In a letter last week, patient advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine whether a pay-for-delay deal allegedly struck between reference adalimumab (Humira) manufacturer AbbVie with biosimilar developer Samsung Bioepis violates anti-competitive and antitrust laws.
In a letter last week, patient advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs (P4AD) called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine whether a pay-for-delay deal allegedly struck between reference adalimumab (Humira) manufacturer AbbVie with biosimilar developer Samsung Bioepis violates anti-competitive and antitrust laws.
The deal is the second agreement AbbVie has made for the blockbuster anti—tumor necrosis factor therapy since 2017. The first agreement was made with drug manufacturer Amgen, staving off the US market entry of its adalimumab biosimilar until 2023. This most recent deal with Samsung Bioepis, which involves the same date for US market entry as the Amgen deal, gives the pharmaceutical company 5 more years without biosimilar competition. Samsung Bioepis' proposed biosimilar, SB5, has not yet been approved by the FDA.
“AbbVie is using pay-for-delay deals to keep a cheaper generic off the market and patients are the victims. We believe it is illegal and anti-competitive, and we are asking the FTC to step in and protect patients from AbbVie’s price hikes,” said David Mitchell, president and co-founder of P4AD, in a statement.
P4AD’s letter was sent to the acting chairwoman of the FTC and to lawmakers, including leaders of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Signed by Mitchell, the letter addressed the cost of Humira and the harm it its high pricing has caused to the patients who depend on the drug.
“Humira is incredibly expensive and costs patients and taxpayers billions. Over the past 5 years, the price has more than doubled. Its most recent price increase of 9.7% in January of this year will cost the US healthcare system $1.2 billion. We have patients all over the country who are hurt by these pay-for-delay deals,” the letter reads.
Conversely, AbbVie has strongly objected to use the term “pay-for-delay” to describe the adalimumab agreements. In a statement, the company said “AbbVie’s settlements with Amgen and Samsung Bioepis are in no way pay-for-delay arrangements. AbbVie is not paying Amgen or Samsung Bioepis, and in fact both Amgen and Samsung Bioepis will be paying royalties to AbbVie once their adalimumab biosimilar products launch in the [United States].”
In addition to the letter, P4AD also encouraged patients to write to their senators in support of changes that would put an end to such settlements, and says that, to date, more than 1200 patients have written to show their support.
Enhancing Adoption of Infused Biosimilars for a Sustainable Future
October 30th 2024An IQVIA report highlights challenges to the sustainability of infused biosimilars in the US, citing rebate walls and reimbursement policies, and proposes key solutions to enhance adoption and benefits for all stakeholders.
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.
Strengthening the Supply Chain: Key Insights From FDA Commissioner Dr Robert Califf
October 25th 2024At the GRx+Biosims conference, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, stressed the urgent need for data transparency in the global supply chain and the role of collaboration and artificial intelligence in ensuring the resilience of biosimilar and generic drug production.
FDA and Industry Experts Unpack Biosimilar Device Requirements
October 23rd 2024At the GRx+Biosims 2024 conference, a panel of industry experts and FDA officials discussed evolving device requirements for biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars, highlighting new approaches to comparative use human factors studies, regulatory challenges, and alternative validation methods.