Tag: Coherus

Who Are the Key Lucentis Biosimilar Players to Watch?

Note: This is an update to a January 2020 post to include Lupin’s investigational agent in phase 3 trials.

Roche’s reference product Lucentis® (ranibizumab) seems to be the next likely target for biosimilar competition. Sales of the drug in the US were last reported to be $1.5 billion in 2017, but Roche’s revenues from Lucentis are expected to slip, owing to competition from Eylea® (aflibercept) primarily and some newer agents. And new Lucentis biosimilars will hasten that decline.

ranibizumab biosimilars

Ranibizumab is approved for use for several ophthalmologic indications, including wet age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema, myopic choroidal neovascularization, and macular edema following retinal vein occlusion.

According to reporting by the UK-based Generics and Biosimilar Initiative (GaBI), the patents on Lucentis expired in the US in June 2020 and will expire in Europe in 2022. GaBI had found some 10 organizations or partnerships working on investigational ranibizumab biosimilars, but little updated information (some were reported as early as 2015).

Today, our research into the Lucentis biosimilar space revealed just a couple of active players, but with rapidly advancing plans. Here are the three initiatives reported publicly:

1. Coherus-Bioeq

This one is a little complex—stick with it, as it could be the first to obtain FDA approval, as early as later this year.

Formycon AG, a German manufacturer, gave Bioeq IP AG exclusive global commercialization rights to FYB201, Formycon’s ranibizumab biosimilar. In November 2019, with Formycon’s assent, Bioeq signed an agreement with Coherus Biosciences to commercialize the biosimilar in the US.

At the recent JP Morgan investor conference, Coherus President Denny Lanfear disclosed that Bioeq filed for FDA approval in December 2019. Coherus is expecting FDA acceptance of the application shortly, and a fourth quarter 2020 decision. This could set up a product launch, according to Coherus, in 2021.

Interestingly, Coherus originally had a different biosimilar ranibizumab in its own pipeline. This agent, CHS-3351, fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. The deal with Bioeq seems to have created a new ranibizumab opportunity for Coherus.

2. Xbrane-Stada Arzneimittel

Sweden-based Xbrane signed an agreement with the German generics manufacturer Stada Arzneimittel to co-develop Xbrane’s Lucentis biosimilar. This agent, currently dubbed Xlucane™, is being tested in a phase 3 trial involving 580 patients with age-related macular degeneration, which is slated for completion in February 2021 (interim results available in May 2020).

3. Biogen-Samsung Bioepis

Samsung Bioepis completed its phase 3 trial of SB11 in December 2019 (primary completion date of May 2019). This trial comprised 705 patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. SB11 seems poised to be submitted for approval via the 351(k) biosimilar pathway, and Samsung’s deal with Biogen (already a part owner of the joint venture with Samsung Biologics) for commercialization. Therefore, Biogen will take the marketing reins once an FDA decision has been given. If Samsung submits its filing in Q2 2020, a launch could be possible in Q2 2021, assuming a positive decision.

4. Lupin

In September 2020, the India-based manufacturer Lupin began a phase 3 trial of its investigational ranibizumab biosimilar LUBT010. This trial will include 600 participants in total, who will receive either LUBT010 or Lucentis for 12 months. The study is scheduled for completion in October 2022. However, it is not confirmed that Lupin will seek to market this agent in the US. The study population is unclear, as only one eye clinic located in India is listed as recruiting patients, in an ClinicalTrials.gov update posted December 30, 2020. Assuming the patient population represents multiple countries, it may be possible for Lupin to submit an FDA application as early as Q1 2023, with a potential launch of Q1 2024.

Are There Any Other Active Players Out There?

The development of PF582 by Pfenex has been on hold since 2018, after the company was handed back the full rights to the agent by former partner Hospira. Pfenex no longer lists this product (or any other biosimilar for that matter) on its pipeline. The drug had progressed through phase 1/2 studies, but has not advanced.

None of the other significant players in the biosimilar industry (including Pfizer, Sandoz, Mylan, Amgen, Celltrion, or Biocon) have publicly announced a ranibizumab biosimilar program at present.

A US–China Partnership: Coherus Biosciences Will Market Chinese Biosimilar Maker’s Avastin Biosimilar in North America

Innovent Biologics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., based in China, signed an agreement on January 13, 2020 that allows Coherus Biosciences to commercialize its bevacizumab biosimilar when approved by Canadian and American regulators. The investigational agent is known as IB1305 at present.

Coherus

Recently completing a phase 3 trial with Chinese patients, Innovent will need to gather the necessarily analytic comparison data for US approval. In its press release, Coherus believes that an FDA submission could be possible in late 2020 or early 2021, based on the Chinese data.

Innovent Biologics

A phase 1 study was listed in ClinicalTrials.gov, which had an estimated completion date of 2017, but there has not been an update to this information. Coherus stated that “The Company anticipates completing a single dose pharmacokinetic clinical study and certain analytical/bioanalytical exercises to support the U.S. filing.” This could mean that a new phase 1 study will be undertaken. Coherus also indicated that it will handle the biologic licensing application process in the US and subsequent marketing in the US and Canada.

Additionally, the press release announced that Innovent’s biosimilar rituximab candidate (IB1301) may also be part of this deal. In June 2019, Innovent filed for approval with the Chinese drug regulatory authorities. According to the terms of the agreement, Coherus has an option to commercialize this agent in North America. IB1301 has been subject to oncology testing in China patients (not to treat autoimmune disorders).

This agreement is significant for Coherus, which is trying to build upon its success in launching the pegfilgrastim biosimilar Udenyca® in the US. Innovent’s biosimilars represent a new oncology pipeline for Coherus in the US and Canada, which already includes two anti-TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and etanercept), and two ophthalmology biosimilars (although aflibercept is still in preclinical development).

Second Etanercept Biosimilar Receives FDA Approval

Samsung Bioepis scored another biosimilar approval in the US, as the Food and Drug Administration gave its nod to etanercept-ykro on April 25, 2019. Formerly known as SB4, Samsung Bioepis dubbed this agent Eticovo™. It is the second
Enbrel® biosimilar to to receive US approval.
 
This approval covered all of the reference product’s autoimmune indications, including ankylosing spondylitis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical studies were performed in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, finding that in combination with methotrexate, Eticovo achieved ACR20 scores that were equivalent to that of Enbrel by week 24 (78.1% vs. 80.3%, respectively). Safety and immunogenicity were also comparable with those of the reference agent.

Eticovo has been approved in the EU and Canada, in addition to other parts of the world, under the brand names Benepali and Brenzys. Samsung Bioepis has not announced a launch date in the US for its biosimilar, and this can be delayed for quite some time. Sandoz’s Erelzi® was approved in 2016, but has not yet reached the market because of patent litigation. Amgen, which manufacturers Enbrel, believes its patents extend effectively into 2028, which would provide for nearly 30 years of product exclusivity.


Both Coherus and Lupin have investigational etanercept biosimilars that are in phase 3 trials. Neither has publicly filed for FDA approval to date.

A Conversation With Doug Long, IQVIA

Doug Long, Vice President of Industry Relations at IQVIA (formerly QuintilesIMS), spoke with us about some of the intracacies of the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim marketplace, and regarding improving access to biosimilars in general. 

Doug Long
Doug Long, IQVIA

BR&R: Do you think interest by manufacturers in biosimilars is gaining or waning at this time?

Doug Long: It’s somewhere in between those two. A lot of people are staying in the game to see how it plays out. Maybe discouraged most accurately describes their feelings at this time. They are discouraged, because there are 17 approved products but only 5 are available. And the uptake of those on the market is not that great, particularly compared with the uptake in Europe.

BR&R: I can see how manufacturers and payers would be discouraged right now. You’re right, in the European market, we’ve seen a great deal of uptake and significant discounting as well. So many factors affect biosimilar coverage and uptake. It may also relate to the individual biosimilar’s disparate marketplace situations.

DISTINCT MARKETS FOR BIOSIMILAR DRUGS

In the US, based on the utilization numbers seen today, do you believe the infliximab, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim markets will best characterize how other biosimilars (e.g., Avastin® or Herceptin) will perform when available?

Long: Well, with the filgrastim molecule, you need to look at both filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, and their routes of administration (prefilled syringes and on-body injectors). Granix® and Zarxio® have the majority of the dollar share on the filgrastim side. It’s too early to tell on the pegfilgrastim side, though Amgen has a 61% share of that Neulasta® molecule with its Onpro® formulation. The addressable market for the molecule is really only the remaining 39%.

You also have to make a distinction between how much of the market is controlled by the pharmacy benefit managers compared with the hospital group purchasing organizations (GPOs) or buying groups. Most of the filgrastim and pegfilgrastim is controlled by the hospital buying groups, and that’s also going to be the case for the cancer-treating biosimilars. There’s no doubt in my mind that when Humira® or Enbrel® are available, the PBMs will embrace the biosimilars. There are just so more complexities on the hospital side of the market that it makes it more difficult for them to move towards the biosimilars.

DEEPER INTO THE FILGRASTIM/PEGFILGRASTIM SCENARIOS

BR&R: There’s an interesting situation brewing in the filgrastim market. The success of Granix and really Sandoz’s Zarxio penetrating the market has contributed significantly to the drop in total sales revenues for filgrastim sales combined. However, how much of this decrease is attributable to migration to pegfilgrastim, and Neulasta Onpro in particular?

Long: Sure, look at their revenues today. Filgrastim is at $611 million in annual sales and pegfilgrastim is at $4.3 billion. Of that $4.3 billion, Onpro accounts for 61%.

BR&R: At Coherus’ fourth-quarter earnings conference call, their CEO indicated that he thought the Onpro marketshare might be vulnerable to the pegfilgrastim biosimilar, which is available today in prefilled syringes. Obviously, that would mean selling Undenyca® at a more enticing price, below the 33% discount currently offered. Do you think that Onpro sales erosion is likely or does the formulation offer real value?

Long: That could work, but the thing about Onpro is that when you finish your chemotherapy for the week, they put the injector on you and you don’t have to go back to the doctor’s office for a pegfilgrastim injection the next day. That’s one of the reasons it is as popular as it is—it reduces hospital and doctor expenses at the end of the day, and is more convenient for the patient.

BR&R: Biosimilar manufacturers like Coherus have expressed interest in developing its own on-body injector for its biosimilar. It seems to present distinct advantages. Does that mean that the biosimilars will be relegated to fighting only for that prefilled syringe market, the remaining 39% of utilization?

Long: It’s probably too early to say. Fulphilia® has only been marketed since July, and the other one [Udenyca] was launched only recently. We’ll have to see what kind of uptake it gets. Also, we’ll have to see what happens when other players come to the market. The more drugs you have available, the more share erosion from the originator you’ll likely see. Yet that did not happen with Remicade…

BR&R: That may be more of a special situation, considering the actions taken by Janssen Biotech to prevent coverage of both Pfizer and Merck’s products.

The filgrastim/pegfilgrastim markets are also different for that reason: Amgen did not aggressively defend their market share on the prefilled syringe originator products (i.e., Neupogen® and Neulasta). Rather, they focused on getting conversions to Onpro. So the biosimilar manufacturers were not facing aggressive defensive tactics, like those employed by Janssen. 

Long: Yes, but they will defend Onpro as much as they can.

BR&R: And Amgen established Neulasta and the Onpro formulation at the same price point.

Long: It made sense. It was a good defense mechanism.

BR&R: It does force the biosimilar manufacturers to work harder to gain business.

AN UNCLEAR FUTURE

BR&R: The Administration has several initiatives that may directly or tangentially affect the biosimilar market. These include the Medicare International Pricing Index, the move to place Part B drugs into Part D (and allow step therapy and other UM tools), the reevaluation of drug rebate safe harbors, and of course, the individual components of the Biosimilar Action Plan. Do you think this will ultimately result in artificial price deflation? Would that be helpful or harmful to biosimilar makers?

Long: That’s a question that I really don’t have an answer for. Who knows what’s going to happen? People have started to make moves to reduce WAC prices, like Amgen on their PCSK9 inhibitor and Gilead on their hepatitis C treatment. Gilead created an “authorized generic” to reduce its price dramatically.

People are starting to play around with it. Maybe to get adopted, a biosimilar maker may actually have to raise their drug’s WAC price higher than the originator, and then give a larger rebate.

More Adalimumab News: Abbvie Signs a Licensing Deal With Coherus, Coherus Sues Amgen for Patent Infringement

The multitude of companies that have lined up to sign 2023 licensing agreements with Abbvie on sales of Humira® biosimilars has grown again. The latest biosimilar maker added to the list is Coherus Biosciences.

Coherus adalimumab biosimilar

Coherus has an investigational adalimumab biosimilar that completed a phase 3 trial in 2017 in patients with plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. CHS-1420 was found to yield similar clinical outcomes compared with the reference product.

According to the press release from Coherus announcing the deal, the biosimilar will be available for marketing December 15, 2023. This will make it the eighth biosimilar version of adalimumab to enter the market, with Amgen entering first, in January of that year. As with the other deals signed by Abbvie, this signing concludes any patent litigation between the parties and Coherus will pay royalties to Abbvie on the sales of its biosimilar.

Coherus is expected to file a submission with the European Medicines Agency, though the timing of this filing has not been disclosed. Furthermore, it has not yet signed a deal with a marketing partner. In past conference calls, the biosimilar maker has indicated that it will not focus its resources on sales of its products outside the US.  

COHERUS SUES AMGEN OVER ADALIMUMAB PATENTS

To complicate matters a bit more, Coherus has launched a patent infringement suit against Amgen, believed to be the first of a biosimilar maker against another. Amgen’s Amjevita® was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016, and has been for sale in the EU. Coherus intends to file for FDA approval in Q4 2019. Coherus contends that Amgen’s manufacture of Amjevita violates Coherus’ US patents 10,155,039; 10,159,732; and 10,159,733. These patents involve the creation of stable aqueous formulations of adalimumab.

Coherus seeks “damages adequate to compensate for past, present, and future infringement,” which could have implications for revenues from the European sales of Amgen’s biosimilar, because of its manufacture in the US. In addition, Coherus seeks an injunction from the court that permanently enjoins Amgen from engaging in further alleged infringement.  

Coherus President and CEO Denny Lanfear said in its January 25th press release, “Coherus recognized early on the central role intellectual property would play in advancing biosimilars to market. One important element of our IP strategy for advancing [CHS-1420] is reflected in the success we’ve achieved in patenting our innovations in the field of adalimumab formulation. We believe in the strength of our IP and we intend to protect it.”

Although generic manufacturers engaging in patent suits with competitors has occasionally occurred, this may be a first in the biosimilar community. I suppose it was only a matter of time.

More Details on Coherus Bioscience’s Udenyca Launch

Go big or go home, seems to be the message of Coherus’ President Dennis Lanfear. At the JP Morgan Investor Conference yesterday in San Francisco, he outlined what he considers a “full-on branded launch” for the biosimilar maker’s key product. Udenyca was officially launched on January 3.

In preparation for the launch of Udenyca, Coherus Bioscience secured $75 million in financing to shore up its cash position and to support its marketing effort.

Udenyca launch

The First Payer Deal for Udenyca

More than half of the current pegfilgrastim claims are reimbursed by commercial payers, with Medicare accounting for an additional one-third. Mr. Lanfear announced a couple of important payer developments that should benefit sales immediately. He said that Coherus “inked a deal with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield last week,” but did not elaborate on the terms. Although he alluded to a press release on Coherus’ website, none had been posted at the time of this writing. He also mentioned that Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina had independently begun “requesting Neulasta users to step through Fulphila or Udenyca before filling those claims.”

The group purchasing organization (GPO) market “is highly focused,” said Mr. Lanfear. “About a dozen players account for 95% of the market. 340B hospitals represents around $963 billion in annual revenue. Vizient accounted for $824 million in Neulasta sales last year (about 35% of the non-340B market), and welcomed us to the market.”

Targeting the Greatest Pegfilgrastim Market Opportunities

He believes, “Biosimilars with pass-through status can provide significant value in non-340B settings. They may be the lowest price side of the market, but most motivated.” According to Mr. Lanfear, these facilities’ efforts at cost recovery is expected to drive the market.

Udenyca and Fulphila are priced identically at $4,175 or at a 33% discount to Neulasta Udenyca’s 33% WAC discount per syringe to avoid payer disincentives. Specifically, after discounting and rebates, Amgen’s ASP for Neulasta was $4,422, which gives the payer an immediate ASP discount. In previous biosimilar launches, their manufacturers’ smaller discounts had actually resulted in higher ASP costs than the reference product. In those cases, payers were reluctant to encourage biosimilar use, at least until the biosimilar had sufficient time in the marketplace where its own ASP could be calculated. “Having our unique HCPCS code results in an ability to control our own ASP,” said Mr. Lanfear. This is the direct result of the current administration’s efforts to fix the original J-code rule.

Further, he believes that Coherus can take advantage of Udenyca’s reimbursement opportunity in the buy-and-bill sector. At present, Neulasta is reimbursed at ASP – 22.5%. [Non-340b] pass-through status will be designated in April 1, 2019, and Udenyca will be reimbursed at ASP + 6% for at least 2 years from that date. (Fulphila currently has pass-through status). This prevents biosimilars from being disadvantaged from the provider perspective.

A National and Regional Sales Structure

To support the new launch, Coherus has created a formidable sales force and structure, including:

  • 67 Oncology account managers
  • 7 Regional sales directors
  • 7 Key account directors
  • 7 Field reimbursement specialists
  • 7 Medical science liaisons
  • 3 Group purchasing directors
  • 4 Payer directors

Mr. Lanfear believes that creation of this extensive sales organization has not been done before with a biosimilar. And he emphasized that they expect to leverage this salesforce infrastructure for its pipeline products, including biosimilar adalimumab, biosimilar ranibizumab, biosimilar aflibercept, and a small-molecule treatment for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).

Coherus has ramped up its production, to be able to handle demand from all its customers, and it has used the LASH Group to develop the Coherus COMPLETE support site for patients and providers.

Coherus’ plan for a “branded-type” launch for its biosimilar pegfilgrastim seems to afford benefits in pricing, sales, supply, and services. We await news of their progress.

Udenyca to Launch January 3, Same WAC as Mylan’s Fulphila

Coherus Biosciences surprised many on its third-quarter earnings call late yesterday. It will rely not on a lower price than its biosimilar competitor to gain marketshare after Coherus’ Udenyca launch, but on its ability to pull through on its patient and provider services and supply chain to gain significant marketshare for its biosimilar version of Neulasta®.

This is not to imply that Coherus will not offer contracts to group purchasing organizations (GPOs), hospitals, and payers.  The company intends to do so. However, the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for Udenyca® will match that of Mylan’s Fulphila®—$4,175 per vial, or a 33% discount from Amgen’s reference product. Denny Lanfear, CEO of Coherus added that the company’s contracting plans “will deliver additional value to payers.”

Jim Hassard, Coherus

AWAITING HCPCS CODING

Unlike other biosimilar manufacturers, this is their first product to reach the market. Not only was manufacturing and production a priority, but company infrastructure had to be ready for launch. Although Coherus pointed out that the sales force for Coherus is fully in place, they are holding back the Udenyca launch until the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) designates a Q code for claims and billing purposes. Therefore, the goal is a Udenyca launch date of January 3, 2019.

Jim Hassard, Vice President for Marketing and Market Access, emphasized that “Our overall launch strategy goes beyond pricing, to reliable supply and services. We’re committed to world-class execution and salesforce effectiveness.” The company’s Coherus Complete, patient and provider service site, is operational, and this will include copay support for eligible patients. Mr. Hassard stated, “This price is attractive to payers without diminishing our value proposition. We can deliver significant savings to the health system versus Neulasta.”Coherus Biosciences

CAN UDENYCA GRAB SOME ONPRO MARKETSHARE?

One interesting statement made during the call was the expectation that Coherus will go after some of Neulasta Onpro’s share of the market. Amgen’s on-body injector accounts for about 60% of all Neulasta utilization today, “but this growth has flattened out,” Chris Thompson, Vice President of Sales, emphasized. “We’re looking at the whole market, not just prefilled syringe market,” he said. “We think we’ll be able to sell through the Onpro market,” meaning that their pricing and services will attract some of this marketshare. In fact, Coherus executives believe that biosimilars may eventually garner nearly 70% of the pegfilgrastim market.

Coherus believes that there is pent-up demand for the biosimilar in the hospital segment today, which is why GPOs may represent promising contracting opportunities. They are seeking parity positioning at the payer and pharmacy benefit manager level.

This sounds fairly reasonable. Yet the vast majority of biosimilar consultants and payers with whom I had communicated had anticipated that Coherus would launch with at least a modest WAC discount relative to Mylan’s Fulphila. On the conference call, the investment banking participants wanting information on the Udenyca launch seemed caught off guard as well.

UDENYCA REVENUE TO SUPPORT COHERUS FOR NOW

Perhaps this strategy gives Coherus ample room for contracting while retaining a respectable net cost. Mr. Thompson said, “We’ll roll out a comprehensive contracting strategy for GPOs in the next week or two. It will be competitive and designed to win.”

It may need to be. Relying on better services and perhaps even a better supply chain (albeit one that is brand new) may not be sufficiently persuasive to hospital and payer P&T Committees. And Coherus needs to generate revenue from its sole product to feed its new sales team, new product development, and hungry investors.

Coherus Gets FDA Approval for Its Pegfilgrastim Biosimilar

With the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval today of Coherus Bioscience’s Udenyca™ (pegfilgrastim-cbqv), the second pegfilgrastim to compete with Amgen’s Neulasta®, much attention will be now focused on the company’s November 8 earning call.

The FDA approved Udenyca on the basis of a supportive analytical similarity package, but with phase 1 data only. Over 600 healthy subjects were given the agent to test its pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and immunogenicity safety.

We should learn a great deal by the end of the week about the nature of the competition for the injectable pegfilgrastim marketplace into 2019. In the press release announcing the approval, the company said it will reveal its launch plans, including pricing, during its week’s call. On Monday, November 5, we should hear the first information about whether Mylan’s first-to-market entry, Fulphila®, has gained some traction against the injectable form of Neulasta. Mylan launched Fulphila at the end of July.

In a previous post, we discussed how Amgen’s Neulasta Onpro® patch has already captured upwards of 80% of the pegfilgrastim business. Because of the convenience of the patch formulation, it would be surprising if Onpro’s share of market eroded significantly. However, Amgen must ensure that the net cost difference between the biosimilars and Neulasta Onpro is not noteworthy. Otherwise, payers’ can be expected to try to disadvantage Onpro through step edits or greater patient cost sharing. That would take a sizable bite out of Amgen’s large slice of the $4 billion pegfilgrastim pie.

The FDA approved Udenyca for the following indication: to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anti-cancer drugs associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia. It was not approved for the mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This indication language does not differ from that for Fulphila. Neulasta has the additional indication of increasing survival in patients acutely exposed to myelosuppressive doses of radiation.

Undenyca was also approved for sale in the EU, although Coherus has not launched there, awaiting a marketing partner.

Tidal Wave of Pegfilgrastim Biosimilars About to Hit Europe

We had mentioned the upcoming deluge of adalimumab biosimilars aiming to hit the European market in mid-October, but another biosimilar tidal wave may actually precede this.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has had an extremely busy week in the pegfilgrastim biosimilars arena. In addition to granting marketing authorization to Coherus Biosciences for its pegfilgrastim biosimilar, it has also approved the marketing of Pelgraz®, a pegfilgrastim produced by Accord Healthcare. In addition, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has also recommended approval for three pegfilgrastim biosimilars—from Sandoz, Cinfa, and Mylan.

Mylan is the only drug maker with a marketed biosimilar version of pegfilgrastim in the United States. Its product Fulphila® hit the US market in early July. Coherus’ product, Udenyca™, is awaiting a November 2 decision from the Food and Drug Administration. Coherus is reportedly looking for a partner to market its pegfilgrastim biosimilar overseas, while it intends to market the product internally in the US. This means that Accord may have the first pegfilgrastim biosimilar to reach patients in the EU, though this advantage will be short lived should Mylan in particular gain approval.

In other biosimilar news…Boehringer Ingelheim announced positive results in its clinical study of Cylteza® versus Humira® in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The study results were announced at the European Society of Dermatology and Venereology.

Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. announced that the FDA has accepted its 351(k) application for SB5, a biosimilar to adalimumab. Samsung is the fourth manufacturer seeking to enter the biosimilar market for Humira. Two have been approved (Amjevita® by Amgen and Cyltezo® by Boehringer Ingelheim) but are not yet marketed. A decision on Sandoz’s application is expected later this year.

Let’s not Knock Innovation, but Biosimilars Exist for the Sake of Competition

A recent Twitter conversation between a blogging colleague of mine and a German advocate of precision medicine propelled this post: What is the real benefit of biosimilars? Does biosimilar development detract from efforts to produce innovative medicines? Is the main societal benefit biosimilar cost savings?

biosimilar cost savings

Biosimilar Development Is Separate From Innovation Development

The main reason that the Biologics and Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) was signed into legislation was related to cost containment. For biologics, there was no pathway for the evaluation and approval for lower-cost copies in the US health system, akin to the generic-brand name dynamic for conventional drugs. Adding competition has been the first and only point. The specialty drug trend had been rising rapidly, and the long-term estimates were frightening: Costs associated with specialty drugs like biologics threaten to eat 48% of the total drug spending pie in the United States by 2020.

Two factors were responsible. The first, increasing specialty drug utilization, has been especially difficult to address. The pipeline is congested with biologics. Medical societies are increasingly incorporating biologics into their guidelines and clinical pathways. Prescribers have grown more comfortable with these agents, and payers have limited tools at their disposal to put the brakes on their use.

The second, price increases, are well known and publicized. Without competition, drug companies tend to test what the market will bear, and to this point, they have borne quite a bit. Unlike in Europe, where the tender system of pharmaceutical purchasing has resulted in better cost containment, the US payers have been accustomed to stomaching large price increases through increased use of rebate contracts with price guarantees. But the overall costs continue to rise, as contracts expire and new ones are drawn up. Thus, the list prices for drugs like Enbrel® and Humira® have skyrocketed, with Humira’s more than doubling in a few years.

There is no evidence to say that biosimilar manufacturers would have engaged in the development of innovative new agents had they not devoted resources to this area. Indeed, pure-play biosimilar makers, like Coherus or Adello, were only introduced to produce biosimilars. Other makers, such as Samsung Bioepis, are joint ventures of existing manufacturers to do the same. Biogen recently raised its stake in Samsung Bioepis to nearly 50% of the company’s shares. This could be construed as a case of an originator company pouring $700 million into a biosimilar manufacturer, which could be using that money directly for other purposes. Finally, firms like Apotex, Mylan, Sandoz, and Hospira (now part of Pfizer) are heavily involved in generic drug manufacturing. Biosimilar development was a natural extension for them. Even big pharma players, such as Amgen, Merck, and Pfizer, are more commonly engaged in biosimilar marketing partnerships rather than purely R&D efforts (e.g., Amgen/Allergan, Merck/Samsung Bioepis, Pfizer/Celltrion).

One can also make an argument that pharmaceutical innovation is more evident at the drug discovery level. These days, big pharma seems less interested in pursuing drug discovery than in purchasing it.

The Societal Benefits of Biosimilars

The EMA and FDA biosimilar pathways were created to introduce competition that would lower drug costs. This in turn would make innovative biologic therapy available to more patients. Biosimilar cost savings could drive greater access to important drug technologies.

With the EU’s longer and more extensive experience with biosimilar medications, costs have indeed been saved. Although this has varied by country, it is undeniable.

In the US, with very limited economic experience with biosimilars (filgrastim and infliximab), savings figures are more theoretical than real. Although the infusion of a biosimilar into the new market may reduce wholesale acquisition price of the reference drug a bit, it will have a greater effect on net pricing, after rebates. And, of more immediate importance, the new biosimilar has the potential to halt further price increases for the originator product. This aspect of biosimilars cost savings cannot be overemphasized. Between the first adalimumab biosimilar approval and the initial availability of these products in 2023, the list price of Humira can increase upwards of 40% (or more, if Abbvie veers from its pledge to limit price increases). The initial price of the first adalimumab biosimilar will thus be much higher than if it was launched last year. On the other hand, adalimumab biosimilars will launch in the EU in October of this year, which should effectively lower cost products and limit their EU members’ exposure to future Humira price increases.

Biosimilar cost savings can have real benefits in terms of improved access. Payers’ incentives to use biosimilars (if they are motivated to implement them) can result in lower patient cost sharing. For example, a fourth-tier biologic may be subject to a 20% cost share, whereas a third-tier biosimilar may carry a flat copay of $100. This can make a difference in terms of therapeutic choices available to patients.

In conclusion, the German correspondent is only partly right. Biosimilars are not innovative. They are highly complex, cost-control medications. Do they detract the focus of manufacturers from new innovative products? There’s no evidence of this. However, we are beginning to see limited evidence in the US of the societal benefits, namely cost savings, they can bring.