To spur more biosimilar development and reduce anticompetitive practices, the company argued the FDA could improve its interpretation of the term “strength” in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) said that it has filed a citizen petition asking the FDA to change its interpretation of a portion of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
Citizen petitions are an avenue for companies and other interested parties to ask the FDA commissioner to change agency regulations or take administrative action.
The company requested that the FDA alter its interpretation of the term “strength” as used in section 351(k) of the Public Health Services Act, in regard to parenteral solutions, to mean “total drug content” without taking into account the concentration.
According to BI, the FDA’s current interpretation does not allow a biological product to receive licensing as a biosimilar or an interchangeable biosimilar if there are any variations in the volume of inactive drug content, even if the amount of active drug content is consistent with the reference product.
“By working closely with industry peers, payors, healthcare providers, and patient advocates, and engaging in a transparent and public discussion of the issues we have raised, Boehringer Ingelheim believes that correction of the interpretation by the FDA may increase access to more affordable biosimilar and interchangeable biological products approved via the 351(k) pathway,” said the company in a statement.
BI Identifies 4 Issues With FDA’s Current Interpretation
In the petition, BI gave 4 specific reasons that the interpretation should be changed. The first was that it conflicts with the clear meaning of “strength” that Congress adopted in 2009 when it passed the BPCIA.
Second, the company argued that the current interpretation permits reference drug sponsors to use minor concentration changes to prevent competition from biosimilar and interchangeable biological products.
“We believe the actions requested in this petition will benefit patients and the healthcare system, potentially leading to more robust biosimilar development and use, and reduce anti-competitive behavior within the biosimilars industry,” said BI.
Third, BI noted that the interpretation allows for parenteral solutions to be treated differently than other parenteral products, such as lyophilized powder used in treating pediatric patients who have a growth failure, without appropriate justification.
Lastly, BI contended that its suggestion for “strength” to mean “total drug content” without regard to concentration better promotes the goals of the BPCIA and that there are no opposing regulatory interests that outweigh the benefits that the change could bring.
Past Problems With Citizen Petitions
In the past, reference product manufacturers have taken advantage of citizen petitions to stall competition, using them to call on the agency to refrain from approving a generic or biosimilar product unless certain conditions are met.
In 2019, the FDA finalized industry guidance to prevent companies from using citizen petitions to delay market entry of competitive products.
In April 2019, HR 2387, a bipartisan bill intended to stop sham citizen petitions from disrupting the FDA’s approval process for generic drugs, was introduced into the House of Representatives. In November 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health voted to forward the bill to the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
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.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.