Madrid – we’re here in Spain for the 2014 Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). It’s proven to be a challenging and frustrating meeting on multiple levels so far, but hopefully it will redeem itself over the weekend as new data that changes the standard of care for cancer patients is presented.
At the end of the day it’s all about the data and making a difference to the lives of cancer patients.
The highlight of the meeting so far was yesterday’s Roche media briefing and the presentation by Dan Chen MD PhD on how the company is making advances in immunotherapy. We’ll be writing up the data he mentioned as it’s presented at the Congress. The quote he showed from Ira Mellman, PhD about the promise of Immunotherapy is one that resonates with us:
At prior ECCO/ESMO’s we’ve written about the industry satellite symposia that take place, many of which feature world-class experts talking about new drugs in development or the treatment landscape. It’s a big disappointment to be excluded from these events for the first time at #ESMO14, especially as many are educational in content or even organized by Continuing Medical Education (CME) companies.
That said, by dint of the fact ESMO can accept data several months after the ASCO abstracts have closed there is new data to talk about at this meeting and we have a very full schedule of sessions to attend today at the Congress.
If you would like to read more about which sessions we’ll be in and our initial impressions of data during the day, do sign-in if you’re a subscriber or sign up to keep abreast as the data rolls out.
At the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago this past weekend, my impression of
The decision expected this Thursday by the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) may impact the development and approval of biosimilars.
Part of the PPACA signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 was the Biologics Price Competition & Innovation Act (BPCI).
This amended the Public Health Service Act (PHS) to create a pathway under section 351(k) for the licensing of biological products that are “interchangeable” or “biosimilar” to an FDA-licensed product.
In addition, to a licensing pathway, the regulatory framework introduced “exclusivity” periods that prevented approval of a 351(k) application until 12 years after the first license of the reference product. I doubt very much that Congress will want to have to negotiate exclusivity provisions again.
I am not a regulatory expert, but my understanding is that if the Court declares the PPACA unconstitutional in its entirety, the BPCI would be lost too.
At the risk of venturing an opinion, I don’t think the Court will want to cause collateral damage to uncontroversial parts of the PPACA such as the BPCI, but it is something to watch out for this Thursday.
Many commentators think it likely the Court will uphold certain parts of the PPACA and invalidate other provisions. This was the approach the Court followed in a decision earlier this week on Arizona Immigration Law (Arizona v. United States).
However, until a decision is published by the Court, nobody knows. Thursday is set to be a landmark day whatever the Court decides.
Update June 28, 2012
In a 5:4 opinion, the Supreme Court has upheld several provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Court did not rule the PPACA unconstitutional in its entirety which was the only way the biosimilars provisions would have been lost. Therefore, from a biosimilar regulatory perspective, nothing has changed as a result of today’s decision – the exclusivity and approval pathway are maintained. This is good news for the biotechnology industry.
I am excited to be attending, for the first time, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) international convention that takes place in Washington DC in just over a week’s time from Monday June 27 to Thursday, June 30th.
This meeting has something for everyone interested in the biotechnology industry whether it be deal making, partnering, licensing, drug discovery or personalized medicine. There are 16 specialized tracks where industry experts provide insight and best practices.
In addition, there are numerous networking and social events plus an exhibit hall that showcases the world’s biotech regions and how they are promoting innovation.
At meetings where there are parallel sessions, I apply “the law of two feet” (thanks to Podcamp for this) that says if you are not getting what you want from the session, it’s OK to walk out and go to another one.
My top 10 sessions at BIO reflect my personal interests in innovation, science and new product development:
Tuesday June 28
- How will we afford Personalized Medicines?
- The Biomarkers Consortium: Facilitating the Development and Qualification of Biological Markers
- Personalized Oncology: The emergence of Personalized Medicine Strategies in Oncology Clinical Development and Deal Making
- Navigating the New Law on Licensing Biosimilars
Wednesday June 29
- Lessons from a Mature Public-Private Partnership. The Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
- Emerging Markets. The Future of Growth for Biologics?
- The Role of Imaging Biomarkers in Early Phase CNS Drug Development
- The Promise of MicroRNA-based Therapeutics in Cancer
Thursday Jun 30
- After the Fall. Venture Capital and the Biotech Funding Landscape
- Regulatory Issues for Tissue Engineered Products
If you have plans to be at BIO 2011 do say hello after one of the sessions or receptions. You can reach me at the meeting via twitter (@3NT). See you in DC!
The race to bring a biosimilar version of Sanofi-Aventis’ low molecular weight heparin, Lovenox® (enoxaparin sodium), to market had three players, Momenta Pharmaceuticals in partnership with Sandoz, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals and Teva.
The winner was Momenta/Sandoz who (as mentioned in a previous post) recorded $292 million of sales in 69 days post launch. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Amphastar are now suing the FDA alleging the agency acted arbitrarily in delaying its imports of raw heparin. There certainly seems to be no love lost between Amphastar and the FDA, who earlier this year alleged a conflict of interest between Janet Woodcock, the Director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Momenta as a result of the collaboration that identified the contaminant in chinese heparin that killed patients in 2008. Following an FDA investigation, Woodcook was cleared of any conflict of interest but announced she would not participate in the biosimilar approval decision.
In the run up to the approval, the FDA visited the manufacturing facilities for all three companies. Afterwards the status of the Amphastar application became less certain. Unlike Amphastar, both Teva and Sandoz had prior experience of obtaining FDA approval for biosimilar products.
Given the amount of money at stake, its easy to see why Amphastar are unhappy. However, alleging conflicts of interest and arbitrary practices does not exactly win friends and influence people. I am sure the FDA have a credible factual basis for their decision making, in which case Amphastar is unlikely to get anywhere, other than generate negative publicity for themselves. Others may differ in that opinion, and if you want to read a legal analysis of the Amphastar complaint, the FDA Law Blog’s post is worth reading. It also has a link to the actual complaint filed.
The more interesting question is when is the FDA going to approve the Teva biosimilar version of Lovenox®? When this happens, Sandoz’s first mover advantage will come to an end and further price erosion is likely. According to Reuters, analysts predict this may happen before the end of 2010.
Update: Amphastar gains FDA approval for generic Lovenox
As reported by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot (September 19, 2011), “Amphastar Pharmaceuticals has finally won approval to sell a generic version of Lovenox“
The news, reported by Bloomberg, last week that generic companies may be subject to stricter FDA standards in order to show therapeutic equivalence is good news for the biotech industry and consumers.
Generic companies have a pretty easy ride in obtaining product approval, and I’ve long been convinced that the formulation of a brand, and what makes it work can include the so called inactive ingredients and how it is put together. I know of many people who have experienced side effects with generics that they don’t have with the branded product.
For this reason, branded generics from the original manufacturer have the ability to retain some market share in the face of generic competition. Sandoz, the generic arm of Novartis uses this strategy to good effect with many mature products. However, if companies instead want to try and maintain a premium priced brand and not adapt to the entry of generics, then they will find their market share erodes extremely fast. Not only is brand market erosion fast with generic drugs, but with biosimilars too.
As reported by Reuters, sales of generic enoxaparin sodium injection, Momenta’s copy of Sanofi’s anti-thrombotic, low molecular weight, heparin sold as “Lovenox” were $292million in the third quarter of 2010. Sandoz markets enoxaparin on behalf of Momenta. They launched the product on July 23, and achieved $292 million of sales in 69 days. With annual sales forecast to be over $1billion, the biosimilar will be a blockbuster and make a significant dent in the $2.9 billion sales of Lovenox in 2009.
The Boston Business Journal reports that Sandoz/Momenta have captured 60% market share already, which is not good news for Sanofi-Aventis and may explain their desire to make acquisitions such as Genzyme to make up for this loss.
Biosimilars that are fully substitutable for the original product, look likely to erode brands extremely fast. Momenta’s success is good for the biotechnology industry and highlights the future market opportunity from development of biosimilars.