Despite the fact that the investigation confirmed many of the allegations against Janssen, the bureau concluded that, "at this time, there is insufficient evidence" that Janssen's conduct prevented competition.
Yesterday, Canada’s Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency, announced that it is closing its investigation into whether Janssen, a division of Johnson & Johnson (J&J), engaged in conduct that hindered biosimilar competition.
The bureau was investigating allegations of predatory pricing and other anticompetitive practices related to Janssen’s originator infliximab, Remicade, that was allegedly intended to block competition from 2 approved biosimilar infliximab products: Samsung Bioepis and Merck’s Renflexis and Pfizer’s Inflectra.
Alleged conduct on Janssen’s part included supplying hospitals with Remicade at the cost of 1 cent per vial, providing free Remicade to patients who were ineligible for public or private insurance coverage for the drug, entering into contracts with hospitals and insurers that led them to favor Remicade over either of the biosimilars, and entering into exclusive contracts with third-party infusion centers.
The bureau wrote in a statement that its inquiry “confirmed that Janssen was engaging in many of the alleged practices.” Namely, the investigation found that the drug maker had indeed supplied the drug at the cost of 1 cent, given free Remicade to “a large number of patients,” and negotiated exclusive contracts that barred biosimilars or even other innovator biologics.
However, wrote the bureau, Janssen did not enter into contracts with hospitals and private insurers that lead them to favor Remicade.
Despite the fact that the investigation confirmed many of the allegations against Janssen, the bureau concluded that, “at this time, there is insufficient evidence to find that Janssen's conduct has had, is having, or is likely to have the effect of substantially lessening or preventing competition in the relevant market.”
In an analysis of that conclusion, the bureau indicated that it had not found that Janssen’s offers of below-cost Remicade were widespread enough to force biosimilars to exit the market, and it added that it also found no credible evidence that, absent Janssen’s conduct, the biosimilar makers could have competed more vigorously with Janssen in terms of price, quality, or service.
The Canadian agency’s decision comes as biosimilar stakeholders in the United States await a decision in an antitrust lawsuit, brought by Pfizer against J&J, that makes other allegations of misconduct.
According to Pfizer’s 2017 complaint, J&J engaged in exclusionary contracting, bundling of rebates, and multi-product bundling practices for the brand-named Remicade that effectively denied patients access to biosimilars and undermined price competition in the US marketplace.
In an amicus brief submitted to the court by the Biosimilars Council (a division of the Association for Accessible Medicines), the council supported Pfizer’s position and warned that “Replication of [J&J’s] tactics across biologics markets will dramatically diminish incentives for developing future biosimilars, and competition in this critical, growing sector of the healthcare industry will suffer.”
Despite the news from Canada, a representative from Pfizer told The Center for Biosimilars® in an email that “The decision by Canada’s Competition Bureau has no relevance to Pfizer’s ongoing antitrust lawsuit against J&J in the United States, where the healthcare system and J&J’s conduct are very different. We continue to believe such anticompetitive behavior needs to be stopped and look forward to proving our case in US court.”
This article has been updated to include a comment from a Pfizer representative.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.
Can Global Policies to Boost Biosimilar Adoption Work in the US?
November 17th 2024On this special episode of Not So Different honoring Global Biosimilars Week, Craig Burton, executive director of the Biosimilars Council, explores how global policies—from incentives to health equity strategies—could boost biosimilar adoption in the US.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.