Tag: biosimilars

Fuzzy Patent Logic

Over the past week, month, year (you name it!), we’ve read too much about the trials and tribulations of patent litigation. The latest, involving Pfizer and Roche, has the latter suing Pfizer for infringing on upwards of 40 Roche patents in Pfizer’s development of a trastuzumab biosimilar. This is pretty common these days, and even the number of patents involved fails to surprise. Yet, other competitors may reach the market before Pfizer; it has not yet filed for a 351(k) approval with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency.

BR&R Logo Transparent1.5-21-2017

This does not apply to other potential players. Celltrion cleared the Roche patent lawsuits in April 2017, enabling it to sell its trastuzumab biosimilar in its home country of Korea. This does not necessarily apply to sales in other countries, however.

Positive results were announced for a pivotal phase 3 study of Pfizer’s trastuzumab biosimilar PF-05280014 in Europe in September. These results will likely form the clinical backbone of its 351(k) application.

First launched in 1998, principal patent expiration of Herceptin in the US should be 2018 or 2019 and was 2014 in Europe. It may be assumed that Amgen/Allergan will wait for patent expiration before marketing their product in the US and subsist on sales in Europe in the meantime.

A similar but more protracted situation exists with Abbvie’s Humira®, for which competition will be fierce once the patents expire fully in 2023 (if they are not found to be invalid earlier). Amgen settled with Abbvie to obtain a global license from the originator’s manufacturer, applying to sales after this time. However, Amgen’s biosimilar will still have to compete with severals once the patents expire or are ruled invalid.

I’d like to post others’ opinions as to how the marketshare wars will play out when some patent agreements are made and others are not. What do you think will happen on the Herceptin front?

New CMS Proposal Lowers Cost Sharing for Part D Biosimilars and Follow-on Biologics

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released another proposal through the Federal Register, which attempts to correct an anomaly in how biosimilars, follow-on biologics, and brands are treated under Medicare part D.

This can be confusing, because CMS treats biosimilars as generics for the purposes of the part D coverage gap. It now wants to ensure that biosimilars are treated as generics in terms of the coverage gap for only those receiving low-income subsidies. Currently, biosimilars are more expensive for patients in the coverage gap compared with originator brands; the new policy could seriously lower overall cost sharing for patients.

CMS logoUnder the policy in place, patients receiving biosimilar therapy who enter the coverage gap are required to pay the same amount as they would for a branded biologic, rather than a generic. This discouraged the use of biosimilars in the coverage gap. The new proposal by CMS rectifies the situation for those receiving the low-income subsidy.

The Affordable Care Act seeks to reduce and eventually eliminate the coverage gap. The 2017 coverage gap begins once a patient has drug expenditures of $3,700 and ends after $4,950. After exiting the coverage gap, beneficiaries pay 5% of total costs. This seems straightforward, but complicating the matter is a provision to help close the coverage gap by 2020. That refers to the Coverage Gap Discount Program, in which drug makers must provide a 50% discount on brand-name products dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries who are presently in the coverage gap. In 2017, the health plan pays 10% of the costs in the gap (this increases through 2020 to 25%), and the beneficiary pays 40% (which decreases by 2020 to 25%). For generics and biosimilars, patients pay 51% of the cost, as CMS assumed that the prices of these would be far lower than that of brands. This is not the case with biosimilars, however; patients in the coverage gap would actually pay more for a part D biosimilar than for a brand until the coverage gap disappears.

Under the new proposal, CMS would “revise the definition of generic drug at § 423.4 to include follow-on biological products approved under section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)) solely for purposes of cost-sharing under sections 1860D-2(b)(4) and 1860D-14(a)(1)(D)(ii-iii) of the Act. Lower cost sharing for lower cost alternatives will improve enrollee incentives to choose follow-on biological products over more expensive reference biological products, and will reduce costs to both Part D enrollees and the Part D program.” This proposal is specific only to non-low-income subsidy beneficiaries’ catastrophic care (i.e., beyond the coverage gap threshold) and all low-income subsidy beneficiary cost sharing.

The real impact of this new policy on biosimilars will not be known for some time. After a comment period ends in January, implementation can take some time (perhaps around the time the coverage gap is closed). More pragmatically, no part D biosimilar is currently marketed (infliximab and filgrastim are reimbursed under part B). Follow-on biologics, such as insulins or growth hormones, are generally covered under part D, and the policy applies to these agents as well.

What Will Be Considered a Biosimilar in 2020?

Payers, providers, and patients in the US are narrowly focused on a limited set of biosimilar products; we all know them well—the anti-TNFs, the colony-stimulating growth factors, and most recently some antitumor drugs (e.g., trastuzumab, rituximab, and bevacizumab). In 2020, before the first biosimilar to Humira® hits the market, some medications may be reclassified as biosimilar status.

Tucked away in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) is a set of obscure provisions that has the potential to create a good deal of confusion at that time.

“Transition drugs.” If you’re familiar with the term, you’re one of the few. Some medications are “transitioning” in the next couple of years. Specifically, drugs that will be transitioned include the insulins, but also other naturally occurring proteins, such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins.

The mechanism is actually quite simple. Today, these products are all approvable under the original Food, Drug, and Cosmetics (FD&C) Act of 1962. By 2020, these agents will be approvable as biologics under the BPCIA. That means that they will not only be categorized as a biologic, but they will be subject to biosimilar—not generic—competition. No more new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications, only biologic license applications of the 351(a) and 351(k) varieties.

In March 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued draft guidance on these transitional producinsulin-pensts. As the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society described it earlier this year, “Put simply: FDA will not approve any pending or tentatively approved application for a biological product under the Federal [FD&C] Act after 23 March 2020.”

This may have the effect of slowing approval of today’s so-called follow-on biologics, which will have to go through the 351(k) application process. For example, Lilly received approval for its insulin glargine product under a 505(b)2 application. This application process allowed Lilly to use clinical data from Sanofi’s originator product Lantus®. Under the letter of the new law, because no insulin glargine product has been approved via the biologic license application route, there are no “reference” or originator insulin products.

This can result in labeling and exclusivity period issues as well, possibly discouraging manufacturers of these products from applying for FDA approval. “Nothing in the [BPCIA] suggests that Congress intended to grant biological products approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act—some of which were approved decades ago—a period of exclusivity upon being deemed to have a license under the PHS Act that would impede biosimilar or interchangeable product competition in several product classes until the year 2032,” FDA said.

A legislative proposal was introduced in 2015 by Representative Michael Burgess (R-TX), which would have asked the Government Accountability Office to review the provisions and their potential impact before the 2020 transition took place. The proposal did not advance in the House.

A search revealed no updates on the legislative or regulatory sides of the fence, so we assume the transition will occur as intended. Currently stated policy by the FDA is that all biologics will receive a new four-character suffix to their nonproprietary names. Will this apply to the older insulins and growth hormones as well? Will coding, descriptors, or nomenclature for Lantus® have to change to reflect a new status as a reference biologic product? Or will this only apply to medications approved after March 2020 (in which case, there could be a confusing dichotomy here).

It could get a bit messy, folks.

News in the Courts on Biosimilars

According to a Reuters report, Janssen Biotech withdrew its patent lawsuit against Samsung Bioepis on November 10. The suit alleged infringement in the manufacture of Samsung’s infliximab biosimilar.

Related imageThe action, which was filed in U.S. District Court of New Jersey, means that Merck and Samsung, which launched Renflexis™ in July, is no longer at risk for revenues earned in the sale of its biosimilar. If Janssen had maintained the lawsuit and later earned a victory in the courts, it could have been awarded a large percentage of Samsung’s Renflexis revenues.

In a separate case, an appeals court found that the Southern District of Florida was correct in its decision clearing Apotex Inc of any patent infringement in its development of biosimilars of Amgen’s Neulasta® and Neupogen®. The initial ruling, in September 2016, helped cleared the path for the biosimilars to reach the market. However, the organization’s filgrastim biosimilar was first filed in February 2015, without an approval. Its pegfilgrastim biosimilar was filed earlier, in December 2014, but has not advanced through the Food and Drug Administration’s 351(k) approval process. Apobiologix is the Apotex subsidiary that would manufacturer and market the biosimilars in the US, should they gain approval.

Amgen/Allergan Score Positive EMA Evaluation, but Launch Will Be Delayed

A couple of noteworthy pieces of news have emerged from across the pond on the biosimilar front. The first involves progress for Amgen’s application for its bevacizumab biosimilar at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Its drug evaluation arm, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, recommended approval of the biosimilar on November 9.

Assuming EMA final approval is received, however, Amgen and Allergan’s cancer treatment agent will not be marketed any time soon. The principal European patent is not set to expire until 2022.

Image result for avastin biosimilarIn the US, Mvasi™ was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in September, but its launch is similarly delayed by patent litigation. The main US patents should expire in 2019 (Roche claims to hold 27 enforceable patents). Amgen had filed suit October 6 challenging the validity of the patents in question, but this case may not be heard until late 2018. Amgen has the option of launching “at-risk,” but it has not indicated that it will go this route. Otherwise, the earliest launch may be sometime in 2019.

Several other potential bevacizumab makers have already challenged the patents, according to other reports. These include Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Pfizer, and Samsung Bioepis.

In other related news…An announcement will be made on November 20 regarding where the EMA will relocate its headquarters as a result of the Brexit. The Agency will need to complete its move by March 31, 2019, when Britain’s divorce from the European Union is finalized.

Additional Thoughts on CMS’s Changes to Biosimilar Part B Coding

The biosimilar news articles of the last week have included more data and announcements from the American College of Rheumatology on clinical outcomes of biosimilars to the reference product, debates over their prescription and utility of interchangeability, and of course, and frustration over the delays in biosimilars reaching the market caused by patent litigation. As interesting as all of these are, it does mean that last week’s major announcement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) remains number 1 at the biosimilar box office.

With less “new” news to report, I’ve had a chance to reflect on what Medicare’s change in the way biosimilars are coded and reimbursed will mean to various stakeholders.

cropped-cropped-web-image-1As a reminder, all biosimilars for one originator product are given the same temporary Q code under the current policy. The reference product retains its unique J code. The average sales price (ASP) is calculated on the volume-weighted utilization of these grouped biosimilars. Physicians who buy and bill are paid ASP + 6% (actually + 4.3% because of the financial sequester), with that spread being based on the (higher) ASP of the reference product. The new policy would provide a specific Q code to any new biosimilar, and the ASP for reimbursement purposes would be calculated for individual drugs and not as a group.

From a provider standpoint, this might help alleviate any confusion that may exist now and in the future about which biosimilars are prescribed (or dispensed). Today, only infliximab has more than one biosimilar on the market for the same originator biologic. In the not-too-distant future, competition may be rife for etanercept, pegfilgrastim, trastuzumab, among others. However, the current policy, under which related biosimilars have the same Q-code, could also perpetuate the confusion that all of the biosimilars are biosimilar to each other. The new policy would remove that potential source of confusion. This may be less important, though, as National Drug Codes (NDCs) are unique today, and full NDC information includes descriptors regarding their manufacturer and biosimilar status. And many payers require NDC codes for physician reimbursement of buy-and-bill biologics.

In terms of cost savings, the positive effect of the new policy will be relegated to the future. In the short term, the current policy encouraged greater immediate discounts. Consider an originator drug that cost $5,000 per month. The first biosimilar, approved in 2017, for example, might be priced at a modest 15% discount ($4,250). The originator would have little reason not to meet that price through rebates. Under current policy, consider a second biosimilar that is approved in 2018. With the same Q code, there is little to differentiate the two biosimilars except price. Add a third biosimilar to the mix (at a 35% discount or $3,250), and you can see rapidly increasing discounts—a boon to the payer, and possibly the patient, but a real problem for the manufacturers. Since the product’s ASP reimbursement is volume weighted, as agents are introduced into the category at greater discounts, one would expect that reimbursement would rapidly decrease as well. In total, the biosimilar industry has argued, this would cool interest in biosimilar development over the long term, and could hurt the amount of competition for future biologics coming off patent (and future discounts).

Under the new policy, biosimilars having different HCPCS codes may slow this “race to the bottom.” Or it may not. The nature of biosimilar competition is not based solely on similar coding but on gaining marketshare through payer preference (or exclusions). The real issue is that an insufficient mass of providers are fully at risk who can take greatest advantage of lowest drug pricing and not rebate-associated costs. If your organization is at risk, that is the best incentive to use the lowest priced agent. It is a better exercise in cost-efficient medicine.

The Biosimilars Forum believes that using separate Q-coding for each biosimilar would result in an additional $15 billion in savings over 10 years. This would be attributable to a much higher utilization rate (projected by the Forum of up to 65% at 10 years vs. a projected 35% under current policy). Basically, if these assumptions were taken seriously, they would argue that more immediate price decreases under current policy would not yield greater utilization faster, and thus greater savings. The Forum posits that less competition over the long term will be the result of fewer manufacturers interested in the biosimilar market.

CMS Makes Major Policy Change to Biosimilar HCPCS Coding

Today, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it is implementing a major change that will affect the way biosimilars are coded and reimbursed by Medicare.

Currently, all biosimilars for the same reference product are given the same temporary Q code, while the reference product retains its J code. The average sales price (ASP) is calculated on the volume-weighted utilization of these grouped biosimilars. Physicians who buy and bill are paid ASP + 6% (actually + 4.3% because of the financial sequester), with that 6-point spread being based on the (higher) ASP of the reference product.

This was problematic for a number of reasons. Principally, it did not foster price transparency, and it raised the possibility of a death spiral in pricing—a real threat to the biosimilar manufacturing industry. The result, when multiple biosimilars were approved, could be little incentive for other manufacturers to produce biosimilars of their own.

In response to this fear; solicited comments from payers, manufacturers, and physician groups; and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s recommendations issued in June; CMS has decided to change course and assign each biosimilar its own Q code. As with any ASP calculation, the reimbursement of newly approved biosimilars will be based on the first quarter’s WAC price, after which an ASP will be calculated.

Noting that this new policy will affect claims payment systems, CMS will not issue new Q codes until after January 1, 2018, perhaps as late as mid-2018. According to the notice in the Federal Register, CMS stated, “We will issue detailed guidance on coding, including instructions for new codes for biosimilars that are currently grouped into a common payment code and the use of modifiers.”

Evidence to Support Zarxio Use Presented at AMCP

Two posters presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy bolstered the case for moving away from the use of the originator filgrastim product Neupogen®.

In a study from Magellan Rx Management, Scottsdale, AZ, the researchers grouped both Zarxio® and Granixzarxio® together as alternatives to the originator filgrastim in the granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) category as supportive oncological care. They studied the effect of a step edit, requiring the use of either Zarxio or Granix first, and its effect on utilization trends and cost savings among 2.7 million covered lives.

The step edit was implemented in October 2016 and the results for the fourth quarter of 2016 were compared with utilization and cost data from the first three quarters of that year. In terms of utilization, the marketshare of Neupogen dropped from 18% in early 2016 to only 2% by the third quarter of 2017. As expected, the drop in utilization occurred just after the step edit was introduced a year ago. The combined marketshare of Granix and Zarxio jumped from 9% to 21% over that time, but the dominant player in the G-CSF space, Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim), maintained utilization, rising from 73% to 77%. Over the one-year period since the step edit was introduced, the authors calculated a cost savings of $662,278; the cost savings in the quarter after the policy change was $106,980, or approximately 8% of the total spent for the G-CSF category.

The authors noted that the cost savings were calculated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) not average sales price (ASP), and manufacturer discounts or rebates were not considered in the estimates.

The second poster, sponsored by Sandoz, was a retrospective claims analysis of the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy who were treated with Zarxio or Neupogen. This study covered 13 months of claims (from Optum) from 162 patients taking Zarxio compared with 3,297 receiving Neupogen. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of demographics, insurance, or tumor type.

The researchers found that the incidence of neutropenia (in addition to fever and/or infection) was nonsignificantly greater in those receiving the biosimilar compared with the reference product (2.3% vs. 1.7%, respectively).

Interchangeability: Another Challenging Perspective

Although the FDA has offered a pathway for the interchangeable designation, a recent presentation at the AMCP Nexus meeting shone a new light on some fairly important challenges posed by the interchangeable designation.

Edward Li, PharmD, MPH, Professor of Pharmacy, University of New England, Portland, Maine, raised the Web image 3well-trod issue of manufacturing drift—that over time, the reference product in particular is often subject to slight changes in structure that may be due to manufacturing changes, or other factors. This is an extremely important concept in biosimilars, as it highlights that these biologics can never be exact copies of the biologic drug. In fact, the originator biologic produced today cannot be expected to be exactly the same as the medication that was first approved 15 years ago. Although the structure may have changed subtly in these complex molecules, the clinical effects and outcomes have not materially changed. With interchangeability, Dr. Li said, “There should be no clinically meaningful differences,” in terms of safety, purity, and potency.

Once the FDA assigns the interchangeability designation to a prospective biosimilar or one that has already been marketed (and subsequent studies have provided FDA with the data to conclude that it is interchangeable with the originator), payers expect to be able to freely substitute this biosimilar for the originator at the point of dispensing—an expected boon to health plans and insurers, as well as the biosimilar maker.

However, what of the interchangeable biosimilar in the future? If manufacturing drift continues to occur over the course of time, the variation in the biosimilar and originator product will have introduced new subtle changes compared with that previously used in the approval process. “Differences may accumulate over time,” said Dr. Li, and hypothetically, these can lead to differences in safety and efficacy.” Does the biosimilar manufacturer need to prove interchangeability all over again, five years later? Is there a possibility that the biosimilar can be reduced back to the ranks of ordinary biosimilars?

These are important questions. Only after we have a biosimilar  designated as interchangeable will we be able to broach this question. However, it does perhaps give the reference drug maker a line of defense in sparing loss of marketshare.

Are We Now Thinking “Authorized Biosimilars”?

Authorized generics have been around for a couple of decades. They can be a challenge to payers, health systems, and patients who are seeking the price-reduction benefits borne out of normal competition. The Amgen–Abbvie agreementHerceptin on the biosimilar for Humira® seems to be right out of this playbook.

In summary, authorized generics work like this:

  • A brand manufacturer has a product that is nearing patent expiration
  • Rather than ceding its marketshare altogether in the face of multisource products, the manufacturer will come to an agreement with a generic drug maker to produce the first generic of its product, which allows the branded company to earn licensing fees and royalties on the drug
  • The additional royalty or licensing fee means that the price of the authorized generic will likely be higher than if there was no agreement
  • The maker of the authorized generic will get to market sooner (perhaps even prior to patent expiration)
  • Competing generic manufacturers will have to edge their way into the market against not only the authorized generic maker but perhaps the branded manufacturer that is benefiting from the agreement

On September 28, Amgen and Abbvie announced an end to the patent litigation between the companies. The agreement will allow Amgen to market its biosimilar (Amjevita™) in the US (in 2023) and in the EU (in 2019). The dates reflect differences in principal patent expirations for the two major markets. The all-important composition-of-matter patent expired in December 2016, which is why potential biosimilar manufacturers had hopes of marketing their products as early as 2017 in the US. The other patents don’t expire until 2023.

Under the agreement, Amgen acknowledges the validity of Abbvie’s myriad non–composition of matter patents on Humira and gives up the litigation fight to market its version of adalimumab. Amgen will pay Abbvie a licensing fee to market the product, similar to the type of deal for an authorized generic.

Presumably, Amgen entered into the agreement and did not launch at risk, because it feared that Abbvie would be able to successfully defend its patent maze in court. The agreement would allow Amgen to launch in the European market, which would sustain it during the wait to launch in the US.

However, Amgen is not the only potential maker of an adalimumab biosimilar. Boehringer Ingelheim has an approved product (Cyltezo™), which was approved in January 2017. Several other players are in later-stage trials, including (at least) Coherus Biosciences, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sandoz. It is too early to tell what this agreement might mean for them. Might Abbvie be willing to make separate agreements with them as well, thereby ensuring itself of a cut of these profits for years to come?

In the biosimilar space, there is no exclusivity for the first biosimilar to market, and if a drug maker sought to launch at risk, the rewards can actually outweigh the potential penalties if they found themselves on the wrong end of ongoing patent litigation. Pfizer took the gamble with its Inflectra® biosimilar of infliximab.

If they have to wait until 2023 for this biosimilar, payers may decide to take action. One way would be to encourage the use of other anti-TNF inhibitors or even other effective biologic classes over Humira, if their pricing made sense. However, Humira is often preferred and significant rebates would be at stake.

Legislators did not account for the possibility of authorized biosimilars. It could be a further obstacle to making biologics more accessible to the people who may most benefit from their use.