Tag: Celltrion

The Implications of Celltrion’s Development of a Subcutaneous Infliximab

Celltrion received approval today in the European Union (EU) for its subcutaneous (SC or SubQ) form of infliximab (Remsima®, marketed as Inflectra® in the US) for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Currently, infliximab is available only as an office-based infusion.

Infliximab SC

The very interesting aspect to this is that the current 351(k) regulatory pathway does not provide guidance on the possibility of a new formulation of an existing biosimilar drug. In the EU, the subcutaneous formulation is not treated as a biosimilar, because such a form is not available as a reference product. A consequence of this is that regulatory extrapolation is not possible; Celltrion will likely need clinical studies for any indications it seeks, like a regular 351(a) submission. This would differ from a pegfilgrastim biosimilar seeking to gain approval for an on-body injector form similar to Neulasta OnPro® (the reference product).

An SC form of infliximab could be a very valuable niche in the US, as payers can place this in the pharmacy benefit as a self-administered injectable (to the chagrin of providers who were earning administration fees, at least). It thus could be managed through the additional pharmacy benefit tools at hand, and could serve as a preferred version of the medication. It should be noted that the dosage of the SC form is slightly different than the infusible form.

This scenario once again raises the weird and unwieldy specter of the nature of biosimilarity. What is biosimilar to what? As a 351(a) submission (if Celltrion takes that route in the US), a federal agency may (or may not) consider Inflectra SC to be clinically equivalent to Remicade®. It certainly couldn’t be interchangeable though, based on current regulatory guidelines and despite the NOR-SWITCH studies conducted with the infusible formulation. Will Celltrion go to lengths to prove that Inflectra SubQ is biosimilar or equivalent to Inflectra? It will almost certainly have to undergo this exercise if the manufacturer expects providers or payers to switch patients to it.

In clinical studies of the SC version in patients with RA, those taking the SC version experienced even greater increases in ACR 20, 50, and 70 improvements than on the IV form alone. I suppose that might qualify it for the “bio-better” label. (http://www.celltrion.com/ko-kr/business/newdrug)

From a pharmaceutical sales standpoint, this also raises a couple of additional questions: If Celltrion charges a premium for this agent over the IV form, will payers acquiesce to gain pharmacy benefit control over the product? Will patients prefer the SC formulation? Will plans and insurers keep both formulations available for patients who cannot self-inject? Or will they encourage initial use of the IV form before moving to an SC version (will this become ACR standard of care?)

Will Celltrion spend the money needed to fund phase 3 trials for each major indication (including Crohn’s disease [adult and pediatric], ulcerative colitis, RA, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis)? Their study in Crohn’s disese is just underway.

From a payer’s perspective, will health plans and insurers allow these off-label indications, if the cost is demonstrably lower than the IV version? In other words, payers may extrapolate on their own if they find that the pricing and pharmacy benefit management of infliximab is worthwhile.

As can be seen, the effort to produce an SC version of infliximab raises far more questions than can be answered today. The difficulty in successfully introducing the SC must be high, or one might have thought Janssen wouldn’t have missed on the opportunity to gain another patent many years ago!

Partners Teva/Celltrion Seek the Jump on Pfizer, Launch Their Rituximab Biosimilar Next Week

When Pfizer announced its intention just more than a week ago to begin marketing its rituximab biosimilar Ruxience® in January 2020, industry watchers wondered when we might hear a response from its sole approved competitor. The wait was over quickly: Teva and Celltrion will begin shipping their own rituximab biosimilar Truxima® on November 11.

Truxima was approved in October 2018 for the cancer indications of Genentech’s reference product Rituxan®. In a joint press release issued by both companies, Brendan O’Grady, Teva’s Executive Vice President and Head of North America Commercial Operations, stated, “We are excited about the first FDA-approved biosimilar to rituximab in the US. Teva’s commitment to biosimilars is focused on the potential to create lower healthcare costs and increased price competition. This focus is consistent with Teva’s mission of making accessible medications to help improve the lives of patients.”

The press release also mentioned a key detail of the partners’ patent settlement with Genentech. Specifically, Celltrion and Teva will be able to market the autoimmune indications (rheumatoid arthritis, granulomatosis, with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis) in the second quarter of 2020, assuming they receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the broader indications. Ruxience is not currently indicated for these same autoimmune disorders.

The partners announced that the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for Truxima will be just 10% below that for Rituxan, which will be subject to further discounts and rebates negotiated with individual payers. That works out to a WAC of $845.55 for 100 mg vial (or $4227.75 for 500 mg vial). Teva will be responsible for marketing Truxima in the US.

Pfizer has not yet announced their intended WAC for Ruxience’s launch in January.

The Biosimilar Mabs Have It: FDA Approves Biosimilars for Adalimumab and Rituxumab

In a busy beginning of the week, the US Food and Drug Administration approved new biosimilars for Humira®and Rituxan®. Samsung Bioepis gained approval for Hadlima™ (adalimumab-bwwd), and Pfizer scored with Ruxience™ (rituximab-pvvr).

HADLIMA

The approval for Hadlima covers the following indications:

  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Juvenile idiopathic arthritis
  • Psoriatic arthritis
  • Ankylosing spondylitis
  • Crohn’s disease in adults
  • Ulcerative colitis
  • Plaque psoriasis

Formerly known as SB5, Samsung Bioepis secured Hadlima’s approval on the basis of phase 1 and phase 3 studies in rheumatoid arthritis. The phase 3 investigation included over 500 patients, finding ACR20 responses to be equivalent to that of Humira (at 72%). Immunogenicity profiles for the two agents were also similar through 52 weeks of a switching study.

According to its licensing agreement with Abbvie, manufacturer of Humira, Samsung will not be able to market this agent until end of June 2023. This agent joins Samsung’s two other approved anti-TNF biosimilars, Renflexis (infliximab) and Eticovo (etanercept). Only Renflexis is currently marketed in the US.

RUXIENCE

Pfizer’s newest biosimilar entry, Ruxience, has been approved for a subset of indications of reference product Rituxan, including:

  • Treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory, low-grade or  follicular B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who are CD20-positive and have failed prior treatments
  • Patients who have nonprogressing, low-grade, CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and who are stable after receiving a prior chemotherapy regimen containing cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone
  • Patients with CD20-positive follicular lymphoma who are therapy naïve in combination with chemotherapy or who had responded to previous rituximab therapy
  • Patients with CD20-positive chronic lymphocytic leukemia in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide
  • Granulomatosis with polyangiitis in adult patients in combination with glucocorticoids

The biosimilar does not include Rituxan’s labeled indication for rheumatoid arthritis, similar to the other approved rituximab biosimilar.

The application for Ruxience included the results of the phase 3 clinical trial (REFLECTIONS), which included 394 patients with follicular lymphoma. Compared with the EU-licensed version of rituximab (MabThera®), Ruxience was found to provide equivalent clinical and safety outcomes.

Originally designated PF-05280586, Pfizer has not disclosed when Ruxience will be available. Pfizer signed a settlement with Roche (Genentech) over litigation for a key Rituxan patent, but terms of this agreement were not disclosed. The other FDA-approved biosimilar competitor in this space, Celltrion’s Truxima®, is similarly awaiting launch.

Don’t Expect All-Out Biosimilar Competition for Herceptin—Just Yet

Five trastuzumab biosimilars have been approved for marketing in the US, and the composition-of-matter patent for the reference product, Herceptin®, expires June 30, 2019. That doesn’t mean we’ll see a jail break of competition, like that seen in the EU last October with adalimumab’s patent expiration. Yet there has been heavy interest in capturing a slice of Herceptin’s $2.9 billion US sales (in 2018).

Three manufacturers have signed licensing agreements with Genentech (subsidiary of Roche). In March 2017, Mylan signed the first agreement for its product Ogivri®. Its marketing partner is Biocon. In December 2018, Pfizer followed suit for its recently approved agent Trazimera®. None of the parties have indicated when a biosimilar agent will be launched. At the end of December, Celltrion and Teva came to a similar agreement on its Herzuma® biosimilar.

Herceptin patent litigation

According to Goodwin’s Big Molecule Watch, Roche’s infringement claims against Samsung Bioepis (Ontrusant®) and Amgen/Allergan (Kanjinti®) are still being litigated. For Genentech v. Samsung, the bench trial is slated to begin December 9, 2019. In addition, Samsung Bioepis is appealing the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ruling regarding the validity of Herceptin’s method of use patents. Separately, Genentech is challenging the PTAB’s decision that two other Herceptin patents were invalid. There’s a whole lot here that needs to be resolved (or settled).

In the case of Amgen and Allergan, Genentech originally brought suit claiming 38 patents were infringed (in June 2018). In July 2018, Genentech reduced this figure to less than half (17). A month later, Amgen responded to the suit. Little information is available on timing of next steps.

Based on this information, it is difficult to know just when the first trastuzumab biosimilars will be launched. If Genentech followed Abbvie’s example in its 2023 sequencing of adalimumab biosimilars, one might expect Mylan’s product to be available first, perhaps as early as this summer, with Pfizer’s and Celltrion to follow perhaps six months later.

Yet, unlike the Abbvie agreements, none of the Genentech licensing settlements were made public (other than the actual dates of the agreement). Keep in mind, Herceptin was first approved by the FDA in October 1998. In 2018, the drug’s sales in the US and EU combined was over $4.7 billion. Is 21 years of market exclusivity to anyone’s benefit, other than the manufacturer? Since 2006, US drug sales of Herceptin have been greater than $1 billion annually. If the biosimilar launches do not occur shortly, this may be a good test case of the Federal Trade Commission’s commitment to clearing patents in the name of competition.

FDA Approves Celltrion and Teva’s Herceptin® Biosimilar

On December 14, the US Food and Drug Administration gave its approval for a new trastuzumab biosimilar (Herzuma™). Manufactured by Celltrion and marketed in the US by Teva, this agent has been designated trastuzumab-pkrb.

The decision marks the second trastuzumab biosimilar approval, and the 16th biosimilar agentthat has made it through the 351(k) regulatory pathway.

Herzuma was approved for a single indication: the treatment of HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. Unlike the other trastuzumab biosimilar, Ogivri®, and Herceptin, Herzuma does not carry the extrapolated indication for the treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Originally submitted for approval by Celltrion in July 2017, the FDA issued a complete response letter because of plant manufacturing issues. A year later, after addressing these problems, Celltrion refiled its 351(k) application (June 2018).

Celltrion has launched Herzuma in Europe and elsewhere with marketing partners other than Teva. Neither Celltrion or Teva have announced at this time when the US launch may occur or how it will be priced. Partners Mylan and Biocon, makers of Ogivri, and Pfizer, the manufacturer of a potential competitor, have signed licensing agreements with Roche, makers of the reference product to delay launch.

Pfizer Signs Licensing Agreement With Roche on Trastuzumab Biosimilar

With Pfizer expecting to hear back on its 351(k) resubmission on a trastuzumab biosimilar in early 2019, Genentech and its parent, Roche, may have been getting nervous about their competitor’s intentions. After all, Pfizer was willing to launch at risk with its marketing of Inflectra®, the infliximab biosimilar manufactured by partner Celltrion. In fact, it is the only biosimilar manufacturer that has gambled on an at-risk biosimilar launch.

According to a report in the Pink Sheet, a district court filing on December 4 noted that the two parties signed a settlement that will put an end to their patent litigation, and presumably allow Pfizer to market its biosimilar trastuzumab in the US at a future date. As in previous agreements signed by Roche, the terms are confidential, and launch dates and licensing fees are unknown.

trastuzumab biosimilar

A similar confidential agreement was completed between Mylan and Roche, for Mylan and partner Biocon’s Ogivri®, the first trastuzumab biosimilar approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 2017.

Three other trastuzumab biosimilars are also trying to reach the market. Amgen and Allergan received a complete response letter in June 2018, and have not yet announced when it might resubmit its 351(k) application. Samsung Bioepis is awaiting its initial decision on its trastuzumab biosimilar, filed in January 2018. Teva and Celltrion seem to be on the cusp of an FDA decision, after receiving their initial rejection in July 2017.

Roche has it covered, though. It filed patient litigation against Samsung Bioepis in September 2018 and partners Celltrion and Teva as well.

This is the very situation that the federal government, payers, and patients want to try to avoid, however. Licensing fees paid to the reference manufacturers may work to significantly inflate the drug’s price to the health system. The lack of transparency characterizing these agreements and the associated delays in launch are being decried by those patients and entities who can benefit from access to biosimilar competition. Herceptin was first approved in 1998. No one envisioned Genentech having 20+ years of marketing exclusivity.

In other biosimilarnews… MomentaPharmaceuticals, which signed an Abbvie licensing agreement for its biosimilar adalimumab, said in a statement that it will delay FDA filing M923 beyond 2019, which will help reduce its corporate expenditures. This delay should not impact the expected commercial launch date of November 20, 2023, according to the company.

Celltrion announced that it has filed an application for European Medicines Agency approval for its subcutaneous form of its infliximab biosimilar Remsima (US brand name, Inflectra®). This would provide the first subcutaneous injection formulation of infliximab.

Rituximab Biosimilar Approved by FDA for Cancer Treatment

On November 28, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of rituximab-abbs (Truxima™), produced by Celltrion and marketed by Teva.

Approval for this rituximab biosimilar was overwhelmingly recommended by the FDA’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee by a vote of 16-0 in October. It is the first biosimilar agent approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory, low grade, or follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—specifically in adult patients with the CD20+ B-cell variety. The drug makers did not seek approval for the Rituxan’s autoimmune indications, and the FDA did not grant extrapolated approval for them.

rituximab biosimilarAccording to the FDA’s announcement, the most common side effects of Truxima are infusion reactions, fever, abnormally low level of lymphocytes in the blood (lymphopenia), chills, infection and weakness (asthenia). Health care providers are advised to monitor patients for tumor lysis syndrome (a complication of treatment where tumor cells are killed off at the same time and released into the bloodstream), cardiac adverse reactions, damage to kidneys (renal toxicity), and bowel obstruction and perforation.

This leaves a wide open marketing window for Celltrion and Teva, as Sandoz announced in late October that it was halting its effort to bring its own rituximab biosimilar to the market. There is no word as of this writing regarding the launch and pricing of Truxima in the US. This also represents the second FDA approval for Celltrion; its infliximab biosimilar, Inflectra, was approved in 2016.

In Other Biosimilar News… As BR&R reported in our October discussion with Molly Burich, MS, Director, Public Policy: Biosimilars and Pipeline, Boehringer Ingelheim had decided to forego marketing its adalimumab biosimilar Cyltezo® in the EU. This is likely owing to the highly competitive environment and the huge pricing discounts being signed by European countries. However, Boehringer has now announced its intention to discontinue all efforts to market and develop any biosimilars outside of the US market. This may come as little surprise, as the Boehringer biosimilar pipeline was not aggressively stocked. Instead, it has been focused on seeking interchangeability status for Cyltezo and to launch this product as soon as possible.

Pfizer’s Anticompetitive Suit: A Slippery Slope to Competitive Bidding?

When Pfizer first announced its lawsuit against Janssen’s parent Johnson & Johnson in September 2017, it pointed to exclusionary contracting, “anticompetitive” behavior of Remicade®’s maker as the reason for its very limited market access.

The lawsuit claimed that Janssen has withheld or threatened to withhold rebates if payers do not keep Remicade in an exclusive preferred position. The degree to which health plans knuckled under to these demands may only be inferred from the 3% marketshare Pfizer’s Inflectra® now holds. For these drugs, which are still typically covered under the medical benefit, “nonpreferred positioning” usually means no coverage. For drugs covered under the pharmacy benefit, this is not the case.

In August, the Eastern Court of Pennsylvania ruled against J&J in its request that the lawsuit be dismissed. While discovery in the case may be ongoing, we could not find mention of a resolution date for the suit.exclusionary contracting

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Eastern Court of Pennsylvania rules in favor of Janssen. In other words, exclusionary contracting was not an anticompetitive behavior. That means the status quo is intact, but some factors may affect this situation going forward. These include the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ desire to move part B drugs (the medical benefit) to part D (the pharmacy benefit) for Medicare beneficiaries.

The scrutiny on rebate contracting coming from several sectors, and lack of transparency, may also independently influence future use of these pharmaceutical company tactics. I helped conduct a market research project recently on a nonspecialty drug. As part of these interviews, we were asked by the client to inquire about the range of rebates they were receiving from competitor manufacturers. Their responses were requested as a range (e.g., 20% to 30%), not specific contract details, and we had no intention of providing reports of individual payer deals, only anonymous, aggregate information. We expected little to no response to that query, and that is exclusionary contractingexactly what we received.

Let’s discuss the other potential outcome, in which the Court rules in favor of Pfizer. That implies that this exclusionary contracting practice is indeed anticompetitive. If this is the case, we may be on a very slippery slope. What is the difference between payers and pharma companies engaging in a “1 of 1” contract when there are multiple potential products and a “1 of 2” contract? In both cases, drug makers are committing payers to anticompetitive behavior (as perhaps defined by the Court’s new precedent).

The preferred drug tier (whether preferred generics, preferred brands or whatever) is supposed to be for products with proven clinical, patient care, or economic advantages. Truthfully, payers rarely place medications in the preferred tier for reasons other than net costs or rebate contracting, which is based on marketshare.

Now add in the potential effects of the Administration’s desired shift to part D, where pharmacy benefit rules can be applied. That exposes injectable products that were shielded under Medicare part B to commonly applied formulary placement practices.

To be complete, Janssen’s strategy was not solely based on Remicade. It may be found to have bundled Remicade with other agents in deals to exclude Pfizer’s products. The Court may also react specifically to Janssen’s contract stipulation that threatens to withhold rebates connected to future use of the product, to increase its leverage.

However, if the Court determines that 1 of 1 or exclusionary contracting with rebates are the root of the anticompetitive behavior, why should 1 of 2 or even 1 of 3 contracts in a drug category with 5 similar agents be less so? This is the slippery slope that could undo rebate contracting, and push us towards a system that more resembles a competitive bidding process like in Europe. Alternatively, it could accelerate the move towards outcomes- and value-based contracting. The result could be a system-wide revamping of the drug formulary and the pharmacy–drug maker relationship.

In other biosimilar news…Sandoz has signed a licensing agreement with Abbvie, allowing it to market its biosimilar version of Humira in 2023. The agreement, as with Abbvie’s settlements with other biosimilar makers, halts all patent litigation with Sandoz in exchange for a licensing royalty paid to Abbvie.

Fresenius Kabi and Celltrion Get Good News

A German manufacturer is considering its options after the successful completion of two clinical studies involving a pegfilgrastim biosimilar (MSB11455).

Fresenius Kabi, which completed its purchase of the biosimilar business from Merck KGaA in September 2017, announced its investigational biosimilar agent had proved sufficiently similar to the reference product Neulasta® in these phase 1 investigations (conducted in healthy participants). These may serve as pivotal investigations for the manufacturer, which said in its release, “Both studies are designed to enable the application for marketing authorization in the EU and US.” This may be the first indication that Fresenius Kabi seeks to be a player in the US.

Fresenius Kabi does not yet have an approved biosimilar on the European market. It hopes that MSB11455 may propel its fortunes on both sides of the Atlantic.

Food and Drug AdministrationIn its first study, the company reported that its biosimilar “met all primary pharmacokinetic endpoints, [maximum plasma concentration], and area under the curve, as well as the primary pharmacodynamic endpoints of absolute neutrophil count (ANC).” Fresenius Kabi added that there were no meaningful differences in the frequency of adverse events in these healthy volunteers. The second study focused on the biosimilar’s potential for immunogenicity, and this was also determined to be no different between the reference drug and the biosimilar. In addition, neutralizng antibodies were not found.

If Fresenius Kabi proceeds with an application for approval in either market, it will find a good deal of competition for pegfilgrastim biosimilars. In Europe, up to 5 biosimilars may be approved (2 already are). In the US, Mylan’s product is the only one to be approved, but another (Coherus Biosciences) is expecting a decision from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in early November. Two others (Sandoz and Apotex) are seeking US drug approval.

In other biosimilar news…The Food and Drug Administration’s Oncology Drug Advisory Committee voted unanimously (16-0) today to recommend Celltrion’s CT-P10 rituximab biosimilar for approval. If the biosimilar is approved by the FDA, it will be marketed by Teva….Mundipharma purchased European biosimilar maker Cinfa, which has a pegfilgrastim that has received a CHMP recommendation for approval in the EU.

Celltrion’s Rituximab Biosimilar Earns Positive Review

The information package released by reviewers for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicates that a positive recommendation for Celltrion’s rituximab biosimilar is likely at the Advisory Committee meeting on October 10.

The members of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will review the data and hear public comments before voting to recommend that the FDA ultimately approve or reject CT-P10 for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Celltrion did not perform clinical trials for rituximab’s autoimmune indications. However, if the FDA approves CT-P10, it may extrapolate the approval to other indications as well.

The orirituximab biosimilarginal 351(k) application by Celltrion in April 2017 resulted in a complete response letter from the FDA. The rejection for this rituximab biosimilar cited multiple deficiencies, including “clinical, product quality, and facility” problems, as well as clinical study issues from the original submission.

According to the FDA reviewers, “In considering the totality of the evidence, the data submitted by [Celltrion] show that CT-P10 is highly similar to US-licensed Rituxan®, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive compounds, and support a demonstration that there are no clinically meaningful differences between CT-P10 and US-licensed Rituxan in terms of safety, purity, and potency of the product.”

BR&R will cover the Oncology Drug Advisory Committee meeting and provide updates on its decision. If this rituximab biosimilar is eventually approved by the FDA, Teva would market the product in North America, based on a previous partnership agreement.

In other biosimilar news…Merck has inked an exclusive contract to supply its biosimilar infliximab (Renflexis®) with the US Department of Veterans Affairs. According to a report from Pharmaphorum, it will be the only infliximab biosimilar on the VA’s national formulary.