State laws, regulatory concerns complicate biosimilars landscape

SAN FRANCISCO – A growing number of states are passing laws that set the parameters for how originator biologics may be replaced with biosimilars, and not all of them are helpful to physicians trying to maintain some knowledge and control over how prescriptions for biologics are dispensed, according to speakers at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

These laws – now passed by a total of 19 states and Puerto Rico, including 12 in 2015 – address a requirement built into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (part of the Affordable Care Act) that introduced the term “interchangeability” into the biosimilars approval pathway, stating that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” The law also gives 1 year of exclusive marketing rights to the first biosimilar approved as being interchangeable with the reference product.

Although regulations on how the Food and Drug Administration will deem a biosimilar to be interchangeable have yet to be drafted, it’s important for physicians to play an active role in shaping the laws that address interchangeability, said Dr. J. Eugene Huffstutter, a rheumatologist in private practice in Hixson, Tenn., and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.

Dr. Huffstutter encouraged rheumatologists and other physicians to work with their local state medical associations to contact their state legislators to explain to them the need for strict laws on how biosimilars can be dispensed. He suggested that good state legislation on biosimilars should contain provisions stating that:

• Only FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars can be substituted.

• No substitution can be made with “dispense as written” prescription.

• The prescribing physician must be notified of substitution within 1-5 days by electronic record or fax.

• The pharmacy must maintain a record of the dispensed drug.

Organizations including the ACR, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, patient groups, electronic prescribers, state medical societies, and pharmaceutical companies (for the most part) support strong state laws on biosimilars, while the pharmacy lobby and insurance companies have opposed them, Dr. Huffstutter said.

The 19 states with biosimilars laws include California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, along with Puerto Rico. However, the laws in Oregon and Virginia will sunset in 2016. Another seven states have 2015 or current session legislation on biosimilar substitution: Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. States with bills that failed or were not acted upon at adjournment include Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, and Rhode Island, according to information provided to Dr. Huffstutter by the Coalition.

State laws may differ on substitution notification, he noted. In Tennessee, the law (H.B. 572) states that notification should occur in “a reasonable period of time” instead of a defined period. “What may be reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another. I really think 5 days is the outside time, or 5 business days, because if you’re thinking about some of the biosimilars that are coming down the pike, they’ll be given on a weekly basis, so you’ll at least know before [patients] get their second shot what they’re receiving,” Dr. Huffstutter noted.

Idaho is unique in that it impaneled a board of pharmacy regulation on biosimilar substitution rather than a separate law. It states that “A pharmacist may substitute an interchangeable biosimilar product for a prescribed biological product if the biosimilar has been determined by the FDA to be interchangeable and published in the Purple Book; the prescriber does not indicate by any means that the prescribed biological product must be dispensed; and the name of the drug and the manufacturer or the NDC [National Drug Code] number is documented in the patient medical record.”

The situation may become trickier as more biosimilars are approved, noted Dr. Huffstutter, who is a member of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and is a liaison to the Committee on Rheumatologic Care. It could potentially be a problem when a patient is taking a biosimilar for a particular originator biologic and then other biosimilars for that originator join the marketplace. A patient could potentially be switched from one biosimilar to another when a prescription is filled if the company marketing the second biosimilar happens to win a competitive bid with an insurance company, he said.

The filgrastim biosimilar called Zarxio is the only biosimilar currently approved in the United States, but the FDA has received two applications for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases: one from Celltrion for infliximab biosimilar Remsima (August 2014) and one from Sandoz for an etanercept biosimilar (October 2015). In addition to two infliximab biosimilars that have been approved in other countries, one etanercept biosimilar that has been approved in South Korea, and one adalimumab biosimilar approved in India, there are many others in development to treat inflammatory diseases as of July 2015, including 12 for adalimumab, 9 for etanercept, 5 for infliximab, 2 for tocilizumab, and 7 for rituximab, according to Dr. Jonathan Kay, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Unresolved regulatory concerns

In separate presentations at the meeting, Dr. Kay described many of the nuances that define biosimilars, which go by different terminology in other countries, such as “follow-on biologic” in Japan, “subsequent-entry biological” in Canada, and “similar biological medicinal product” in the European Union. They are defined as a legitimate copy of an off-patent biopharmaceutical that has undergone rigorous analytical comparison and clinical assessment, in comparison to its reference product, and are approved by a regulatory agency according to a specific pathway for biosimilar evaluation. These differ from biomimetics, which are developed as a replica of a biopharmaceutical but have not been developed, assessed, or approved according to regulatory guidelines for biosimilars.

The FDA takes a “totality of the evidence” approach to establish biosimilarity. The biosimilar pathway for approval is different from the originator pathway by relying more on analytical and preclinical studies and less on the clinical pharmacology and clinical trial data to support biosimilarity.

However, the agency has not yet published final guidance for all steps in demonstrating biosimilarity, particularly for clinical pharmacology data. Draft guidance says the biosimilar must be analyzed and assigned to an assessment grade: not similar, similar, highly similar, and highly similar with fingerprintlike similarity.

During production, both originator and biosimilar biopharmaceuticals can have protein-folding variants, misfolding, aggregation, enzymatic cleavage, and degradation that can lead to inactivation of the protein or increased immunogenicity. Even so, most biosimilars are not identical to the originator because of post-translational modifications, but they do not matter as long as they are not clinically meaningful. Even originator products can drift over time because small changes in manufacturing processes can lead to gradual changes in the molecule, Dr. Kay said.

Extrapolation of indications from the originator to a biosimilar is another area of concern, Dr. Kay said. The FDA will consider the extrapolation of data from a clinical trial of a biosimilar conducted in one disease to support approval for additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but not across indications with different mechanisms of action, such as between rheumatoid arthritis and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for rituximab. But for which inflammatory diseases should a biosimilar be studied to provide adequate information for extrapolation of indications? Dr. Kay asked. This situation brings about questions of whether dermatologists would be comfortable using a biosimilar that has been studied for rheumatoid arthritis to treat psoriasis or gastroenterologists using a drug with data only from psoriatic arthritis to treat Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

Both the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and the ACR oppose extrapolation of indications from the clinical trial data of a biosimilar in one disease to support approval of additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but Dr. Kay thought that “extrapolation of indications makes perfect sense” because it won’t be possible to review a biosimilar for indications not already approved for the originator and it’s natural to extrapolate to already approved indications once the protein is shown to function nearly identically to the originator.

Ideally, the nomenclature system for biosimilars should clearly identify each product to improve pharmacovigilance and to differentiate between products that have not been determined to be interchangeable, Dr. Kay said. In August, the FDA announced draft guidance proposing that all biopharmaceutical products (originator and biosimilars) would have a nonproprietary name that includes a suffix of four lowercase letters that is devoid of meaning. For example, all products that share a core name such as replicamab would be named replicamab-cznm, replicamab-hixf, and so on, Dr. Kay said. Some people have voiced concern that it would be better for names to have some meaning, such as using an abbreviated name for the developing company along with the nonproprietary name of the originator product, but others noted that method could be problematic when companies merge or are acquired by others.

Dr. Huffstutter disclosed relationships with Janssen, UCB, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. Dr. Kay has received grant and research support from many pharmaceutical companies and has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including those developing biosimilars.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – A growing number of states are passing laws that set the parameters for how originator biologics may be replaced with biosimilars, and not all of them are helpful to physicians trying to maintain some knowledge and control over how prescriptions for biologics are dispensed, according to speakers at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

These laws – now passed by a total of 19 states and Puerto Rico, including 12 in 2015 – address a requirement built into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (part of the Affordable Care Act) that introduced the term “interchangeability” into the biosimilars approval pathway, stating that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” The law also gives 1 year of exclusive marketing rights to the first biosimilar approved as being interchangeable with the reference product.

Although regulations on how the Food and Drug Administration will deem a biosimilar to be interchangeable have yet to be drafted, it’s important for physicians to play an active role in shaping the laws that address interchangeability, said Dr. J. Eugene Huffstutter, a rheumatologist in private practice in Hixson, Tenn., and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.

Dr. Huffstutter encouraged rheumatologists and other physicians to work with their local state medical associations to contact their state legislators to explain to them the need for strict laws on how biosimilars can be dispensed. He suggested that good state legislation on biosimilars should contain provisions stating that:

• Only FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars can be substituted.

• No substitution can be made with “dispense as written” prescription.

• The prescribing physician must be notified of substitution within 1-5 days by electronic record or fax.

• The pharmacy must maintain a record of the dispensed drug.

Organizations including the ACR, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, patient groups, electronic prescribers, state medical societies, and pharmaceutical companies (for the most part) support strong state laws on biosimilars, while the pharmacy lobby and insurance companies have opposed them, Dr. Huffstutter said.

The 19 states with biosimilars laws include California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, along with Puerto Rico. However, the laws in Oregon and Virginia will sunset in 2016. Another seven states have 2015 or current session legislation on biosimilar substitution: Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. States with bills that failed or were not acted upon at adjournment include Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, and Rhode Island, according to information provided to Dr. Huffstutter by the Coalition.

State laws may differ on substitution notification, he noted. In Tennessee, the law (H.B. 572) states that notification should occur in “a reasonable period of time” instead of a defined period. “What may be reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another. I really think 5 days is the outside time, or 5 business days, because if you’re thinking about some of the biosimilars that are coming down the pike, they’ll be given on a weekly basis, so you’ll at least know before [patients] get their second shot what they’re receiving,” Dr. Huffstutter noted.

Idaho is unique in that it impaneled a board of pharmacy regulation on biosimilar substitution rather than a separate law. It states that “A pharmacist may substitute an interchangeable biosimilar product for a prescribed biological product if the biosimilar has been determined by the FDA to be interchangeable and published in the Purple Book; the prescriber does not indicate by any means that the prescribed biological product must be dispensed; and the name of the drug and the manufacturer or the NDC [National Drug Code] number is documented in the patient medical record.”

The situation may become trickier as more biosimilars are approved, noted Dr. Huffstutter, who is a member of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and is a liaison to the Committee on Rheumatologic Care. It could potentially be a problem when a patient is taking a biosimilar for a particular originator biologic and then other biosimilars for that originator join the marketplace. A patient could potentially be switched from one biosimilar to another when a prescription is filled if the company marketing the second biosimilar happens to win a competitive bid with an insurance company, he said.

The filgrastim biosimilar called Zarxio is the only biosimilar currently approved in the United States, but the FDA has received two applications for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases: one from Celltrion for infliximab biosimilar Remsima (August 2014) and one from Sandoz for an etanercept biosimilar (October 2015). In addition to two infliximab biosimilars that have been approved in other countries, one etanercept biosimilar that has been approved in South Korea, and one adalimumab biosimilar approved in India, there are many others in development to treat inflammatory diseases as of July 2015, including 12 for adalimumab, 9 for etanercept, 5 for infliximab, 2 for tocilizumab, and 7 for rituximab, according to Dr. Jonathan Kay, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Unresolved regulatory concerns

In separate presentations at the meeting, Dr. Kay described many of the nuances that define biosimilars, which go by different terminology in other countries, such as “follow-on biologic” in Japan, “subsequent-entry biological” in Canada, and “similar biological medicinal product” in the European Union. They are defined as a legitimate copy of an off-patent biopharmaceutical that has undergone rigorous analytical comparison and clinical assessment, in comparison to its reference product, and are approved by a regulatory agency according to a specific pathway for biosimilar evaluation. These differ from biomimetics, which are developed as a replica of a biopharmaceutical but have not been developed, assessed, or approved according to regulatory guidelines for biosimilars.

The FDA takes a “totality of the evidence” approach to establish biosimilarity. The biosimilar pathway for approval is different from the originator pathway by relying more on analytical and preclinical studies and less on the clinical pharmacology and clinical trial data to support biosimilarity.

However, the agency has not yet published final guidance for all steps in demonstrating biosimilarity, particularly for clinical pharmacology data. Draft guidance says the biosimilar must be analyzed and assigned to an assessment grade: not similar, similar, highly similar, and highly similar with fingerprintlike similarity.

During production, both originator and biosimilar biopharmaceuticals can have protein-folding variants, misfolding, aggregation, enzymatic cleavage, and degradation that can lead to inactivation of the protein or increased immunogenicity. Even so, most biosimilars are not identical to the originator because of post-translational modifications, but they do not matter as long as they are not clinically meaningful. Even originator products can drift over time because small changes in manufacturing processes can lead to gradual changes in the molecule, Dr. Kay said.

Extrapolation of indications from the originator to a biosimilar is another area of concern, Dr. Kay said. The FDA will consider the extrapolation of data from a clinical trial of a biosimilar conducted in one disease to support approval for additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but not across indications with different mechanisms of action, such as between rheumatoid arthritis and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for rituximab. But for which inflammatory diseases should a biosimilar be studied to provide adequate information for extrapolation of indications? Dr. Kay asked. This situation brings about questions of whether dermatologists would be comfortable using a biosimilar that has been studied for rheumatoid arthritis to treat psoriasis or gastroenterologists using a drug with data only from psoriatic arthritis to treat Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

Both the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and the ACR oppose extrapolation of indications from the clinical trial data of a biosimilar in one disease to support approval of additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but Dr. Kay thought that “extrapolation of indications makes perfect sense” because it won’t be possible to review a biosimilar for indications not already approved for the originator and it’s natural to extrapolate to already approved indications once the protein is shown to function nearly identically to the originator.

Ideally, the nomenclature system for biosimilars should clearly identify each product to improve pharmacovigilance and to differentiate between products that have not been determined to be interchangeable, Dr. Kay said. In August, the FDA announced draft guidance proposing that all biopharmaceutical products (originator and biosimilars) would have a nonproprietary name that includes a suffix of four lowercase letters that is devoid of meaning. For example, all products that share a core name such as replicamab would be named replicamab-cznm, replicamab-hixf, and so on, Dr. Kay said. Some people have voiced concern that it would be better for names to have some meaning, such as using an abbreviated name for the developing company along with the nonproprietary name of the originator product, but others noted that method could be problematic when companies merge or are acquired by others.

Dr. Huffstutter disclosed relationships with Janssen, UCB, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. Dr. Kay has received grant and research support from many pharmaceutical companies and has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including those developing biosimilars.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – A growing number of states are passing laws that set the parameters for how originator biologics may be replaced with biosimilars, and not all of them are helpful to physicians trying to maintain some knowledge and control over how prescriptions for biologics are dispensed, according to speakers at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

These laws – now passed by a total of 19 states and Puerto Rico, including 12 in 2015 – address a requirement built into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (part of the Affordable Care Act) that introduced the term “interchangeability” into the biosimilars approval pathway, stating that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.” The law also gives 1 year of exclusive marketing rights to the first biosimilar approved as being interchangeable with the reference product.

Although regulations on how the Food and Drug Administration will deem a biosimilar to be interchangeable have yet to be drafted, it’s important for physicians to play an active role in shaping the laws that address interchangeability, said Dr. J. Eugene Huffstutter, a rheumatologist in private practice in Hixson, Tenn., and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.

Dr. Huffstutter encouraged rheumatologists and other physicians to work with their local state medical associations to contact their state legislators to explain to them the need for strict laws on how biosimilars can be dispensed. He suggested that good state legislation on biosimilars should contain provisions stating that:

• Only FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars can be substituted.

• No substitution can be made with “dispense as written” prescription.

• The prescribing physician must be notified of substitution within 1-5 days by electronic record or fax.

• The pharmacy must maintain a record of the dispensed drug.

Organizations including the ACR, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, patient groups, electronic prescribers, state medical societies, and pharmaceutical companies (for the most part) support strong state laws on biosimilars, while the pharmacy lobby and insurance companies have opposed them, Dr. Huffstutter said.

The 19 states with biosimilars laws include California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, along with Puerto Rico. However, the laws in Oregon and Virginia will sunset in 2016. Another seven states have 2015 or current session legislation on biosimilar substitution: Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. States with bills that failed or were not acted upon at adjournment include Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, and Rhode Island, according to information provided to Dr. Huffstutter by the Coalition.

State laws may differ on substitution notification, he noted. In Tennessee, the law (H.B. 572) states that notification should occur in “a reasonable period of time” instead of a defined period. “What may be reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another. I really think 5 days is the outside time, or 5 business days, because if you’re thinking about some of the biosimilars that are coming down the pike, they’ll be given on a weekly basis, so you’ll at least know before [patients] get their second shot what they’re receiving,” Dr. Huffstutter noted.

Idaho is unique in that it impaneled a board of pharmacy regulation on biosimilar substitution rather than a separate law. It states that “A pharmacist may substitute an interchangeable biosimilar product for a prescribed biological product if the biosimilar has been determined by the FDA to be interchangeable and published in the Purple Book; the prescriber does not indicate by any means that the prescribed biological product must be dispensed; and the name of the drug and the manufacturer or the NDC [National Drug Code] number is documented in the patient medical record.”

The situation may become trickier as more biosimilars are approved, noted Dr. Huffstutter, who is a member of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee and is a liaison to the Committee on Rheumatologic Care. It could potentially be a problem when a patient is taking a biosimilar for a particular originator biologic and then other biosimilars for that originator join the marketplace. A patient could potentially be switched from one biosimilar to another when a prescription is filled if the company marketing the second biosimilar happens to win a competitive bid with an insurance company, he said.

The filgrastim biosimilar called Zarxio is the only biosimilar currently approved in the United States, but the FDA has received two applications for biosimilars for inflammatory diseases: one from Celltrion for infliximab biosimilar Remsima (August 2014) and one from Sandoz for an etanercept biosimilar (October 2015). In addition to two infliximab biosimilars that have been approved in other countries, one etanercept biosimilar that has been approved in South Korea, and one adalimumab biosimilar approved in India, there are many others in development to treat inflammatory diseases as of July 2015, including 12 for adalimumab, 9 for etanercept, 5 for infliximab, 2 for tocilizumab, and 7 for rituximab, according to Dr. Jonathan Kay, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Unresolved regulatory concerns

In separate presentations at the meeting, Dr. Kay described many of the nuances that define biosimilars, which go by different terminology in other countries, such as “follow-on biologic” in Japan, “subsequent-entry biological” in Canada, and “similar biological medicinal product” in the European Union. They are defined as a legitimate copy of an off-patent biopharmaceutical that has undergone rigorous analytical comparison and clinical assessment, in comparison to its reference product, and are approved by a regulatory agency according to a specific pathway for biosimilar evaluation. These differ from biomimetics, which are developed as a replica of a biopharmaceutical but have not been developed, assessed, or approved according to regulatory guidelines for biosimilars.

The FDA takes a “totality of the evidence” approach to establish biosimilarity. The biosimilar pathway for approval is different from the originator pathway by relying more on analytical and preclinical studies and less on the clinical pharmacology and clinical trial data to support biosimilarity.

However, the agency has not yet published final guidance for all steps in demonstrating biosimilarity, particularly for clinical pharmacology data. Draft guidance says the biosimilar must be analyzed and assigned to an assessment grade: not similar, similar, highly similar, and highly similar with fingerprintlike similarity.

During production, both originator and biosimilar biopharmaceuticals can have protein-folding variants, misfolding, aggregation, enzymatic cleavage, and degradation that can lead to inactivation of the protein or increased immunogenicity. Even so, most biosimilars are not identical to the originator because of post-translational modifications, but they do not matter as long as they are not clinically meaningful. Even originator products can drift over time because small changes in manufacturing processes can lead to gradual changes in the molecule, Dr. Kay said.

Extrapolation of indications from the originator to a biosimilar is another area of concern, Dr. Kay said. The FDA will consider the extrapolation of data from a clinical trial of a biosimilar conducted in one disease to support approval for additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but not across indications with different mechanisms of action, such as between rheumatoid arthritis and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma for rituximab. But for which inflammatory diseases should a biosimilar be studied to provide adequate information for extrapolation of indications? Dr. Kay asked. This situation brings about questions of whether dermatologists would be comfortable using a biosimilar that has been studied for rheumatoid arthritis to treat psoriasis or gastroenterologists using a drug with data only from psoriatic arthritis to treat Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.

Both the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations and the ACR oppose extrapolation of indications from the clinical trial data of a biosimilar in one disease to support approval of additional indications for which the originator product is already licensed, but Dr. Kay thought that “extrapolation of indications makes perfect sense” because it won’t be possible to review a biosimilar for indications not already approved for the originator and it’s natural to extrapolate to already approved indications once the protein is shown to function nearly identically to the originator.

Ideally, the nomenclature system for biosimilars should clearly identify each product to improve pharmacovigilance and to differentiate between products that have not been determined to be interchangeable, Dr. Kay said. In August, the FDA announced draft guidance proposing that all biopharmaceutical products (originator and biosimilars) would have a nonproprietary name that includes a suffix of four lowercase letters that is devoid of meaning. For example, all products that share a core name such as replicamab would be named replicamab-cznm, replicamab-hixf, and so on, Dr. Kay said. Some people have voiced concern that it would be better for names to have some meaning, such as using an abbreviated name for the developing company along with the nonproprietary name of the originator product, but others noted that method could be problematic when companies merge or are acquired by others.

Dr. Huffstutter disclosed relationships with Janssen, UCB, Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. Dr. Kay has received grant and research support from many pharmaceutical companies and has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including those developing biosimilars.

[email protected]