Biosimilars and innovation: An analysis of the possibility of increased competition in biopharmaceuticals

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 2, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1641-1649

  Blackstone, Erwin A ^a   Fuhr Jr , Joseph P ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB; CETUXIMAB; GENERIC DRUG; HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE; INFLIXIMAB; NEUPOG; PRALATREXATE; RECOMBINANT ERYTHROPOIETIN; RECOMBINANT GLUCAN 1,4 ALPHA GLUCOSIDASE; RECOMBINANT GRANULOCYTE COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; SORAFENIB; TEVAGRASTIM; TRASTUZUMAB; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VACCINE;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COMPETITION; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEMATOLOGIC MALIGNANCY; HUMAN; IMMUNE RESPONSE; IMMUNOGENICITY; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE RED CELL ANEMIA; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

BIOLOGICAL AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG COSTS; DRUGS, GENERIC; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; THERAPEUTIC EQUIVALENCY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649246941     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.10.248     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Blackstone EA, Fuhr Jr. JP. Unintended consequences: generic competition in the prescription drug market. Med. Pat. Manag. 1(2), 25-43 (2006).
2. Behrendt KE. The Hatch-Waxman Act: balancing competing interests or survival of the fttest? Food and Drug Law Journal 57(2), 247-271 (2002).
3. Eurek S. Hatch-Waxman reform and accelerated market entry of generic drugs: is faster necessarily better? Duke Law and Technology Review. 0018 (2003).
4. Morse MH. Settlement of intellectual property disputes in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries: antitrust rules. George Mason Law Review 10(3), 354-406 (2002).
5. Hollis A. Closing the FDA's Orange Book. Regulation 24(4), 15-17 (2001).
6. Kaufman M. Biotech drugs' generic future debated. Washington Post, 10 February (2005).
7. Federal Trade Commission. Emerging health care issues: follow-on biologic drug competition. Federal Trade Commission Report, June 2009.
8. Milligan D. When biologics go generic; Legal Times 20 June (2005).
9. Thisse M. Working the bugs out of biologics: a look at the access to life-saving medicines act and follow-on biologics. Albany Law J. Sci. Technol. 18, 543-567 (2008).
10. Kaldre I. The future of generic biologics: should the United States follow-on the european pathway. Duke Law and Technology Review 0009 (2008).
11. Dimasi JJ, Grabowski H. The cost of pharmaceutical R & D: is biotech different? Manag. Decision Econ. 28, 467-479 (2007).
12. Standard and Poor's, Biotechnology, Industry Surveys, 1-52, 14 February 2008.
13. Miller JL. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act: the elimination of competition between drug manufacturers, DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 5, 91-110 (2007).
14. Higgins MJ, Graham SJH. Balancing innovation and access: patent challenges tip the scales. Science 326(5951), 370-371 (2009).
15. Standard & Poor's Biotechnology, Industry Surveys, 1-42, 26 February (2009).
16. Grabowski H, Lockburn I, Long G. The market for follow-on biologics: how will it evolve? Health Affairs 25(5), 1291-1301 (2006).
17. Blackstone EA, Fuhr Jr. JP. Why biosimilars will have a smaller competitive edge than generics. J. Health Care Finance 3(2), 84-95 (2008).
18. Grabowski H. Follow-on biologics: data exclusivity and the balance between innovation and competition. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7, 479-488 (2008).
19. Burns LR, Housman MG, Robinson CA. Market entry and exit by biotech and device companies funded by venture capital. Health Affairs 28(1), 76-86 (2009).
20. Mansfeld E. Patents and Innovation. An empirical study. Manag. Sci. 32(2), 173-181 (1986).
21. Gryta T. As Teva continues push for biosimilar, Amgen moves to block it. Wall Street Journal, 3 February (2010).
22. Sahr RN. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act: Innovation Must Come Before Price Competition, Boston College Intellectual Property and Technology Forum, Curr. Law J. (2009).
23. Scherer FM. Industrial market structures and economic performance. Rand McNally, CH, USA (1980).
24. Lichtenberg FR. Are The benefts of newer drugs worth their cost? evidence from the 1996 MEPS. Health Affairs 20(5), 241-251 (2001).
25. Murphy KM, Topel R. The Economic Value of Medical Research, in Measuring the Gains from Medical Research: An Economic Approach. University of Chicago Press (USA) (2003).