This week PharmaCompass brings to you key highlights of the US Food and Drug Administration’s recently released June 2024 list of Off-Patent, Off-Exclusivity
Drugs without an Approved Generic (OPOE list). The list is a crucial
resource for promoting competition and affordability in the pharmaceutical
industry. Updated biannually in December and June, the OPOE list serves as a
transparent guide for drug manufacturers.
Since December 2021, the FDA has enhanced its transparency efforts by providing separate lists for prescription (Rx) and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs approved under a New Drug Application (NDA). This initiative is a significant cog in the FDA’s broader strategy to encourage the development and submission of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs).
ANDAs are a streamlined pathway for generic drug development,
offering a more cost-effective alternative to brand-name drugs. By highlighting
drugs that lack generic competition on the OPOE list, FDA aims to incentivize
manufacturers to develop generics, ultimately leading to greater affordability
and access for patients.
Access the Interactive Dashboard on FDA's June 2024 List of Off-Patent Drugs (Free Excel)
ALS drugs, cancer, asthma,
HIV treatments among new drugs added to OPOE list
The December 2023 OPOE list had 23 new applications of branded
drugs eligible for but without generic competition. The June list further added
21 new applications of drugs that had never appeared before. These include bendamustine hydrochloride (to treat chronic
lymphocytic leukemia), fluticasone propionate (to treat asthma), maraviroc (to treat HIV-1 infection in
patients two years of age and older weighing at least 10 kilograms), carbamazepine (to treat epilepsy and
bipolar I disorder), and posaconazole (an antifungal agent indicated for Aspergillus and Candida infections). There are two other drugs on the list – edaravone and riluzole – to treat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig’s disease (a neurological disorder).
Much like the June 2023 OPOE list, nearly one-third of the prescription drugs listed are injectables – 170 out of 499. There are 74 prescription entries for oral solid dosage forms (such as tablets, capsules and modified release forms).
The June 2024 OPOE list has 57 OTC drugs, a tad shy of the 60 drugs in last year’s list. Among them are antihistamine drugs (used to treat allergies), cetirizine hydrochloride, nizatidine, famotidine, loratadine and anti-obesity medication orlistat.
The list also had a newly listed drug, which is a combination of chlorpheniramine maleate, ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride for treating allergic sinusitis. Out of the 57 OTC drug products on the list, 18 are delivered as oral solid dosage forms.
Access the Interactive Dashboard on FDA's June 2024 List of Off-Patent Drugs (Free Excel)
Novartis blockbusters lose exclusivity, Lupin wins FDA nod for copycat of Neurocrine’s bestseller
This year, several large-selling drugs from drugmakers like Eisai, AbbVie, Gilead, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi and
others are due to face their first generic or biosimilar challengers in the US market. “First generics” are given for a first-to-file ANDA, for which there is no previously-approved ANDA by the FDA for the drug product.
The agency considers first generics to be important to public
health and prioritizes review of these submissions. First generics are eligible
for a 180-day exclusivity period.
Three of Novartis’ drugs have lost exclusivity so far, this year. These include Promacta/Revolade (eltrombopag) used to treat
thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). Promacta was approved in 2015 and saw sales of US$ 2.27 billion last year. Annora Pharma scored an FDA approval for eltrombopag’s first generic in April. Tasigna (nilotinib), the Swiss drugmaker’s oral treatment for Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (a kind of leukemia where patients have an abnormal
chromosome in their blood cells called the Philadelphia chromosome), got its
first generic in January, which was introduced by Apotex. Tasigna brought
in sales of US$ 1.85 billion in 2023 and its sales are
projected to plummet to US$ 79 million by 2029. Novartis’ Rydapt (midostaurin) for treating adult patients
with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) also lost exclusivity in
April.
Neurocrine Biosciences’ top-selling drug Ingrezza (valbenazine) was the first FDA-approved
drug to treat tardive dyskinesia, a disorder that involves involuntary
movements. It raked in US$ 1.84 billion in 2023, registering a
year-on-year growth of 29 percent. In April, Lupin won FDA’s approval for the first generic of valbenazine capsules.
Access the Interactive Dashboard on FDA's June 2024 List of Off-Patent Drugs (Free Excel)
Our view
The Biden administration has been pushing hard to lower the price of prescription drugs. It is one of President Joe Biden’s central campaign promises this year. However, lowering drug prices is a bipartisan issue in the US. So whether a republican or
a democrat takes over the US administration, making medicines affordable should
remain a priority.
In 2023, generic drugs accounted for US$ 424 billion of the US$ 1.6 trillion global pharmaceutical market. A determined FDA that is proactively looking to approve generic drugs will no doubt help this segment grow even further.
Impressions: 2543
GSK, Google form first bioelectronics firm; 11 generic companies benefit from the Teva Allergan deal
This week,
Phispers brings to you the details of the bioelectronics firm formed by GSK and
Google. There is also news on companies like Teva, Takeda, Jinan Jinda and Eli
Lilly, besides two other news snippets pertaining to the FDA -- while the first
one pertains to generic approvals, the other one relates to an additional black
box warning on a few antibiotics. GSK and Google
join hands to form first bioelectronics startupGlaxoSmithKline and Google’s parent company – Alphabet – have joined hands to create a new company that is focused on fighting diseases by targeting electrical signals in the human body. This way, GSK and Alphabet’s life sciences unit – known as Verily Life Sciences – will be jump-starting a new field of medicine known as bioelectronics.Verily Life
Sciences and GSK will together contribute US $ 715.12
million
over seven years to the startup Galvani Bioelectronics. The startup will develop
miniature electronic implants for the treatment of asthma, diabetes and other
chronic conditions. The
implantable devices developed by Galvani, which is owned 55 percent by GSK and
45 percent by Verily, can modify electrical nerve signals. The aim is to
modulate irregular or altered impulses that occur in many illnesses.The
new company
will be based at GSK’s Stevenage research center north of London, with a second research hub in South San Francisco.The announcement comes just weeks after GSK had said it was going to use Apple’s HealthKit to conduct clinical trials.Three years ago, GSK had first unveiled its ambitions in bioelectronics in the journal – Nature. Bioelectronic remedies attach battery-powered implants the size of a grain of rice (or even smaller) to individual nerves to correct faulty electrical signals between the nervous system and the body’s organs.GSK believes altering these nerve signals could open up the airways of asthma patients, reduce inflammation in the gut from Crohn’s disease and treat patients with a range of other chronic ailments such as arthritis. So far, the implants have only been tested on animals but the aim is to produce treatments that will supplement or replace drugs that often come with side-effects.GSK
has been working on bioelectronic medicines since 2012 in a push to develop new
patentable treatments, since its Advair respiratory treatment faces competition
from generic versions. It has invested US $50 million in a venture capital fund
for bioelectronics and provided funding to scientists working in the field. Teva divests 79
products to 11 generic players to close Allergan dealTeva
Pharmaceutical Industries – the world’s largest generics drug company – won a US
anti-trust approval to purchase Allergan's generics
business, after agreeing to divest 79 generic drugs to rival firms. This was arrived
at to settle Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) charges that its proposed US $ 40.5 billion acquisition of Allergan’s generic pharmaceutical business would be anti-competitive. The remedy requires Teva to divest the drug portfolio to 11 firms, and marks the largest drug divestiture order in a FTC pharmaceutical merger case.The Teva-Allergan deal, which was announced in July 2015, solidifies Teva’s position as the world's largest maker of generics while freeing Allergan to focus on branded drugs.The
companies that
have acquired
the divested products are Mayne Pharma
Group, Impax
Laboratories, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Sagent
Pharmaceuticals, Cipla Limited, Zydus Worldwide
DMCC, Mikah Pharma, Perrigo Pharma
International, Aurobindo
Pharma USA,
Prasco and 3M Company. Eli Lilly CEO
steps down; company under probe by US Justice Department Eli Lilly CEO John
Lechleiter has stepped down after steering the pharma company through long R&D droughts. The company’s president David Ricks will move up to the top spot. And after a brief spell as executive chairman, Lechleiter will leave the company next spring.Lechleiter
has been the company's CEO since April 1, 2008, and the chairman of its board
of directors since January 1, 2009.The
announcement has come at a time when Eli Lilly has been asked by the
Justice Department to disclose information on relationships with pharmacy benefits
managers (PBMs), the companies that negotiate prices and set reimbursement
conditions.It
has not been clear what exactly the department of justice is looking for. In
the past, drug makers such as Novartis and AstraZeneca have agreed to
pay fines and penalties to settle allegations pertaining to PBMs. FDA continues
to race ahead with generic approvals The
American regulator has reduced its pile of ANDA (abbreviated new drug
applications) by about 500
applications in the first six months of 2016. The FDA has also approved 315 more ANDAs over the same time period and has sent 66 more complete response letters — or rejections — to drug makers.This
news comes after Bloomberg reported
last month that the FDA has become ‘something of a bogeyman’ for India’s stock markets by approving generic drug applications from India at a record place. Similarly, PharmaCompass
had reported last week that Indian
companies have been fixing compliance issues. China’s Jinan Jinda fails another EDQM inspection; compliance troubles in Denmark In
regulatory news from across the world, Jinan Jinda, a Chinese API
manufacturer that had failed an inspection by Italian regulators in June 2015,
had more bad news awaiting it a year on. In
a June 2016
re-inspection, this time by the Spanish Health Authority, the regulator maintained the ‘facilities non-compliance standing’ since two critical observations were made and the corrections from the previous inspection “were found as not having been implemented in a satisfactory way”. And critical deficiencies were found on raw data.In
the June 2015 inspection, the critical observation was related to an unofficial
and non-controlled storage area containing mainly raw materials and finished
products which had been made
inaccessible to inspectors as the door had been removed and replaced with a panel fixed with
screws to the wall.Meanwhile,
the FDA issued an untitled letter (dated July 15, 2016) to Danish allergy
immunotherapy company ALK-Abelló (ALK) over manufacturing and quality control issues at its Horsholm, Denmark facility. The letter comes after a 12-day inspection of the facility in March 2016. During the inspection, the FDA had cited ALK for four “significant deviations” from cGMP requirements. Another black
box warning added to antibiotics like Cipro and LevaquinThe
FDA has upgraded
warnings on
certain antibiotics, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Levaquin, Bayer’s Cipro
extended-release tablets and Merck’s Avelox. The FDA had
added a black box warning in 2008 about the increased risk of tendinitis in
which the tissue connecting muscle to bone becomes inflamed. In
May this year, the FDA had advised restricting the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotic for certain uncomplicated
infections and had warned about the disabling side-effects of the drug.The new warning talks about long-term risks to the drugs’ current black box warning. The agency also advised using the drugs only for serious infections. Manufacturers of fluoroquinolone have faced thousands of lawsuits from patients who claim that their injuries were caused by the drugs. J&J alone faced 3,400 lawsuits over Levaquin’s links to tendon problems and has also settled many of those cases. Takeda to
overhaul R&D, downsize operations in the UKTakeda Pharmaceutical of Japan has
said it plans to build a new pipeline of drugs. It plans to revamp its
research operations at the cost of around US $ 727 million.. The
company also plans to close some of its R&D operations in the UK. Takeda is
beginning the first ‘consultation stage’ of the layoff process in the UK, which hosts a pre-clinical R&D operation in Cambridge as well as a development center headquarter with facilities in the UK, Switzerland and Denmark.Under the revamp, Takeda’s R&D activities will be concentrated in Japan and the US, the 235-year old drug company said in a statement. Takeda plans to now focus on the three therapeutic areas of oncology, gastroenterology and the central nervous system.“We need to first build new capabilities and embrace new ways of working,” Andy Plump, Takeda’s chief medical and scientific officer, said in the statement.
Impressions: 2803
Peter J. Werth, President and Chief Executive Officer, ChemWerth, a US-headquartered full-service generic active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) development and supply company providing cGMP quality APIs to the regulated markets, is a proponent of removing data to a data-integrity (DI) file from data history, if it isn’t linked to product quality. According to Werth, FDA is unnecessarily obsessed with data integrity issues, and pharma companies have begun to fear FDA inspections. This needs to change, Werth tells PharmaCompass.
Excerpts from the interview.
Can you tell us about your journey in the world of
pharmaceuticals?
I
began by supplying generic cough and cold APIs by setting up a chemical
business back in 1975. There was a small group of companies (first generic companies)
that mainly sold cough and cold products. These companies wanted to sell patent-expired
generics and we developed select APIs for them. There was no real FDA (US Food
and Drug Administration) approval process involved.
By 1982, I realized the generic industry would be big business and API sourcing was key to success. Since I knew the API business, my wife and I formed ChemWerth – a company that supplied generic APIs.
By
1988, ChemWerth was working with 10 American and three Chinese manufacturers.
But the generic scandal changed everything. My American partner factories gave
up the API business when new
regulations came in. Chemical plants could no longer manufacture APIs. From my
previous 11 years of dealing with China, I knew that almost all of the dosage
form factories also produced APIs. This was especially important for the
injectable grade products. By the early 1990s, ChemWerth was developing APIs
for highly toxic oncology injection drugs and many antibiotics. We successfully
introduced doxorubicin, daunorubicin, mitomycin, bleomycin, etoposide, ifosfamide and several antibiotics such as lincomycin, clindamycin phosphate, amikacin sulfate, tobramycin and vancomycin (all from China).
Today, ChemWerth represents 25 Chinese factories for about 100 products. We still represent one American API supplier along with several Indian manufacturers. We recently expanded to supply veterinary drugs and partnered with a major supplier of polypeptides and a world-class supplier of heparin and related products.
You have been working with China for many years now. When
did you first come to China and how has the Chinese pharmaceutical industry
transformed over the years?
I first went to China in 1979. During that
trip, I realized I could successfully deal with the Chinese. Most of my friends
who went to China said it was impossible to deal with them. I always thought
this gave me an advantage in China. Over the next seven years, I kept in touch
with China, but did very little business.
In 1986, I was running ChemWerth and was a
consultant with a company to help its large pharmaceutical facility produce generic
APIs. We targeted clindamycin phosphate for development, since the product had
good sales, and was off patent. It also had no competition because Upjohn
(an erstwhile US-headquartered pharma company that got merged with Pharmacia in
1995, which in turn got bought over by Pfizer) controlled all the key starting material – lincomycin
hydrochloride. Using my contacts and my ability to deal with Chinese factory directors, I managed to break Upjohn’s stronghold in lincomycin. I convinced three factories to work with me so that I could file a DMF (Drug Master File). Clindamycin became a very good product for ChemWerth and gave me reason to visit China regularly to develop new business.
In those days, factories were generally old and needed upgradation. Documentation was always good, and in detail. However, it was mostly in codes and therefore useless to most others. It was extremely difficult to convince the factory to provide a true and detailed process to ChemWerth to file a DMF with the FDA. There is still a tendency (amid factories in China) to hide important facts. As a result, it takes ChemWerth at least three versions/iterations before we think we have got the right process details.
Today, the hardware in China’s pharmaceutical factories is excellent, and is usually purchased from the best overseas manufacturer. The software is good too and is likely to improve drastically as manufacturers realize software is equally important as hardware.
In view of the current GMP concerns being uncovered at
Chinese companies, are you still focused on China as a source of
pharmaceuticals?
In my mind, and in the ChemWerth representative factories, there are no
GMP concerns, no quality concerns, and no data history concerns. The FDA's
fascination with data integrity focuses on a problem that does not exist in more
than 90 percent of the pharmaceutical factories. There are at least 18 reasons
to remove data from data history. All of these 18 reasons are related to
analyst error and equipment failures (laboratory gross errors) and not related
to quality or GMP manufacturing. (Click here to read Werth’s 18 reasons to remove data).
I agree that gross errors/laboratory gross errors should not be deleted. I also agree that deleted gross errors/laboratory errors not related to quality do not deserve a warning letter.
However, the FDA should also know the main reason data is deleted is because the analyst (often) knows the result is not correct for reasons not related to quality (gross errors/laboratory gross errors). They do not want to conduct an expensive, time-consuming, and cumbersome OOS (out-of-specification) investigation. Therefore, they delete the data, weigh out new samples, fix the problem, analyze, and either receive acceptable results or rejection results.
Today, China has the most modern manufacturing facilities and the money to invest in software to manufacture the highest quality with the best traceable records. The Chinese need to trust the FDA to treat them fairly and not rely on two and three-year-old DI information. They will do the job correctly now and in future. But they cannot change the past. As stated earlier, all DI product-related observations have proven that the product quality and product history were acceptable.
China can only become a stronger API supplier. China’s volumes will increase and costs will decrease, because the domestic market is growing rapidly. The country will have cost/pricing pressures and will need to concentrate more on the difficult products that require expensive equipment. The standards set by the China FDA (CFDA) match the US FDA standards. And this will make it easier to operate under one quality and documentation system. Most importantly, they have the money to invest in the latest technology, best scientists, and equipment.
In your view, what can pharmaceutical regulators and the industry
do differently in order to communicate that the product quality is not at risk,
given the environment where data-integrity violations have become commonplace?
The FDA needs to understand that DI has no relationship with product quality. We have two recent examples. In the first case, DI issues applied to 70 batches. All 70 batches were retested and all were found to be in specification. The second case gave the same results – between two inspections over 100 batches were considered potentially fraudulent. All 100 batches were retested and were found to meet the specification. At both the factories, the data history showed all the batches are in specification – this implies 100 percent correlation to quality. The data integrity listed 100 batches and no batch failed specification – this shows 0 percent correlation to quality.
From a DI perspective, FDA inspections in factories that only produce APIs for export should be different from inspections in pharmaceutical companies that export APIs and dosage form. In reality, API manufacturers cannot cheat. They sell their product to dosage form manufacturers, which in turn are responsible for the quality that goes into the dosage form.
Off specification batches will be rejected and returned to the API manufacturer. While inspecting factories’ customer complaint file, it is rare to find batches being rejected and returned to the factory. The same does not apply to pharmaceutical companies that produce both API and finished dosage. They can hide information. Data integrity is more of an issue with companies that manufacture both API and dosage form.
What steps is ChemWerth taking with its partners in China
to improve compliance standards?
ChemWerth is addressing this issue with the FDA and ChemWerth representative factories. In broad terms, data history should be paramount, since it is related to product quality. Data integrity is a part of data history. ChemWerth has prepared a standard operating procedure (SOP) to handle electronic data.(Click here to read ChemWerth’s SOP). A simple version is that when one or both samples are out-of-specification, the analyst’s supervisor (who committed the error) reviews the data with the analysts. If they determine that one of the 18 reasons for analyst error or equipment failure is the cause of the failure, then this is noted. Three new samples are prepared, the error is corrected, and the samples are run and if all samples pass then these results are retained in data history and the product is passed. The previous bad result is documented and removed to the data integrity file. No lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive OOS report is conducted. This makes the procedure factory-friendly.
In the above example, if one of the three new samples fails, then all results are retained in the data history. The batch is rejected for rework or reprocessing.
I believe the present atmosphere between the
FDA and API manufacturers is at an all-time low. The industry feels the FDA
inspectors are looking at mostly irrelevant data to prove that the factory
operates fraudulently. Factories no longer welcome FDA inspections, out of fear
of DI failure. Factories feel the FDA is using DI to point out fraud where
there is none (excluding Hisun
and Ranbaxy).
In the past, we always welcomed FDA inspections as part of doing business. We
need to get back to that time and place.
Impressions: 6213