plans, which had professed that the portion of the rebates passed through to them from PBMs had enabled plans to subsidize care costs. Therefore, the removal of the rebates may result in premium increases for Medicare beneficiaries. On the other hand, HHS believes that removal of the safe harbor could result in lower out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients. Mr. Azar believes these lower costs could exceed 30% for not only insulin but for drugs to treat other chronic diseases.

As written on these pages many times in the past, the rebate trap significantly disadvantages biosimilar manufacturers who continually fight a battle for market access. It is at the heart of Pfizer’s lawsuit against Janssen Biotech for the infliximab business. Stripping away the safe harbor does not automatically improve access to biosimilars, as the manufacturers for reference products can simply compensate by lowering their retail prices or increasing discounts. However, it does take away the impetus for payers to favor reference manufacturers because of the rebate revenue they receive. In the long run, this would level the playing field for biosimilar manufacturers, and the effect would be amplified if these rebating practices also withered for private payers. We do know that many actions by those with the best intentions can be subverted by unintended consequences. As an expert in the pharmacy field once told me, if rebates are disallowed, “the PBMs will still find a way to make their money.” Health plan premiums may rise as PBM fees increase to compensate, and this could result in greater numbers of uninsured overall. At least in this case, it may be more difficult to see a potential downside for biosimilar makers.

United Kingdom to Save 75% on Annual Humira Spending

Since the October expiration of Abbvie’s EU patent, the potential Humira savings seem to be truly mind-blowing. After implementing its contracts for adalimumab, the UK National Health Service (NHS) should save about three quarters of the $514 million (£400 million) it spends each year on this product alone.

In a fixed-budgeted system like that in the UK, the real implications of these savings become clear. According to the NHS, this additional $385 million (£300 million) will enable it to pay for 11,700 community care nurses or 19,800 treatments in patients with breast cancer.

And to earn these Humira SavingsHumira savings, the NHS does not exclude using the originator product Humira. It has signed contracts (with large price cuts) with Abbvie, as well as with biosimilar manufacturers Amgen, Biogen, Mylan and its partner Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin, and Sandoz.

Could the US see such savings on adalimumab in 5 years? Although the competition may be fierce when the brand loses patent protection in 2023, Abbvie has created a stepped-launch scenario with its licensing agreements. Rather than a jailbreak of competition, as we are seeing in the EU with patent expiration there in October 2018, the timing of the licensing agreements may limit the drop in per-unit price, at least for the first year or so.

After that time, payers will be able to choose from all biosimilar adalimumab manufacturers, which should then drive pricing down (or rebates up) considerably, resulting in long-sought lower net costs. However, this will happen only after years of price increases by Abbvie. Abbvie has not claimed, while it is drastically slashing its price in the EU, that it will be losing money. In part, that is because its US revenues on Humira will continue to be at over $10 billion a year. Furthermore, its revenues largely reflect pure profit on the manufacturing of the product today, as its research and development costs were covered 15 years ago and ongoing marketing costs are a tiny fraction of this figure.

Despite repeated protestations in the US that healthcare resources are not unlimited, our system is not based on a fixed budget. It is not disingenuous to consider savings in the terms posed by NHS. Defining the large savings in terms of other useful expenditures give people a concrete idea of how the money can be better used. The need for savings on drug expenditures is acute in this nation, and biosimilars will eventually lead the way.