Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU.

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1017/jme.2024.133
Doni Bloomfield, Aaron S Kesselheim
{"title":"Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU.","authors":"Doni Bloomfield, Aaron S Kesselheim","doi":"10.1017/jme.2024.133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The US has found it hard to establish competition in the market for biologics, which are therapeutics derived from living cells. In the case of small-molecule drugs, the emergence of direct competition from generic drugs at the end of the exclusivity period has provided the impetus for price competition, leading to lower spending. In 2010, to spur competition in the biologics market, Congress created a simplified pathway for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve comparable versions of biologic drugs called biosimilars. Biosimilar competition in the US has nonetheless remained weaker than in European peer countries. For example, as of August 2020, there were 52 biosimilars available in Germany, and only 15 in the US.<sup>1</sup> An important contributor to this \"biosimilar gap\" has been the fact that biosimilars to biologic blockbusters such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel) were only (or will only become) commercially available in the US several years after receiving FDA approval, while they were available in Europe years earlier.<sup>2</sup> Through the end of 2021, it took biosimilars a median of 301 days between receiving FDA approval and becoming available for use.<sup>3</sup> In one recent study, the median length of time between when a biologic drug was approved and when its first biosimilar was made available to US patients was 21.5 years.<sup>4</sup> This paucity of competition has contributed to high US spending on biologics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022 41% of US drug expenditures was spent on biologics, which represented 16% of US prescriptions.<sup>5</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":"52 2","pages":"439-442"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The US has found it hard to establish competition in the market for biologics, which are therapeutics derived from living cells. In the case of small-molecule drugs, the emergence of direct competition from generic drugs at the end of the exclusivity period has provided the impetus for price competition, leading to lower spending. In 2010, to spur competition in the biologics market, Congress created a simplified pathway for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve comparable versions of biologic drugs called biosimilars. Biosimilar competition in the US has nonetheless remained weaker than in European peer countries. For example, as of August 2020, there were 52 biosimilars available in Germany, and only 15 in the US.1 An important contributor to this "biosimilar gap" has been the fact that biosimilars to biologic blockbusters such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel) were only (or will only become) commercially available in the US several years after receiving FDA approval, while they were available in Europe years earlier.2 Through the end of 2021, it took biosimilars a median of 301 days between receiving FDA approval and becoming available for use.3 In one recent study, the median length of time between when a biologic drug was approved and when its first biosimilar was made available to US patients was 21.5 years.4 This paucity of competition has contributed to high US spending on biologics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022 41% of US drug expenditures was spent on biologics, which represented 16% of US prescriptions.5.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国和欧盟的专利权利要求范围与生物仿制药竞争。
美国发现很难在生物制剂市场上形成竞争,因为生物制剂是从活细胞中提取的治疗药物。就小分子药物而言,在独占期结束后,仿制药的直接竞争为价格竞争提供了动力,从而导致支出减少。2010 年,为刺激生物制剂市场的竞争,美国国会为美国食品药品管理局(FDA)批准生物制剂药物的可比版本(称为生物仿制药)设立了简化途径。然而,美国的生物仿制药竞争仍然弱于欧洲同类国家。1 造成这种 "生物仿制药差距 "的一个重要原因是,阿达木单抗(Humira)和依那西普(Enbrel)等生物制剂巨头的生物仿制药在获得 FDA 批准数年后才在美国上市(或即将上市),而它们在欧洲早在数年前就已上市。到 2021 年底,生物仿制药从获得 FDA 批准到投入使用的时间中位数为 301 天。3 在最近的一项研究中,一种生物制剂药物从获得批准到其首个生物仿制药向美国患者上市的时间中位数为 21.5 年。根据美国卫生与公众服务部的数据,2022 年美国药物支出的 41% 用于生物制剂,占美国处方药的 16%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in a Post-Roe Era - ERRATUM. INTRODUCTION: Medical-Legal Partnerships: Equity, Evolution, and Evaluation - CORRIGENDUM. "A Most Equitable Drug": How the Clinical Studies of Convalescent Plasma as a Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Might Usefully Inform Post-Pandemic Public Sector Approaches to Drug Development. A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19. A Public Option for Clinical Trials? Lessons from Convalescent Plasma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1