Rep. Eshoo Proposes Draft Biogenerics Bill
The debate over biogenerics legislation has intensified with the anticipated introduction of legislation to create a “generic biologics” approval pathway and that would grant innovators (i.e., reference product sponsors) and certain generic sponsors market exclusivity. The draft legislation obtained by FDA Law Blog is titled the “Pathway for Biosimilars Act,” and will reportedly be introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) in the near future.
The draft Eshoo bill would amend PHS Act § 351 to add subsection (k) (“Licensure of Biological Products as Biosimilar”) to permit the submission of an application for licensure of a biogeneric that includes, among other things, information demonstrating that the biogeneric is biosimilar to a reference product based on analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies (such as an immunogenicity assessment and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics) sufficient to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the biosimilar product. Analytical and animal studies may be waived by the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary (“Secretary”) if such studies are determined to be unnecessary. The Secretary may waive immunogenicity studies if there is a final guidance document “advising that it is feasible in the current state of scientific knowledge to make determinations on immunogenicity with respect to products in the product class to which the biological product belongs,” and that explains “the data that will be required to support such a determination.”
Importantly, the Secretary may not accept a biogeneric application until a proceeding has been initiated for the issuance of a guidance document for the product class in which the biogeneric falls, and the Secretary may not approve a biogeneric application until that proceeding is completed. Product class-specific guidance documents must include criteria for determining biosimilarity, interchangeability, and immunogenicity (if available). In addition, companies may not submit a biogeneric application until the later of the commencement of guidance document proceedings (product class-specific) or the date that is 4 years after initial licensing of the reference product (not including the date of a supplement approval or of a subsequent application for a new indication, route of administration, dosage form, or strength of the previously licensed reference product). A person may petition the Secretary to commence guidance document proceedings for a reference product licensed more than 7 years prior to the date of enactment of the “Pathway for Biosimilars Act.” The sponsor of the first biogeneric determined to be interchangeable may receive a 24-month period of market exclusivity from the later of either the first commercial marketing of its biogeneric, or, “with respect to a product marketed before the date the product is determined to be interchangeable, the date that the product is determined to be interchangeable.”
The quid pro quo for innovator companies is a period of 12-year exclusivity after initial licensure that may be increased to 14.5 years. Specifically, if during the 8-year period following licensure of the reference product, the Secretary approves a supplement for a new indication that would be a “significant improvement” compared to marketed products, then a biogeneric application may not be made effective until 14 years after initial licensure of the reference product. The 12-year or 14-year exclusivity periods may be extended by 6 months if “at any time following licensure of the reference product, the holder of the approved application for the reference product files a supplemental application to support use in pediatric age groups (including neonates) containing reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) essential to the approval of the application that were conducted or sponsored by the holder.”
In addition, reference product sponsors, as well as interested third parties (such as universities), that own a patent on the reference product may sue a biogeneric applicant for patent infringement. Under certain circumstances, such litigation could delay the approval of the biogeneric product. The draft bill also places certain limitations on the availability of declaratory judgment actions for biogeneric applicants, and amends the user fee law to require biogeneric applicants to pay the same user fees required to be paid by reference product sponsors.
In other biogenerics news, FDA Law Blog learned that the regulatory authorities north of the border in Canada recently released a draft guidance document outlining the regulatory review process that Health Canada will use for a biologic that is similar to an approved innovator biologic. In Canada these product are referred to as “Subsequent Entry Biologics.”
Comments