Orphaning Biotech? The Impact of Biosimilars on Biotech Investment
This article was originally published in RPM Report
An abbreviated follow-on biologics pathway is inevitable, despite the fact that Congress failed to pass legislation in 2007. Will a FOBs pathway adversely impact money flowing into the biotech industry? Unlikely. The impact of the 1983 Orphan Drug Act may be a good model to consider.
You may also be interested in...
FDA opened the regulatory phase of the biosimilar debate by hearing from industry and other stakeholders about what an approval system should look like. But this information-gathering session wasn’t all one-sided: FDA officials offered some hints of what they are thinking too. And while there are some significant areas of disagreement—and outlier positions—there was also quite a bit of common ground.
The National Organization for Rare Disorders wants FDA to be a bit more rigorous in communicating its regulatory standards. The agency has always been flexible in determining how much evidence of safety and efficacy is necessary when it comes to orphan drugs; sponsors, investors and patients would benefit if that is more clearly spelled out.
A handful of follow-on biologics are already offered in European and American markets, but have yet to cause signifi cant brand erosion. Yet despite ongoing regulatory and commercial uncertainties, Big Pharma and small molecule generics companies have been making strategic moves to enter into the biosimilar arena. This article, written by experts from the Campbell Alliance, examines the current movement toward an abbreviated approval pathway for follow-on biologics in the US and assesses the potential impact on current biotechnology products. In addition, the article provides some insight into what commercial and reimbursement decision makers for biotechnology companies should be doing to prepare for the arrival of biosimilars.