Oops! It appears that you have disabled your Javascript. In order for you to see this page as it is meant to appear, we ask that you please re-enable your Javascript!
Biosimilars Vs Generics: History Does...
Home  »  Community News  »  Biosimilars Vs Gener...
Biosimilars Vs Generics: History Does Not Repeat, It Rhymes – Courtesy (Seeking Alpha)
Pharma News

Healthcare investors likely remember the devastating impact of generic drugs on drug prices in the late 1980s. While traditional firms struggled, many successful biotechnology companies took root during this turbulent period. Focusing on the growing field of biologic medicine, many biotech firms were acquired by pharmaceutical companies looking to lower research and development costs, while others, such as Celgene (CELG) and Biogen (BIIB), remained independent and became quite successful.

Today, biologic drugs are facing competition. The first target is Neupogen, Amgen’s (AMGN) treatment for chemotherapy side effects first approved in 1991. In March 2015, the FDA approved Novartis’ (NVS) Zarxio, the first generic version, or biosimilar, of Neupogen, indeed the first competitor to any biologic drug in the United States. With $67 billion in global sales worth ofbiologic patents expiring before 2020, many investors are concerned about pricing pressure similar to that on generics in the 1980s and 1990s.

Biosimilars, however, could be different from traditional generics, thanks to significant differences between chemical and biological entities. Biological molecules are orders of magnitude larger and more structurally complex than their chemical counterparts, as shown in Figure 1. Chemical drugs are easy to synthesize, which means that generic manufacturers can reverse engineer them from published formulas at a fraction of the original drug cost. In contrast, biologics are genetically engineered cell lines that are more difficult to develop and maintain. Biologic manufacturers do not have to provide their cell lines to competitors, which means that biosimilar manufacturers must start from scratch.

biosimilars, biologics, generics, cost, pharma, ark genome, genomic revolution, ARKG, Ark invest.Source: Amgen. The molecular structure of Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), a common chemical drug compared with that of an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, a class of molecule found in many immunotherapies.

Unlike chemical drugs, biosimilars are not identical to the drug for which they substitute.1 While the FDA permits pharmacists to substitute cheaper generics for many chemical pharmaceuticals without notifying physicians, biosimilars will need additional certification to enjoy this same privilege. Zarxio does not have interchangeability status, as the process for acquiring it has not yet been finalized.

The molecular differences between chemical and biologic drugs impact both development costs and time. Generic chemical drugs can be developed for a fraction of the cost of their reference molecule, and much more quickly. In contrast, biosimilar development is nearly as complex as biologic development, lowering the savings in cost and time meaningfully, as shown below.

(click to enlarge)Source: ARK Original Research. A time and cost comparison of different drug development for new molecular entities and imitator molecules, both biological and generic.

Biosimilars were first approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2006, but have experienced a slow rate of adoption. For reasons described above, they captured only 11% of the biologics market in the first five years of their adoption. Nonetheless, a 5-10% market share of a blockbuster biologic would be enough to recoup the development costs of a biosimilar within a year.

Express Scripts (NASDAQ:ESRX) estimates that biosimilars could save Americans $250 billion over the next decade. By comparison, generics saved the US an estimated $1 trillion between 2002-2011. The average discount for generic chemical drugs today is roughly 75%, while in Europe biosimilars are priced at only 15-25% below their biologic counterparts. When biosimilars enter the US market, they likely will adopt comparable price points to those in Europe. The graph below illustrates the estimated future discounts for the most expensive drugs of 2013, once they leave exclusivity.

(click to enlarge)Source: Average price per patient per year of the five most expensive biological and chemical drugs of 2013. The imitator category represents an estimate of the prices of generics and biosimilars for drugs once they emerge. ARK Original Research.

Recent pricing moves in Europe could push the pricing dynamic of biosimilars toward that of generics. In 2014, Norway’s Orion Oyj (ORINY) introduced a biosimilar of Merck’s (MRK) Remicade at a 39% price discount, and captured six percent market share. Within a year, it increased the discount to 69%, driving market share up to 50%. So far, Orion Oyj is the first manufacturer of biosimilars to take such an aggressive tack.

While biologics are likely to be better sources of revenue post-exclusivity than their chemical counterparts, prices could drop as manufacturers begin to fight for market share. Even as it files motions to delay sales of Zarxio, Amgen announced its intention to develop its own line of biosimilars, the first due in 2017. Existing drug companies may have to take note and follow in Amgen’s footsteps.

  1. Due to the nature of DNA replication and biological systems, any independent cell lines will contain small mutations, and cannot be called identical to the original.

Disclaimer: ©2014, ARK Investment Management LLC. All content is original and has been researched and produced by ARK Investment Management LLC (“ARK”) unless otherwise stated. No part of this content may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without the express written permission of ARK. All statements made regarding companies, securities or other financial information on this site or any sites or articles relating to ARK are strictly beliefs and points of view held by ARK and are subject to change without notice. Certain of the statements contained in ARK original content may be statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements that are based on ARK’s current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Information contained in ARK content has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. This content has been distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investment advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. Any reference to a particular company or security in ARK original content is not an endorsement by ARK of that company or security or a recommendation by ARK to buy, sell or hold any particular security. Investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, strategy, product or security is suitable for their investment needs or should seek such professional advice for their particular situation. By visiting and/or otherwise using the ARK website in any way, you indicate that you understand and accept the terms of use as set forth on the website and agree to be bound by them. If you do not agree to the terms of use of the ARK website, please do no access the ARK website or any pages thereof.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.