About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Astellas Buys Out OSI | Main | Another Set of Eyes »

May 18, 2010

Biosimilars: Not So Dang Easy

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

This post drew a lot of comments here about how the big companies are going after follow-on biologic drugs. As a late-2008 article put it:

Merck already has one FOB in clinical development: a pegylated erythropoietin for anemia similar to Amgen's Aranesp (darbapoetin alfa) called MK-2578, which is being developed using a sugar-modification technology the pharma obtained via its 2006 purchase of GlycoFi. The company hopes to launch its EPO product in dialysis and pre-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease in 2012.

Clyburn declined to offer any sales projections for that product or the MBV unit in general, nor would he identify any of the other products or therapeutic areas Merck will attempt to develop. He said MBV will identify product candidates by looking at their value in the marketplace.

Good move to decline those speculations, because Merck just announced recently that they're discontinuing that whole Aranesp-oid project. The FDA made it clear that they'd expect a full human cardiovascular safety workup before approval, which appears to have thrown Merck's numbers off severely, as you might imagine.

There is, and continues to be, no easy way.

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: "Me Too" Drugs | Drug Development


1. processchemist on May 18, 2010 12:14 PM writes...

Having worked on the scale up of some glycosidated small peptides I often wondered about all the whole protein glycosidation technologies thing. For sure the development of biologics (I have zero familiarity with this matter) must differ from the one of small molecules. But I don't understand: fraction of similar MW can have a similar degree of glycosidation, but it's enough to say that we're talking about a material with an high grade of chemical omogeneity?
A friend of mine works in the regulatory affairs office of a small company producing eparines, and he depicted the bioequivalence papers like a sort of nightmare (and we're talking about a well known family of products).

Permalink to Comment

2. Hap on May 18, 2010 12:16 PM writes...

I don't know if I'm invoking the correct definition, but I figured biosimilars for biologic drugs nominally similar to current biologics but manufactured by different companies and potentially by different processes. (Theoretically, this would mean they may not be exactly the same, and hence require various levels of validation by FDA and a process from Congress to determine when and if they can be sold - in practice, there may be no possible generic for a biologic drug - FDA may never consider something as bioequivalent if it isn't exactly the same, and, if simply scaling up means it isn't the same, as Genzyme found out, then no one else can make a biologic without retrying it, with the attendant expense and cost to buyers).

Merck's (ex-)drug is more like a me-too/me-better drug - it was intended to be different from the biologic it was modeled after (and more effective), and probably couldn't be considered the same by the FDA. It would have been more like Nexium than generic penicillin, with the consequent risks and potential profits. If me-toos always worked, we ought to have a whole lot more statins than we have now.

Permalink to Comment

3. Jerck on May 18, 2010 1:36 PM writes...

Dr. Peter Kim's head should roll and it is perplexing to many Merck watchers as to why he is still there. This guy scientifically ruined this great company that had a strong credentials in science over the years. He did so with wrong priorities at wrong time and with wrong people around him. MK-2578 was one among many started at his behest, starting with the purchase of Glycofi (a company used to be based in NH that uses yeast to express proteins). He also had notched several failures in late stage clinical trials. Given his track record, I foresee that he will oversee Merck's failings in SIRNA (again, his initiative) and others. He has accumulated breathtaking record of disaster in a decade, while there.

Permalink to Comment

4. Anonymous on May 18, 2010 2:23 PM writes...

Re #3 comments.

The purchase of Rosetta for an incredibly inflated price should also be added to that list: ~$600 million as I recall, and then it disappeared with nary a whimper. Plus it brought along Stephen Friend. His partner in crime, Tony Ford-Hutchinson, should also be fired. He is the only legacy employee left in MRL from the productive days, during a time when MRL's productivity has plummeted. I believe that Tony was the strongest advocate for GlycoFi, because biosimilars would have minimized risk. If I am not mistaken, Tony was also front and center for Vioxx - until the problems arose.

Permalink to Comment

5. Cellbio on May 18, 2010 5:36 PM writes...

Hap, I think you have it mostly right, just add the freedom to operate issue driving development of novel molecules, and the game for Merck was supposed to be about grabbing a piece of the $8 billion dollar market for ESAs without much risk. They were aiming directly at Aranesp without, as much as I can tell, any real advantage in terms of efficacy or convenience, not taking aim at EPO.

That was the plan, now add the risks revealed in recent years by clinical trials sponsored by Amgen, fueled by boneheaded marketing strategies that pushed dosage and hemoglobin target levels as a means to expand sales in a mature market, and the prospects for an Aranesp competitor look bleak.

I wonder if the EPO biosimiliar people have any hesitations. I doubt it.

I also wonder if there are data out there that track biosimiliar activity, like number of biosimiliars for a particular marketed product. I'll bet there is a near perfect correlation with total sales. With the costs associated with biologics development, this means significant money going into developing products for already well served markets. It would be one thing of the offering would greatly lower healthcare costs, or offer a true improvement, but that is not the motivation of the companies I know of; hope I'm wrong.

Permalink to Comment

6. Thumper on May 20, 2010 5:53 AM writes...

Check this link out for a take on the impact of the healthcare reform legislation on the development of generic and follow-on biologics. This is from a company that is actually developing generic biologics.

Permalink to Comment

7. Ashritha on October 6, 2010 7:51 AM writes...

My colleagues and I have authored what we believe is India’s first ever complete mapping of the Biosimilars opportunity in India. The report is nowbeing made available to the general public.
Various issues have been dealt with, such as:
- Patent expirations
- Regulatory frameworks
- Infrastructure Requirements
- Etc.
If anyone is interested in this report, please contact me at (infoalcpl AT gmail DOT com), and I would send you the brochure and other details.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry