We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCale Ebbs
Modified over 2 years ago
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2007 | AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP Click To Modify Title Name Goes Here FDA Hearings on the BPCI Act Chad A. Landmon 90 State House Square 1330 Connecticut Ave, N.W. Hartford, CT 06103Washington, D.C February 3, 2011
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Overview BPCI Act FDA Hearings Issues of Contention Going Forward
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act Adds Section (K) to the Public Health Services Act Creates an approval pathway for biosimilars products that share the same known mechanisms of action, conditions of use, and means of administration as the reference product Creates a period of exclusivity for the first biosimilar product to establish interchangeability Creates a 12 year period of exclusivity for new reference products In place of an Orange Book listing, creates a process for exchange of information between the biosimilar applicant and reference product sponsor
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 |
FDA Hearings: Topics for Discussion Biosimilarity Interchangeability Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance Use of Supportive Data and Information Guidances Exclusivity
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Basic Lines of Division InnovatorsBiosimilar Proponents FDA should not start approval until specific and general guidelines are in place Cannot extrapolate across indications Full and robust clinical trials are needed for all indications Approval should be on a case by case basis Extrapolation should be allowed for indications with the same mechanism of action Clinical trials can be abbreviated based on the similarities between the products
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Interchangeability- Innovator View Product is process. Post-market drift and later approved indications means interchangeability can and should be revoked when no longer present. Interchangeability cannot be extrapolated. Interchangeability must be shown for all individuals.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Interchangeability- Biosimilar Proponent View Technology exists to detect differences between products. FDA comparability studies allow drift in the reference product. The same studies should allow interchangeability under the same standards.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Interchangeability- Other Concerns Patient groups stressed patient knowledge and choice and advocated for no automatic substitution. Some proposed a post-market system for approving interchangeability. FDA stressed the worry that drift would result in separately changing products. There may be difficulties in conducting alternating or switching studies, especially for drugs with long half-lives.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Biosimilarity- Innovator View Equivalence rather than noninferiority should be the standard for efficacy. Clinical trials should be conducted across all indications and based on: –complexity of the molecule; –changes introduced during processing and purification; and –immunogenicity risks No surrogate endpoints should be allowed, and no extrapolation across indications.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Biosimilarity- Biosimilar Proponent View Drift in innovator product should establish goal posts for biosimilarity. Clinical trials can and should be abbreviated. Studies should use surrogate endpoints such as efficacy for immunogenicity and response rate for survival. Approval should extrapolate across indications with the same mechanisms of action.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Clinical Trials- Where to Abbreviate? Studies may focus on PK/PD instead of structural similarity since the goal is same efficacy. Non-toxic reference products may allow simultaneous human and animal studies. Clinical studies may be abbreviated based on differences detected between products. Human trials may be abbreviated based on low immunogenicity and general safety.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Pharmacovigilance and Naming Biosimilar proponents argued that tracking can be done through National Drug Codes and lot numbers without unique International Nonproprietary Names. Innovators argued that unique names are required for tracking by patients and doctors. Patient groups stressed that either system needs to deal with patient and doctor confusion. Both sides worried about the effects on insurance reimbursement for their products.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Reliance on Foreign Systems The European Medicines Agency has an established system for biologics. The EMA has high standards for biosimilarity. The EMA has no approval for interchangeability approval is made by individual member states and has yet to be approved by any. Innovators advocated adopting similarly high standards in the U.S. The EMA has no unique naming system, but uses a combination of trade names and INN to identify products.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Innovators pointed to the EMA as having a de facto unique naming system. Innovators supported looking to the EMA for strict standards for approval. Innovators argued that significant bridging data should be required for any reliance on foreign data, even if the only difference in products is the source. Biosimilar proponents supported looking to foreign data with little bridging. Reliance on Foreign Systems
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Exclusivity The BPCIA allows approval of a new 12 year exclusivity period for non-related entities for any structural change that results in a difference in purity, safety or potency. Some pointed out that the provision may conflict with Helsinky rules on replication of clinical trials by forcing duplicative human studies. One presenter noted that clarity is needed on whether after- filing acquisition of the applicant or licensing of the product by the original innovator relinquishes the new exclusivity.
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | Innovators argued that this approval should be granted for any change, not just an improvement. Patient groups expressed worry in evergreening and the incentive to make minor improvements rather than new innovations One innovator requested that products that would qualify as biosimilar should not be able to skirt the 12 year exclusivity of the reference product by seeking approval as a new biologic. Exclusivity
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2011 | At the hearings, the representative for BIO asked that FDA interpret Sections (a) and (k) of the act as mutually exclusive, so a product that would qualify under the biosimilarity provisions of (k) not be granted approval under (a). Members of both houses of Congress have recently written FDA to emphasize that the exclusivity is data not marketing exclusivity, as the provision does not prohibit or prevent another manufacturer from developing its own data to justify FDA approval. Biosimilar proponents have since written to FDA to point out that the exclusivity provision has two separate periods of exclusivity a four year period preventing filing of an abbreviated application under Section (k) ( data exclusivity ) and a twelve year period before an application can be approved under Section (k) ( marketing exclusivity ). Exclusivity
AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP © 2007 | AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP Click To Modify Title Name Goes Here Any questions? Chad A. Landmon (860) (202)
Bridging Studies Global Development W. Joe Shih Biostatistics Dept UMDNJ-School of Public Health Sept. 29, 2006 FDA/Industry Conference, Washington D.C.
1 FDA OVERVIEW: Protecting Consumers - Promoting Public Health Frieda Houghton PhD Worldwide Regulatory Strategy Pfizer June 2013.
Presented to Second Annual Medical Research Summit Washington, D.C. by Mark Barnes ROPES & GRAY March 25, 2002 APPLICABILITY OF HIPAA TO RESEARCH AND CLIINICAL.
Who Pays for VR Services? Comparable Services and Benefits, Financial Needs Tests, & Cost of Services 1 Developed By: David T. Hutt, Ph.D., Senior Staff.
Ch-10 Configuration Management. Introduction A software project produces a number of items during its execution including various documents, manuals,
Testing Relational Database. Overview Once the design of a database system has been completed, the developers are ready to move into the implementation.
Final Report – November 3, 2003 Organization of American States Management Study of the Operations of the General Secretariat Part I – Executive Summary.
Toolkit: Approaches to Private Participation in Water Services Module 4 Setting Upstream Policy.
Keeping Confidence: Putting in Place a Trade Secret Protection Program in an R&D Lab and in a Manufacturing Business By Dr Shantanu De Ranbaxy Disclaimer:
1 International Clinical Trials: Current Issues in Clinical Trial Regulation and Future Reforms: EU, US, and Beyond: a European perspective International.
In the Introduction to the Chapter, the authors raise two principal questions that seek to reveal the distinctive significance of Disparate Impact theory:
Study Design Jason Rock
September 10, 2010 Hà Thị Nguyệt Thu (NOIP) Well-known trademark protection Reference to the Japanese experience.
A system for managing rigor Remember rigor is the first letter in rigor mortis.
PLANNING THE AUDIT Individual audits must be properly planned to ensure: Appropriate and sufficient evidence is obtained to support the auditors opinion;
By Larry Grudzien Attorney at Law 1. Mandatory Form W-2 reporting, Uniform explanation of group health plans benefits and coverage, Notice of Material.
TIPS FOR COMPLETING THE NEW PROTOCOL SUBMISSION The Nova Southeastern University Institutional Review Office has created this guide to facilitate completion.
Reading Between the Rules: The New Medical Error Reporting and Patient Safety Requirements Cindy Bednar, R.N. Director of Licensing Programs Health Facility.
Introduction New Form Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Feedback Conversation Career Development SMART Goals Competency Framework Documents There are also links.
Human Subject Protections in Experimentationby Thomas A. Gionis, MD JD MBA MHA FICS FRCS United States Fulbright Scholar in Law United States Fulbright.
Texas Department of Insurance 1 Health Care Reform Overview of Federal Health Insurance Reform Requirements and TDI Implementation Planning Presentation.
Quality Tools and Techniques in the School and Classroom.
13 September 2007Czech Republic NPA Amendment to Part-M for aircraft not used in Commercial Air Transport Juan Anton.
The New Health Insurance Marketplace Impact of the ACA on the S.C. Health Insurance Marketplace.
Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers Overview Sara Rockwell, Ph.D. Departments of Therapeutic Radiology and Pharmacology, and Office.
CMS funding for postdoctoral psychology fellowship programs Kirk Stucky Psy.D. ABPP (Rp, Cn) Barbara Wolf Ph.D. Consortium for Advanced Psychology Training.
Kiev, 04/12/2007 Analysis of EU MRP/DCP procedures regarding to generic applications Dr.Raimonds Lozda, FMS Baltic Ltd.
2 3 Mark DuVal, J.D., is president and managing partner of DuVal & Associates. DuVal counsels pharmaceutical, medical device, biotech, food and nutritional.
1 Systems Engineering A Way of Thinking A Way of Doing Business Enabling Organized Transition from Need to Product August 1997 Systems Engineering Technical.
NAHU Ethics In Business. Good Ethics is Good Business Why? Maybe its because the insurance industry is so highly regulated. Maybe its because NAHU makes.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.