News

Ha Kung Wong discusses how the FDA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) might work together to address anticompetitive behavior in the biosimilars marketplace as part of a video series for the Center for Biosimilars.

 

 

Transcript:

In the Biosimilar Action Plan, the FDA suggested that it may work more closely with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on addressing anticompetitive behavior. What might that look like in the biosimilars space?

Similar to what we’ve seen in the small molecule drug context, the FDA and FTC are likely to try to address practices by innovators that may delay competition.

As an example, this may include potential misuse/abuse of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (otherwise known as “REMS”), such as making it difficult for biosimilar manufacturers to obtain samples of innovator products for [research and development, R&D] purposes or denying access to shared REMS systems.

REMS was created to make sure that the benefits outweigh the risks of using any particular drug product, including ensuring safe conditions for administration of drug products. Since biologics, and thus biosimilars, frequently require injections or unique administration procedures with sensitive components requiring precise storage or precise application, REMS might be used to require additional safeguards, such physician confirmation and presence, before certain biosimilars are administered, which may ultimately limit access.

This could potentially be done without impacting the [Biologics License Application, BLA] product, as biosimilars are not considered exact copies, nor are they considered to be substitutable, unless they are an interchangeable.

Of course, proper application of REMS is incredibly important, but the indication that the FDA will work closer with the FTC for biosimilars might mean much greater scrutiny of REMS in the future.

Additionally, we are likely to see more scrutiny of settlement agreements that may impact biosimilar competition. Although the frequency of district court litigations and [inter partes review proceedings, IPRs] pertaining to biologics are in flux, it’s possible we see more and more potential settlements so as to achieve more certainty for various manufacturers, meaning a higher potential for FTC intervention.

So far, we have seen 1 antitrust lawsuit related to biosimilars brought by Pfizer against Johnson & Johnson. We could also see the FTC bringing antitrust suits against biologic drug manufacturers or insurers that it deems to have anticompetitive practices that are blocking biosimilar market entry.

So there may be a lot more oversight for biologics practices in the future from the FTC.

 

Ha Kung Wong has extensive experience litigating a wide variety of pharmaceutical cases, including those concerning biologics used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune disorders. He also has extensive experience consulting, conducting due diligence and licensing pharmaceutical portfolios. Ha Kung has a B.S. in Biochemistry and a B.S. in Chemistry.

Methodology

Information contained in the Venable Fitzpatrick BiologicsHQ database relates to FDA-approved drug products listed in the CDER Purple Book or on the FDA website (www.fda.gov). Information relating to FDA licensed products, FDA-approved indications, and aBLA and 505(b)(2) applications is obtained from public sources including the U.S. FDA website (www.fda.gov). Information relating to litigations is given only for cases active from January 31, 2010 onward. Information relating to foreign biosimilar / biologics follow-on products approved in Australia, Canada, the E.U., Japan and South Korea is from public sources. Statistics graphics are compiled from information contained in the Venable Fitzpatrick BiologicsHQ database.

Disclaimer

The individuals who maintain this site work for Venable LLP. The information, comments and links posted on this site do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship has been or will be formed by any communication(s) to, from or with the site and/or the author. For legal advice, contact an attorney at Venable LLP or an attorney actively practicing in your jurisdiction. Do not send any confidential or privileged information to the author; neither Venable LLP nor the author will assume any liability or responsibility for it. If you send any information, documents or materials to the site, you give permission for the author to include them on or in the site. No information, documents or materials you send to the site will be considered confidential or privileged by Venable LLP or its lawyers. Also, no such information, documents or materials will be returned to you. All decisions relating to the content belong to the author.

Subscribe for Future Updates

captcha