Tag: infliximab

Pfizer Sues J&J on Anticompetitive Practices on Infliximab in the US

In late May, Merck was named in a UK lawsuit by Pfizer, which has been trying to expand its market for Inflectra®. Merck, which markets Remicade® (infliximab) in the EU, was accused of anticompetitive practices. On September 20, Pfizer brought a similar complaint against Johnson & Johnson (the parent of Janssen and the manufacturer of Remicade®) in the US, according to a lawsuit filed in US District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

Whereas Pfizer has made some inroads to the US market, since its launch at the end of 2016, Janssen has done a good job of blocking and tackling—playing the contracting game. The lawsuit claims that Janssen has withheld or threatened to withhold rebates if payers do not keep Remicade in an exclusive preferred position. Pfizer may have invited such action to an extent by entering the market at a 15% discount to the originator’s wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Many experts expected this type of approach by Janssen. Payers were candid in their reluctance to switch to the biosimilar, especially if Janssen would counter the modest discount with rebates that narrow or eliminate the difference in net costs. In other words, a greater discounted price may have opened the market to Pfizer more rapidly, because Janssen may have been less aggressive in its efforts to match the net cost.

In an August earnings call, Pfizer indicated that although Medicare is covering Inflectra, its overall US marketshare was only 2.3%.

According to the press release announcing Pfizer’s lawsuit, “[Johnson & Johnson’s] exclusionary contracts and other anticompetitive practices have denied U.S. patients access to therapeutic options and undermined the benefits of robust price competition in the innovative and growing biologics marketplace for patients… J&J’s systematic efforts to maintain its monopoly in connection with Remicade® (infliximab) by inappropriately excluding biosimilar competitors violates federal antitrust laws and undermines the principal goals of the federal Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).”

This may be the first time that routine contracting efforts to defend against generic competition and maintain a monopoly within a drug category have been cited as a violation of antitrust legislation. What may have amplified Pfizer’s ire was its assertion that several insurers originally placed Inflectra at parity coverage with Remicade. These payers changed their position after “J&J threatened to withhold significant rebates unless insurers agreed to effectively block coverage for Inflectra and other infliximab biosimilars.”

Furthermore, the suit claims that clinicians and hospitals were reluctant to purchase Inflectra, with the belief that insurers may not reimburse them for its use. These providers may have been further influenced by an insistence by J&J on their signing contracts that dictated significant discounts on Remicade only if they would not purchase Remicade or other infliximab biosimilars.

At this time, Inflectra is priced at an average 19% discount to Remicade’s wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Pfizer says that it is offering additional discounts on top of this to persuade payers into covering their biosimilar. Merck’s launch of its own biosimilar infliximab (Renflexis®) comes with a price tag of 35% below that of Remicade, which adds tremendous pressure on payers to reconsider their positions. This also signals the early closing of Pfizer’s window of opportunity as the first biosimilar entrant, on which it gambled an at-risk launch.

The Week in Biosimilar News

You know it’s been a pretty desperate week in the biosimilar blogosphere when twitter feeds relate back to articles published in January, rehashes of the US Supreme Court decision in June, or yet another estimate of the savings potentially ascribed to biosimilar use (based on erroneous assumptions). However, there were a few significant tidbits announced last week that are worth reviewing.

First, Biocon announced that the decision to approve its trastuzumab biosimilar (with partner Mylan) has been delayed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3 months (until December 3, 2017). According to Biocon, this delay was required so that the FDA could “review some of the clarificatory information submitted as part of the application review process.” Clarificatory? Really? Maybe the extra time was needed to translate the application itself.

Second, a survey of 103 US gastroenterologists raised a couple of questions as to how well information about Inflectra®, the biosimilar to Remicade®, is sinking in on the practice level. According to a press release from Spherix Global Insights, cross-category prescribing may be interfering with the uptake of the biosimilar. They state, “not only is the decline [in Remicade prescriptions] attributed to the adoption of infliximab biosimilars, but use of Humira® has also significantly increased, potentially indicating that more ulcerative colitis patients are being placed on Humira to avoid insurance mandates for infliximab biosimilar use.” This limited survey found that more than one-third of gastroenterologists “agree that if a pharmacy or managed care plan advises them to use Inflectra over Remicade, that they are more likely to choose a different TNF-inhibitor altogether.” This is a weird finding, perhaps indicating nothing more than spite for the health plan’s benefit design. Clearly, if the physicians fully considered the evidence, they would be less likely to prescribe in this way. Admittedly, as notable numbers of managed care organizations have not actually mandated Inflectra use at this point in time, we would have to wait to see if this opinion is validated in actual practice.

Finally, Sanofi announced that it had received tentative approval on a follow-on biologic form of insulin lispro (the originator product was Lilly’s Humalog®). Patent issues will have to be resolved before Sanofi can receive final approval and bring this product to the market. The insulin biosimilars are not regulated under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, but rather under the Hatch–Waxman Act—the application was filed as a 505(b)2 rather than a 351(k) variety. They are transitional products, which will considered under the newer regulations after March 23, 2020. We will detail these lesser-known transitional drug categories in a future post.

Inflectra Sales Lagging for Pfizer in Second Quarter

Pfizer announced some disappointing results for the second quarter in its quest to advance a foothold in the biosimilar market. The second-quarter results hinted at more difficulties to come for the Inflectra® brand, with the most recent launch of Merck’s Renflexis®.

Amid somewhat positive signs with group purchasing organizations, which supply hospitals and health systems, commercial health plans have lagged in covering the product. On the earnings call, John Young, Pfizer’s Group President for Pfizer Essential Health, said that in the second quarter, “our Inflectra share was 2.3% of the overall infliximab volume,” including both patients who had not used infliximab before and those who switched to Inflectra. The total US revenue for the quarter was only $23 million. In Europe, sales were $94 million—better but not yet gaining the penetration of other biosimilars in the EU.

The 15% discounting strategy may have limited uptake by US health plans and insurers to date, but Janssen’s actions to defend marketshare have no doubt been effective. Pfizer’s most recent price drop, coinciding roughly with the launch of Merck’s (and Samsung Bioepis’) infliximab biosimilar, will likely muddy this picture in the near term.

Overall, Pfizer’s revenue decreased by 2% (to $12.9 billion) compared with the second quarter of 2016. This is not terrible, considering that its European revenues from Enbrel® (etanercept) continue to be under siege from biosimilars, dropping 20% compared with Q2 2016.

Pfizer’s pipeline remains robust, however, with 8 biosimilars in the works, including 4 in phase 3 trials. Its epoetin alfa product Retacrit® had been rejected by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because of potential manufacturing concerns. The second-quarter financial report did not update its progress in discussions with FDA.

Will Approval of an Interchangeable Biosimilar Mean that Others Are Inferior?

In terms of the biosimilar market and utilization, the US has been at least one full decade behind Europe in every respect but one. Yes, we have the EU beat in a game they avoided playing: The interchangeability gambit. The Europeans never defined interchangeability as a separate concept for biosimilars, thus leaving the individual countries to decide whether to allow unencumbered switching of biosimilars for their originator drugs.

As in other areas of biosimilar policy and regulation, the US started very slowly. Leah Christl, PhD, Associate Director for Therapeutic Biologics, OND Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars Team, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated last week at the Drug Industry Association’s annual meeting in Chicago that she expects the first interchangeable biosimilar to be approved within about 2 years. This is probably realistic, based on the timeline of the adoption of the agency’s interchangeability guidelines. Comments on the draft guidance are being read by the FDA at this time. Seven years after the passage of the legislation calling for the biosimilar approval pathway. If there were competitors in this game, we’d be desperately trying to catch up!

It seems unlikely that the FDA has any active 351(k) applications seeking the interchangeability designation, although Dr. Christl did not reveal whether this was the case. The application process is confidential; a submitted application is publicized only if the drug maker issues a press release on its ownDeck 1.png. It would seem premature to seek the interchangeability designation before the FDA’s own guidance on what the review entails is released. This may not prevent a biosimilar manufacturer that has already received approval from taking the quick step towards interchangeability, especially if they have conducted a series of switching studies that meet the FDA’s criteria (e.g., NOR-SWITCH).

Payers are chomping at the bit for an interchangeable product in the 36 states (and 3 pending) that have signed legislation allowing pharmacies to automatically substitute a biosimilar for an originator biologic.

Others have pointed out that the interchangeable biosimilar may be a boon to its manufacturer, but it may have negative effect on competitive markets. For example, a noninterchangeable infliximab may be considered by prescribers or patients somehow inferior to the interchangeable version, devaluing this biosimilar. On the other hand, the maker of “infliximab-int” could experience increased demand and boost prices (or avoid decreasing prices in the face of other noninterchangeable biosimilars coming to the market). And this may be justified. No one really knows the manufacturer’s incremental cost of achieving this designation, based on:

  • The cost of conducting additional switching studies
  • The potential cost of responding to FDA requirements for more data
  • The opportunity cost in marketing time, resulting from a delay in the application or approval

The race for a product with this extremely valuable designation drags on at a snail’s pace. I hope I’m still writing about it by the time someone reaches the finish line.

 

What Happens When Switching Among Biosimilars?

Late last year, I wrote about a biosimilar challenge that could be on the horizon. With the approval of the second infliximab biosimilar (infliximab-abda by Samsung Bioepis), that horizon is a lot closer. However, we are no closer to understanding how to address the issue.

When Renflexis™ is launched in October (it is unknown whether the US Supreme Court ruling that wiped away the 180-day postapproval waiting period will affect this), 3 noninterchangeable versions of infliximab will be available. Based on patient turnover in health plans, the following scenario will soon occur.

 

Lee 2
Image Copyright 2017 by Lee Fogel

Mr. Jones, a 39-year-old man with Crohn’s disease, works for a large self-funded employer. He has been taking Remicade®, the reference product, for some time. In January 2018, his employer decides to change its plan offerings. His new health plan does not cover Remicade, favoring Inflectra® (infliximab-dyyb) instead. He could seek a medical exception to continue on Remicade, but his new plan actually offers considerable incentives to switch, including significantly lower cost sharing. After discussing the situation with his doctor, he makes the change, and experiences much the same clinical results. In 2019, his employer makes another change in plan. And this plan covers Renflexis on the specialty tier but has Remicade available on the higher-cost nonpreferred specialty tier. He and his physician are unsure of the best move.

Keep in mind that it would be rare and probably makes little sense for a health plan to cover both biosimilars and the reference product. At some point, the plan will seek a contract that leverages marketshare. In the scenario above, at what point does the patient unduly risk the development of neutralizing or antidrug antibodies?

No data have been published on switches among 3 biosimilar products. These agents are not designated as interchangeable—though Pfizer’s Inflectra may be closest to it based on its NOR-SWITCH investigations; therefore, no one is truly confident of what might or might not occur with regard to efficacy or safety. I suspect it may be some time before switches among reference product, biosimilar A, biosimilar B, or even biosimilar C may be considered routine.

Patients receiving biologic products for serious chronic diseases may also be subject to case/care management. This is not a clean transition when changing health plans. The situation described above will likely happen in the near future with infliximab and possibly adalimumab (once the patent litigation is cleared). It would be a good idea for health plans and insurers to start reviewing their options now to ensure both patient safety and cost-effective decision making.

Savvy Move or Illegal Anticompetitive Action?

Merck, which markets Remicade® in Europe, may have stepped over an anticompetitive line when Pfizer’s Inflectra® biosimilar was first made available, according to the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority. In the US, however, this activity would be considered routine. Certainly, nothing prevents this action and it would be fully expected, in terms of net costs.

According the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority, Merck took unfair advantage of “dominant position through a discount scheme for Remicade that was likely to restrict competition” from the biosimilar infliximab when it was launched in 2015. In this scheme, the drugmaker “unfairly” discounted the product to customers who remained loyal to the product.

Is this really different than offering rebates for preferred positioning? Anecdotal reports in the US indicate that Janssen Biotech, which markets the originator agent in North America, has taken similar action with rebates against Inflectra® (infliximab-dyyb). In fact, Amgen did the same to ward off competition from Zarxio® (filgrastim-sndz). In their cases, they did not discount the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) to meet the biosimilars’ but simply increased the rebate to yield an equivalent net cost.

This action may be more attractive because it may have fewer implications for “best pricing” discounts required by Medicaid and other payers. Certainly, the maker of the originator product can cut their WAC costs if they desired; at the biosimilars’ modest 15% discounts, this would simply roll pricing back to 2015 levels.

In other news…A case report has been published from New York City, in which a patient switching from the reference infliximab agent to the biosimilar version experienced papulosquamous lesions a few days after the change in medication. Skin biopsy revealed the existence of a lichenoid eruption. This adverse event has not been cited previously in the literature with the reference agent Inflectra®. The direct cause of the drug reaction is unknown but further monitoring is warranted, according to the authors.

On June 2, the European Medicines Agency accepted Sandoz’s application for biosimilar infliximab and adalimumab. Sandoz has not filed a 351(k) application with the US Food and Drug Administration for either product.

No Clear Winner on Supreme Court’s Biosimilar Hearing Day

Despite the fact that the arguments at Wednesday’s Supreme Court wrestling match on the patent dance and 180-day notification issue went into overtime, there was no clear winner discernable in Amgen v. Sandoz.

Some observers believe that the Supreme Court justices were more comfortable with Amgen’s arguments, but the justices admitted that there was little clarity in trying to interpret the ambiguous language of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Justice Stephen Breyer stated his unfamiliarity with the technical aspects of the field and expressed concern about ruling on these issues.

Indeed, it is possible that the Court will not issue any ruling, since the case specifically arose around Sandoz’s launch of Zarxio®. Sandoz waited out the 180-day notification period before launching the product, which could prompt the justices to decide that the question is moot, avoiding the larger question of whether it should be enforced for future biosimilar launches.

Judicial experts and industry watchers will be pouring over the comments and questions from the justices for some time, until a final ruling is released (thought to be in July).

In other news… US sales of Janssen’s Remicade® slipped 2.4% to $1.18 billion, in the first full quarter following the launch of its biosimilar competitor, Pfizer’s Inflectra®. This does not necessarily reflect lost marketshare but Janssen’s concessions in matching the price of Inflectra to retain its preferred positioning. With a new competitor looming later this year (Renflexis™), Remicade’s earnings slide is expected to accelerate.

Amgen’s Enbrel® is also facing a less-rosy future, as the product’s sales in the anti-TNF category has begun to slip, independent of any active biosimilar competition. However, competition in the rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis categories from other products, especially interleukin inhibitors, has been stiff. First quarter 2017 sales of Enbrel in the US dropped 15% to $1.18 billion. Sandoz’s biosimilar etanercept, though approved by the FDA and beyond the 180-day notification period, has not yet launched due to patent litigation questions.

FDA Approves Second Infliximab Biosimilar

On April 21, 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave its nod to a new biosimilar version of infliximab, and will compete against the originator product Remicade®. Manufactured by Samsung Bioepis, it will be marketed by Merck in the US as Renflexis™.

The new agent, the first approved from Samsung Bioepis, will have to elbow its way to marketshare alongside Pfizer’s Inflectra®, which was launched late in 2016. The nonproprietary name of the new agent is infliximab-abda, in keeping with FDA’s 4-letter suffix policy.

Renflexis was approved for the full slate of indications of the other infliximab agents, including Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

This biosimilar approval was the first by FDA without the formal meeting of its advisory committees. The agency had first indicated that it would not require advisory committee meetings for biosimilar products in September 2016, when an FDA official   stated that “the first biosimilar for each reference product will have an advisory committee, but there will not be hearings for any others ‘unless there’s a specific issue to discuss.’”

This version of infliximab was approved in 2016 by the European Medicines Agency as Flixabi, and this agent is marketed by Biogen. Biogen is a partner with Samsung in Samsung Bioepis.

The manufacturing and licensing partners have indicated that they intend to market Renflexis at the end of its 180-day notification period, in November. However, assuming patient litigation is ongoing, the launch may have to be at-risk, as was Pfizer’s launch of Inflectra, to avoid additional delays in commercialization.

Biosimilar Immunogenicity, Antibodies, and Extrapolation

Based on the clinical studies to date, most clinicians and policy makers would be surprised if a biosimilar did not yield the same patient efficacy outcomes as the originator biologic. We’ve become accustomed to seeing these equivalent results. However, one of the greatest concerns of physicians and patients in biosimilar development has been the potential safety of the biosimilar when it replaces an originator product.

This concern is largely driven by the type of immunogenetic response the biosimilar molecule might elicit. What is the likelihood that it will result in the production of neutralizing antibodies, which would affect the clinical effectiveness of the product? The appearance of antidrug antibodies could theoretically cause serious immunogenic reactions, beyond just injection-site reactions, including anaphylaxis. Years of experience gained in the US and Europe with the first generation of approved biosimilars (filgrastim, epoetin, etc) have demonstrated that these concerns are unfounded. The question is just beginning to be addressed for the first biosimilar monoclonal antibodies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Clinical studies of patients who received Inflectra®, Amjevita®, or Erelzi® showed that immunogenicity was not significantly different between these and the originator products. However, their use for other approved autoimmune disorders (i.e., extrapolation) seem to concern those clinicians expressing discomfort with biosimilar prescribing. Usually, studies of the biosimilar do not address ankylosing spondylitis if the principal clinical studies involved rheumatoid arthritis. This is why the FDA weighs so heavily the importance of analyzing the equivalence of a compound’s structure and characterization. Even these characterizations do not necessarily predict the risk of immunogenicity in practice.

According to the FDA, a head-to-head study in treatment-naïve patients is the most sensitive way to detect potential immunogenicity differences. The FDA believes, however, that a single crossover design, in a subgroup of patients, from originator to biosimilar agent, should help quantify the immunogenicity risk. Critical measurements include the formation of antibodies (measurement of their concentrations or titers), how quickly they develop and how long they persist, and their implications for pharmacokinetics and clinical sequelae. Additionally, researchers should monitor for the neutralization by antibodies of the drug’s activity.

An interesting question that could be raised is whether the immunogenicity of the product varies in patients with different autoimmune disorders (e.g., Crohn’s disease vs. rheumatoid arthritis). Although this has not been extensively studied, the use to date of Inflectra®, for instance, in its various indications, has not revealed a significant problem.

The key is that biosimilars in clinical trials and in experience have not elicited immunogenicity responses that are significantly or clinically different than those of the originator. Comprehensive efforts at tracking and surveillance postmarketing will either put these concerns to rest or raise red flags, rather quickly.

Large European Society Lends Its Support to Switching

In a recent statement published in the Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) announced its support for switching from an originator product to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease  (IBD).

In its position statement, ECCO asserts that switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable if it is in line with national recommendations and has been discussed among the physician, nurse, pharmacist, and patient. This view, which represents a change from ECCO’s previous position, is based on the clinical experience gained from investigational studies and postmarketing trials using the biosimilar version of infliximab.

Lead author and President Elect of ECCO, Silvio Danese, MD, said, “Findings from the 2015 ECCO survey of IBD specialists found that around 80% of specialists are either totally confident, very confident or confident enough in using biosimilars, which is a huge change compared to 39% when a similar survey was conducted back in 2013.”

As for all biologics, traceability should be based on a robust pharmacovigilance system. The authors also noted that several postmarketing studies are ongoing or near publication, which lends further support to the improved confidence in the safety and efficacy of the biosimilar (Celltrion’s Remsima®, which is marketed in the US as Inflectra®).

This marks a significant shift in attitude from the previous ECCO position paper, which advised that switching from an established biologic to a biosimilar was inappropriate and called for more data on the safety and benefit of biosimilars in general.

Dr. Danese and his colleagues concluded, “there have been no reports so far that switching from the reference to the biosimilar infliximab [Remsima] has caused problems, in either adult or pediatric IBD patients. On the contrary, an increasing number of publications have shown that there are no safety or efficacy concerns about switching.”