Biosimilar approval pathways: comparing the roles of five medicines regulators.

Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars-drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics-is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction's laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.

Biosimilar Uptake In The US: Patient And Prescriber Factors.

Among 196,766 commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients who newly initiated biologic drugs with available biosimilar versions, biosimilar initiation increased from 1 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2022. Patients were less likely to initiate biosimilars if they were younger than age eighteen or the drug was prescribed by a specialist or administered in a hospital outpatient facility.

Removing the FDA's Boxed Hepatotoxicity Warning and Liver Function Testing Requirement for Ambrisentan.

Importance: Endothelin receptor antagonists are first-line therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The first 2 agents approved in the class, bosentan and ambrisentan, initially carried boxed warnings for hepatotoxicity and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however, in 2011, as further safety data emerged on ambrisentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed. Objective: To analyze changes in the use of and LFT monitoring for ambrisentan and bosentan after changes to the ambrisentan labeling and REMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This serial cross-sectional study used data from 3 longitudinal health care insurance claims databases-Medicaid, Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, and Merative Marketscan-to perform an interrupted time series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan. Participants were patients filling prescriptions for ambrisentan and bosentan from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2018. Data analysis was performed from April 2021 to August 2023. Exposure: Removal of the boxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were use of ambrisentan (ie, individuals with at least 1 dispensing per 1 000 000 individuals enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at least 1 ordered test) before initiation and before the first refill. Results: A total of 10 261 patients received a prescription for ambrisentan during the study period (7442 women [72.5%]; mean [SD] age, 52.6 [17.6] years), and 11 159 patients received a prescription for bosentan (7931 women [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [23.7] years). Removal of the ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immediate increase in the use of ambrisentan (1.50 patients per million enrollees; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.92 patients per million enrollees) but no significant change in the use of bosentan. There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -18.2% to -8.0%) and before the first refill (26.4% absolute decrease; 95% CI, -34.4% to -18.5%) of ambrisentan but not bosentan. Conclusions and Relevance: In this serial cross-sectional study of ambrisentan, labeling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribing and testing behavior for ambrisentan but not bosentan. Further clinician education may be needed to maximize the benefits of REMS programs and labeling warnings designed to ensure the safe administration of high-risk medications.

Commercial markups on pediatric oncology drugs at 340B pediatric hospitals.

Eligible pediatric hospitals can purchase clinician-administered drugs at discounted rates through the 340B Drug Pricing Program and charge payers prices exceeding drug acquisition costs, but the magnitude of these markups is not known. In a study of newly approved oncology drugs at pediatric 340B hospitals, median negotiated prices ranged from 102% (interquartile range [IQR]: 91%-156%) of average sales price (ASP) at Phoenix Children's Hospital to 630% (IQR: 526%-630%) at Driscoll Children's Hospital. Pediatric hospitals participating in the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program can extract steep payments on new drugs from commercial insurers, though with wide variation between and within hospitals.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Drug Development.

This cross-sectional study investigates the scope and breadth of artificial intelligence use in drug development.

Federal Trade Commission Actions on Prescription Drugs, 2000-2022.

Importance: The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) oversight role in the pharmaceutical market is critical to the health of patients and the health care system. This study characterized the FTC's policy on the pharmaceutical market in recent decades, identifying the types of actions it has favored, barriers it has faced, and authorities that remain untested. Objective: To review FTC legal actions in the pharmaceutical market from 2000-2022. Evidence Review: Legal actions were determined through manual review of search results from the FTC's online Legal Library as well as a 2023 FTC report on pharmaceutical actions. The alleged misconduct, type of legal action taken, timing, and outcome were collected from press releases, complaints, orders, and other legal documents. Findings: From 2000-2022, the FTC challenged 62 mergers, brought 22 enforcement actions against allegedly unlawful business practices, and made 1 rule related to pharmaceuticals. Alleged misconduct in enforcement actions involved anticompetitive settlements in patent litigation (n = 11), unilateral actions by brand manufacturers to delay generic competition (n = 6), noncompete agreements (n = 4), and monopolization (n = 3), with 10 outcomes involving monetary payment, totaling $1.6 billion. Of the 62 mergers the FTC challenged, 61 were allowed to continue, 58 after divesting certain drugs to third-party competitors. The FTC's reliance on drug divestitures decreased from 18 drugs per year from 2000-2017 to 4.3 per year from 2017-2023. Conclusions and Relevance: The FTC brought about 1 enforcement action and 3 merger actions per year against pharmaceutical manufacturers from 2000-2022, pursuing a small fraction of the estimated misconduct and consolidation in the pharmaceutical marketplace. Although the FTC faces substantial legal and practical limitations, important tools remain untested, including a rule defining "unfair methods of competition," that may allow it to more effectively prevent repetitive patterns of anticompetitive behavior.

Trends in Use and Evidence of Adherence to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Pregnancy Testing Requirements for Thalidomide, Lenalidomide, and Pomalidomide in the USA, 2000-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide are effective treatments for multiple myeloma but are teratogenic. To mitigate this risk, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for these drugs, which include pregnancy testing among women of childbearing potential-twice before initiation, weekly in the first month on treatment, and every 2-4 weeks thereafter. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated dispensing trends of lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide and assessed adherence to REMS pregnancy testing requirements among at-risk patients taking these drugs. METHODS: Using three US health insurance claims databases (Optum Clinformatics® [2004-2020], Merative Marketscan [2003-2019], and Medicaid [2000-2018]), we assessed monthly use of the drugs, patient characteristics and treatment persistence among drug initiators, and claims-based evidence for adherence to pregnancy testing requirements among initiators with child-bearing potential. RESULTS: Lenalidomide was the most prescribed agent following its approval in 2006 and through the end of the study period. A total of 48,311 lenalidomide (mean age = 59 years [standard deviation (SD) = 16]), 17,550 thalidomide (mean age = 65 years [SD = 12]), and 6560 pomalidomide initiators (mean age = 65 years [SD = 11]) were identified; 45% of initiators of each drug were women. Among initiators under follow-up on day 90, 70% were still on therapy. Initiators of childbearing potential comprised 3% (N = 1,920) of all initiators; among this cohort, 12% had evidence in claims data of two pregnancy tests before initiation, and 9% with at least 33 days of follow-up of four tests during the first month of treatment. By contrast, 52% who received a refill had claims-based evidence of a pregnancy test within 7 days of dispensing. CONCLUSION: Although most patients who initiated lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and thalidomide were not of child-bearing potential, further investigation into actual non-adherence to pregnancy testing is needed.

Patent Portfolios Protecting 10 Top-Selling Prescription Drugs.

Importance: Brand-name drugs are sold at high prices in the US during market exclusivity periods protected by patents. Multiple overlapping patents protecting a drug are known as patent thickets and can effectively delay the emergence of price-lowering generic competition for many years. Objective: To evaluate the composition of patent thickets of 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US and compare the characteristics of drug patents filed during development with those filed on these products after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined US patent thickets of the 10 prescription drugs with the highest US net sales revenue in 2021 using information on issued patents and patent applications as of June 30, 2022, obtained from a public database by the Initiative for Medicines, Access, and Knowledge. Data were analyzed from September 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of patents filed before and after FDA approval; types of claims present in issued patents (ie, chemical composition, method of use, process or synthesis, formulation, and delivery device); and patent thicket density (number of active patents at a given time). Results: The 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US for 2021 included 4 small-molecule drugs and 6 biologics. These 10 drugs were linked to 1429 patents and patent applications: 742 (52%) issued patents, 218 (15%) pending applications, and 469 (33%) abandoned applications. Almost three-quarters of patent applications (1028 [72%]) were filed after FDA approval. The postapproval proportion was higher for biologics (80%) than for small-molecule drugs (58%). Postapproval filing of patent applications peaked in the first 5 years after FDA approval for small-molecule drugs and 12 years after FDA approval for biologics. Of 465 patents issued for applications filed after FDA approval, 189 (41%) had method of use claims, 127 (27%) had formulation claims, and 103 (22%) had process or synthesis claims, while 86 (19%) had chemical composition claims and 46 (10%) had device claims. Patent thicket density peaked 13 years after FDA approval, at which time these 10 drugs were protected by a median (IQR) of 42 (18-83) active patents, 66% of which were filed after FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that among the 10 top-selling prescription drugs in the US in 2021, patents filed after FDA approval and containing claims covering aspects other than the active ingredient of the drug contributed to patent thickets. Scrutiny of patent applications and of patents filed after FDA approval is needed to facilitate timely generic or biosimilar competition.

Patents on Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for Prescription Drugs and Generic Competition.

This cross-sectional study identifies the prevalence of patents on risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and their association with delaying generic competition.

How Do Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Impact Clinical Practice? A National Survey of Physicians.

The US Food and Drug Administration can require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for prescription drugs to ensure the benefits of use outweigh the risks. We conducted a national survey of physicians' experiences prescribing eight REMS-covered drugs: (1) ambrisentan; (2) bosentan; (3) clozapine; (4) isotretinoin; (5-7) the multiple myeloma (MM) drugs lenalidomide, pomalidomide, thalidomide; and (8) sodium oxybate. Between May 2022 and January 2023, we surveyed 5,331 physician prescribers of these drugs, and 1,295 (24%) returned surveys (range: 149 for bosentan to 226 for MM drugs). Although 765 (68%) respondents thought the certification process provided useful drug information, 757 (67%) wanted materials to include benefit data and 944 (84%) non-REMS-related risk data. A majority (704, 63%) thought the safe use requirements facilitated discussion with patients, but a similar number (637, 57%) attributed delayed medication access to these requirements. In multivariable modeling, MM drug and isotretinoin respondents were less likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the certification process provided useful drug information (MM drug: odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.25-0.55; isotretinoin: OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25-0.61), and isotretinoin, clozapine, and bosetan respondents were more likely than sodium oxybate respondents to agree that the safe use requirements often delayed medication access (isotretinoin: OR = 5.83, 95% CI = 3.70-9.19; clozapine: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.08-2.54; bosentan: OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.12-2.85). Most physicians believe REMS programs convey useful drug safety information and facilitate discussion with patients but also seek information on benefits and non-REMS-related risks and better integration of REMS processes into clinical workflows.

Improving Drug Supply Chain Security.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and the need for pharmaceutical supply chain safeguards.

Outcomes of the 340B Drug Pricing Program: A Scoping Review.

Importance: The 340B Drug Pricing Program requires manufacturers to offer discounted drug prices to support safety net hospitals and clinics (covered entities) providing care to low-income populations. Amid expansion, the program has received criticism and calls for reform. Objective: To assess the literature on the foundations of and outcomes associated with the 340B program. Evidence Review: The databases searched in this scoping review included PubMed, Embase, EconLit, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Westlaw, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG) website, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) website, and Google in February 2023 for peer-reviewed literature, legal publications, opinion pieces, and government agency and committee reports related to the 340B program. Findings: Among a collected 900 documents, 289 met inclusion criteria: 83 articles from PubMed, 12 articles from Embase, 2 articles from EconLit, 1 article from NBER, 28 articles from Westlaw, 23 legislative history documents, 103 documents from Google, 11 GAO reports, and 26 HHS-OIG reports. Included literature pertained to 4 stakeholders in the 340B program: covered entities, pharmacies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and patients. This literature showed that hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies generated revenue and manufacturers have forgone revenue from 340B discounted drugs. Audits of covered entities found low rates of compliance with 340B program requirements, whereas mixed evidence was uncovered on how covered entities used their 340B revenue, with some studies suggesting use to expand health care services for low-income populations and others to acquire physician practices and open sites in higher-income neighborhoods. These studies were hampered by a lack of transparency and reporting on the use of 340B revenue. Studies revealed patient benefits from access to expanded health care services, but there was mixed evidence on patient cost savings. Although the review identified considerable research on 340B hospitals, pharmacies, and patients, less research was found evaluating the 340B program's effect on nonhospital covered entities, drug pricing, and racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this scoping review of the 340B program, we found that the 340B program was associated with financial benefits for hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies; improved access to health care services for patients; and substantial costs to manufacturers. Increased transparency regarding the use of 340B program revenue and strengthened rulemaking and enforcement authority for the Health Resources and Services Administration would support compliance and help ensure the 340B program achieves its intended purposes.

Changes in Induced Medical and Procedural Abortion Rates in a Commercially Insured Population, 2018 to 2022 : An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to in-person care was limited, and regulations requiring in-person dispensing of mifepristone for medical abortions were relaxed. The effect of the pandemic and accompanying regulatory changes on abortion use is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in the incidence rate of induced medical and procedural abortions. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional study with interrupted time-series analyses. SETTING: Commercially insured persons in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Reproductive-aged women. INTERVENTION: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 and subsequent regulatory changes affecting the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone. MEASUREMENTS: Monthly age-adjusted incidence rates of medical and procedural abortions were measured among women aged 15 to 44 years from January 2018 to June 2022. Medical abortions were classified as in-person or telehealth. Linear segmented time-series regression was used to calculate changes in abortion rates after March 2020. RESULTS: In January 2018, the estimated age-adjusted monthly incidence rate of abortions was 151 per million women (95% CI, 142 to 161 per million women), with equal rates of medical and procedural abortions. After March 2020, there was an immediate 14% decrease in the monthly incidence rate of abortions (21 per million women [CI, 7 to 35 per million women]; P = 0.004), driven by a 31% decline in procedural abortions (22 per million women [CI, 16 to 28 per million women]; P < 0.001). Fewer than 4% of medical abortions each month were administered via telehealth. LIMITATION: Only abortions reimbursed by commercial insurance were measured. CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of procedural abortions declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, and this lower rate persisted after other elective procedures rebounded to prepandemic rates. Despite removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone, the use of telehealth for insurance-covered medical abortions remained rare. Amid increasing state restrictions, commercial insurers have the opportunity to increase access to abortion care, particularly via telehealth. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Resources and Services Administration.

Physician experiences with and perceptions of risk evaluation and mitigation strategy programs with elements to assure safe use.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act of 2007 authorized the FDA to require risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs for drugs with important safety concerns. REMS can have elements to assure safe use (ETASU), such as patient registries, dispensing restrictions, and physician training and certification requirements. We aimed to understand physician experiences with and perceptions of a selection of ETASU REMS. METHODS: Physicians prescribing 1 of 4 ETASU REMS-covered drugs: natalizumab, riociguat, sodium oxybate, and vigabatrin. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive phenomenological study based on semi-structured phone interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Qualitative content analysis to summarize physician responses to open-ended questions. RESULTS: Of 31 physicians (14 female), 6 prescribed riociguat, 6 vigabatrin, 7 sodium oxybate, and 12 natalizumab (5 for Crohn's disease, 7 for multiple sclerosis), most demonstrated good understanding of the rationale for and requirements of the ETASU REMS but believed that the programs had limited effect on clinical practice. Some physicians reported that the ETASU REMS made them more comfortable with prescribing covered drugs due to heightened oversight, facilitated discussions about treatment, and were likely more beneficial for non-specialists. Concerns were raised about the administrative effort needed to comply with the programs and the potential misuse of patient health information transmitted to manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are generally aware of ETASU REMS and get reassurance from the additional oversight, but the programs can be better integrated into clinical workflows and can be designed to better protect patient health information.

US public investment in development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate US public investment in the development of mRNA covid-19 vaccines. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Publicly funded science from January 1985 to March 2022. DATA SOURCES: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Report Portfolio Online Reporting Tool Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) and other public databases. Government funded grants were scored as directly, indirectly, or not likely related to four key innovations underlying mRNA covid-19 vaccines-lipid nanoparticle, mRNA synthesis or modification, prefusion spike protein structure, and mRNA vaccine biotechnology-on the basis of principal investigator, project title, and abstract. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Direct public investment in research and vaccine development, stratified by the rationale, government funding agency, and pre-pandemic (1985-2019) versus pandemic (1 January 2020 to 31 March 2022). RESULTS: 34 NIH funded research grants that were directly related to mRNA covid-19 vaccines were identified. These grants combined with other identified US government grants and contracts totaled $31.9bn (£26.3bn; €29.7bn), of which $337m was invested pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic, the NIH invested $116m (35%) in basic and translational science related to mRNA vaccine technology, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) ($148m; 44%) and the Department of Defense ($72m; 21%) invested in vaccine development. After the pandemic started, $29.2bn (92%) of US public funds purchased vaccines, $2.2bn (7%) supported clinical trials, and $108m (<1%) supported manufacturing plus basic and translational science. CONCLUSIONS: The US government invested at least $31.9bn to develop, produce, and purchase mRNA covid-19 vaccines, including sizeable investments in the three decades before the pandemic through March 2022. These public investments translated into millions of lives saved and were crucial in developing the mRNA vaccine technology that also has the potential to tackle future pandemics and to treat diseases beyond covid-19. To maximize overall health impact, policy makers should ensure equitable global access to publicly funded health technologies.

Analysis of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for teratogenic drugs: Variation in primary and secondary prevention measures.

In an analysis of risk evaluation and mitigation strategies for teratogenic drugs, Ameet Sarpatwari, Beatrice Brown and Aaron Kesselheim explore the variation in primary and secondary prevention measures.

Frequency of Approval and Marketing of Biosimilars With a Skinny Label and Associated Medicare Savings.

This cohort study assesses the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars and their savings to Medicare.