Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Economic issues with follow-on protein products

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 7, pages 733–737 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

The economic effects of the possible introduction of 'follow-on' protein products have been the subject of recent debate. Here, we aim to explore the economic issues surrounding this debate using three measures: total sales, product complexity and patent expiry. Our analysis shows that the sales of therapeutic protein products are concentrated in a relatively small number of branded products, which may be the most attractive targets for follow-on development. For the years 2013–2015, we estimate that products representing US$20 billion in annual sales — approximately half of all sales in 2006 — can be expected to lose patent protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Therapeutic protein products displayed by US sales and molecular weight.
Figure 2: Selected therapeutic protein products by product class.
Figure 3: Current sales and estimated patent expiry of selected protein products.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Express Scripts. Press release 25 April. Biotech Drug Spending Increases 21 Percent Even as Growth in Rx Expenditure Slows. Express Scripts web site [online], (2007).

  2. IMS Health. IMS National Sales Perspectives: Retail and Non-Retail Combined Purchases, January–December 2006 (2007).

  3. Bhattycharyya, L. et al. Equivalence studies for complex active ingredients and dosage forms, matrix of protein types. AAPS J. 7, e786–e812 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sheridan, C. First generic biologics finally approved. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 445 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Aggarwal, S. What's fueling the biotech engine? Nature Biotech. 25, 1097–1104 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Manheim, B. S. Jr, Granahan, P. & Dow, K. J. 'Follow-on biologics': ensuring continued innovation in the biotechnology industry. Health Aff. 25, 394–404 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). A Brief Primer on Manufacturing Therapeutic Proteins. BIO web site [online], (2002).

  8. Grabowski, H. G. Statement before Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (COGR), United States House of Representatives. COGR web site [online], (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grabowski, H. G., Cockburn, I. & Long, G. The market for follow-on biologics: how will it evolve? Health Aff. 25, 1291–1301 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Woodcock, J. et al. The FDA's assessment of follow-on protein products: a historical perspective. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 437–442 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Woodcock, J. Statement before Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (COGR), United States House of Representatives. COGR web site [online], (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Engel & Novitt, LLP . Potential Savings That Might Be Realized By the Medicare Program From Enactment Of Legislation Such As The Access To Life-Saving Medicine Act (H.R.6257/S.4016) That Establishes A New cBLA Pathway For Follow-On Biologics. A Report To Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) Based Upon A Preliminary Assessment Of Available Data. PCMA web site[online], (2007).

  13. Miller, S. & Houts, J. Potential Savings of Biogenerics in The United States. Express Scripts web site [online], (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ahlstrom, A., King, R., Brown, R., Glaudemans, J. & Mendelson, D. Modeling Federal Cost Savings from Follow-On Biologics. Alvare Health web site [online], (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. S. 1695 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2007. CBO website [online], (2008).

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Disclaimer: this article was prepared by the authors in their private capacities. No official support or endorsement by the US Food and Drug Administration is intended or should be inferred.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michael Lanthier, Rachel Behrman and Clark Nardinelli are at the US Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, USA.,

    Michael Lanthier, Rachel Behrman & Clark Nardinelli

Authors
  1. Michael Lanthier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Behrman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Clark Nardinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Lanthier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lanthier, M., Behrman, R. & Nardinelli, C. Economic issues with follow-on protein products. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7, 733–737 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2636

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2636

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing