Transferable Exclusivity Vouchers and Incentives for Antimicrobial Development in the European Union

The European Commission's proposal to address antimicrobial resistance using transferable exclusivity vouchers (TEVs) is fundamentally flawed. European policymakers and regulators should consider alternatives, such as better funding for basic and clinical research, use of advance market commitments funded by a pay-or-play tax, or enacting an EU Fund for Antibiotic Development.

Regulatory Standards in Orphan Medicinal Product Designation in the EU

Twenty years of orphan regulation in Europe have now elapsed, with almost 2,400 orphan designated medicinal products and more than 190 orphan products authorised in the EU. Alongside the evolution in understanding of rare diseases, considerable regulatory knowledge has also been accumulated regarding the level of evidence that would support inclusion of products into the framework. This article reviews publications and regulatory documents pertaining to orphan medicinal product designation in the EU and discusses the general expectations in submitted applications as reflected in the current regulatory practise. Important elements to recommend granting a European orphan designation are the key considerations of orphan condition, medical plausibility, seriousness, and prevalence, while significant benefit is also assessed when there are authorised medicinal products for the sought indication. This review attempts to clarify the specific concepts currently used in that regard and discusses how the available data can be used to justify the criteria for designation. Moving away from theoretical expectations or assumptions, it stresses that the applications have to be complemented with nosological and epidemiological justifications pertaining to the proposed condition, as well as relevant data in specific non-clinical in vivo models or in affected patients to support inclusion into the orphan scheme.

Market Exclusivity of the Originator Drugs in South Korea: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction: Generic entry is a well-known driver of competition and cost containment.

Objectives: We aim to measure the market exclusivity of originator drugs and to determine what influences the entry of generics in South Korea.

Methods: A list of originator drugs approved by the authority from 2000 to 2013 and their corresponding generics were paired. An event history model was applied for a statistical estimation for the duration until generic entry and to identify abbreviating or prolonging factors on the duration.

Results: A total of 2,061 pairs of originator and generics were identified. The market exclusivity for the originator drugs, including NDAs and non-NDAs, has not notably changed. However, competition among non-NDAs was less common than we expected. We found delayed time to entry of generics in the long run, particularly for non-NDAs in injection forms and biologics, and this finding is partially associated with market attractiveness.

Conclusion: The authority should address the delayed availability of certain types of generic drugs. The government could provide information on off-patent pharmaceuticals with no generic competition, designate their corresponding submissions as prioritized in the review process, and provide additional market exclusivity when entering the market via a long period of exclusivity.

Continuing trends in U.S. brand-name and generic drug competition

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated evidence in a series of analyses of U.S. trends over the past two decades in key financial metrics for branded drugs: market exclusivity periods (MEPs, the time between launch and first generic entry) for new molecular entities (NMEs); the probability, timing and number of patent challenges under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act; and the intensity of generic penetration.

METHODS

As previously, we used IQVIA National Sales Perspectives U.S. data to calculate MEPs for the 356 NMEs experiencing initial generic entry from 1995 through 2019, the number of generic competitors for twelve months afterward (by prior sales level), and generic shares. We calculated the probability, timing and number of Paragraph IV challengers using Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) approval letters, the FDA website, public information searches, and ParagraphFour.com.

RESULTS

For NMEs experiencing initial generic entry in 2017-19, the MEP was 13.0 years for drugs with sales greater than $250 million in 2008 dollars the year before generic entry (NMEs>$250 million), 14.1 years overall. One year later, brands' average unit share was 18% for NMEs>$250 million, 23% overall. Ninety-three percent of NMEs>$250 million experiencing initial generic entry faced at least one Paragraph IV challenge (2019, three-year rolling average), an average of 6.0 years after brand launch (81% and 6.3 years for all NMEs). NMEs faced an average of 6.8 and 8.9 Paragraph IV challengers per NME, for all and NMEs>$250 million, respectively (2017-19 figures).

LIMITATIONS

All analyses were restricted to NMEs experiencing generic entry.

CONCLUSION

The average 2017-19 MEP of 13.0 years for NMEs>$250 million has changed relatively little over the past decade and remains lower than for all NMEs (14.1 years). Paragraph IV challenges are more frequent and occur earlier for NMEs>$250 million. Generic share erosion remains high for both NME types.

Does the Patent Linkage System Prolong Effective Market Exclusivity? Recent Evidence From the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in Korea

This study evaluated the effect of the patent linkage system, fully introduced by the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 2015, on patent challenges and the effective market exclusivity of new medicines in Korea. We used pharmaceutical approval data and pharmaceutical litigation data to detect new medicines and their counterparts, to collect patent challenges against new medicines, and to calculate effective market exclusivity for new medicines. Then, a nonparametric event history model was applied to statistically explain the duration of the market exclusivity of new medicines. Between 2007 and 2011, a total of 94 new medicines, consisting of 82 new chemical entities and 12 new biologics, were approved. The patent linkage system encouraged patent litigations to occur sooner, with a race to challenge the patents by various generic applicants. However, it was difficult to conclude that patent challenges had a significant impact on the prolongation of effective market exclusivity. The patent linkage system had a neutral effect on the effective market exclusivity of new medicines and encouraged patent challenges without abbreviating effective market exclusivity. In addition, this study highlights an important issue regarding biologics that has not been the subject of market competition, even for patent challenges.

Addressing the needs of Canadians with rare diseases: an evaluation of orphan drug incentives

It is uncertain whether a Canadian orphan drug policy, similar to those used in the US and EU, will be given further consideration. The justification for having an orphan drug policy is initially discussed, with this article proceeding on the basis that morality and a commitment to equality validate providing some form of orphan drug incentive(s) in Canada. That being said, it is unclear how 'orphan drug' should be defined and, accordingly, how incentives should be allocated. Three pharmaceutical industry incentives are then evaluated in order to identify how the needs of patients with rare diseases can be addressed. Market exclusivity has effectively encouraged investment in orphan drugs and therefore it is recommended that the incentive be implemented in Canada. Priority review voucher programs are still in their infancy, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about these programs. Introducing a voucher program in Canada is nevertheless not recommended because priority review in Canada is unlikely to be sufficiently valuable. An orphan drug-specific tax credit offers a convenient means of subsidizing orphan drug development without being overly costly, given the narrow parameters within which the credit would operate. Therefore, a Canadian orphan drug tax credit is also recommended.

Intellectual Property Protection and Drug Plan Coverage: Evidence From Ontario

Canada has strengthened intellectual property (IP) protections for pharmaceutical drugs several times over the last 3 decades. This study investigates whether the IP changes had an effect on the market exclusivity time of brand products on the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) formulary. We constructed a database that included the first brand approval date for drugs launched between 1974 and 2012, the first ODB listing date of the brand drug, and the first ODB listing date of the generic form of the drug. We then calculated the time of formulary exclusivity to detect any changes in market exclusivity times associated with changes to Canada's IP regimen. There were 595 drugs launched between 1974 and 2012 that were available for analysis. Exclusivity gradually declined from the late 1970s to 1990. Drugs approved in 2004 received 7.6 years of exclusivity, and drugs approved in 2005 received 5 years of exclusivity. Over the time period we analyzed, market exclusivity time of brand drugs experienced marked changes, but we did not detect any systematic effects of Canada's stronger pharmaceutical IP laws on the market exclusivity.

Market Exclusivity Time for Top Selling Originator Drugs in Canada: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

This study looks at market exclusivity time for the top selling originator drugs in Canada. Total sales for drugs without competition were also calculated.

METHODS

A list of the top selling originator drugs by dollar sales from 2009 to 2015 inclusive, except for 2010, was compiled along with their annual sales. Health Canada databases were used to extract the following information: generic name, date of Notice of Compliance (NOC, date of marketing authorization), whether the product was a small molecule drug or a biologic, and date of NOC for a generic or biosimilar. Market exclusivity time was calculated in days for drugs.

RESULTS

A total of 121 drugs were identified. There were 96 small molecule drugs (63 with a generic competitor and 33 with no generic competitor) and 25 biologics (none with a biosimilar competitor). The 63 drugs with a competitor had a mean market exclusivity time of 4478 days (12.3 years) (95% CI 4159-4798). The 58 drugs without competition had total annual sales of Can$8.59 billion and were on the market for a median of 5357 days (14.7 years) (interquartile range 3291-6679) as of January 31, 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Top selling originator drugs in Canada have a considerably longer period of market exclusivity than the 8 to 10 years that the research-based pharmaceutical industry claims.

A cheat sheet to navigate the complex maze of pharmaceutical exclusivities in Europe

As the two leading markets for pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the USA and Europe offer incentives to stimulate drug innovation, including patent and regulatory exclusivities. These exclusivities extend periods during which companies can market their products free of generic or other competition and recoup their investment. Pharmaceutical and biotech companies should carefully assess the different types of exclusivities available when developing regulatory submissions, patent filing strategies. The authors have previously summarized the USA exclusivities in an earlier publication. This article focuses on European exclusivities. Due to space limitations, it focuses on small molecule drugs. Analogously to the format previously used, we have provided a cheat sheet of European exclusivities for small molecule drugs in Figure 1 .

Strategic balance of drug lifecycle management options differs between domestic and foreign companies in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Drug approvals and patent protections are critical in drug lifecycle management (LCM) in order to maximize drug discovery investment returns.

AREA COVERED

We analyzed drug LCM activities implemented by 10 top companies in Japan, focusing on drug approvals and patent term extensions.

EXPERT OPINION

Foreign companies acquired numerous drug approvals primarily for new molecular entities (NMEs), while Japanese companies mainly obtained approvals for improved drugs including new indications, and intensively extended patent terms. Furthermore, we discovered three factors likely responsible for differences in drug LCM strategies of Japanese and foreign companies: research and development capacities for drugs, drug lags of foreign-origin NMEs, and cooperation between Research and Development Departments and Intellectual Property Departments.

The influence of market exclusivity on drug availability and medical innovations

The interpretation and application of intellectual property laws is enormously complex in the pharmaceutical industry, with companies needing to obtain multiple patents to fully protect their innovations. While patents provide important incentives for biomedical innovation and economic growth, concern has been expressed over the growing number of patents, the granting of patents on basic research tools (eg, genetically engineered animals), and the possibility that these legal protections may ultimately inhibit scientific advancement.

The quest for market exclusivity in biotechnology: navigating the patent minefield

A patent is a legal device that grants an inventor market exclusivity over a new invention or medication. Market exclusivity can mean tremendous economic rewards for the patent holder because it provides the inventor with a monopoly over the invention for the 20-year patent term. Obtaining a patent and retaining market exclusivity can be a treacherous process, especially in the arena of biotechnology patents. Scientific, legal, and practical considerations must be carefully weighed to best protect an inventor's rights. This article explores some common patenting pitfalls as well as emerging issues that are specific to the area of biotechnology patenting.