Manufacturers Face New Challenges Battling Global Threats
Washington Report
Manufacturers Face New Challenges Battling Global Threats (continued)
Stepping up oversight
In the event of a pandemic outbreak, manufacturers and regulators also
will be looking to shift production capacity from other therapies to
produce vaccine to attack that influenza strain. In anticipation of
such a move, FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER), which has put vaccine licensing and quality assurance at the
top of its priority list, says it will regard a vaccine for a pandemic
flu strain from a licensed manufacturer as a product undergoing a
routine change and thus require only a supplement application for
approval. The agency also may offer accelerated approval to new vaccine
sponsors, using antibody levels as surrogate markers for efficacy.
Another CBER goal is to be more aware of possible manufacturing
problems that could curtail vaccine production, as seen at Chiron's
UK facility this past year. The agency now plans to conduct good
manufacturing practices inspections of flu vaccine manufacturers
annually instead of every two years. This recognizes that complex
manufacturing issues may arise when producing new influenza vaccines
each year. The hope is that recently inspected manufacturers will be
well positioned to quickly develop and produce a vaccine in the event
of a pandemic.
FDA also has signed information-sharing agreements with British and other regulators from countries
where vaccines are produced for US distribution. The aim is to
facilitate access to information on problems that arise from
manufacturing inspections and to better communicate information on new
technologies in manufacturing operations.
One sign of progress is that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced in May
that it has filed a license application for its Fluarix vaccine, which
is produced in Europe. GSK plans to provide 10 million doses of the
product for the 2005–2006 flu season once the application is
approved.
At the same time, Chiron recently acknowledged that it probably will
not meet earlier predictions for resuming full production of flu
vaccine at its UK facility. The company now expects to produce 18–26
million doses of its Fluvirin vaccine for the 2005–2006 flu season,
instead of the 25–30 million doses predicted a few months ago.
Chiron attributes the reduction to delays in ramping up production of
the third of three prevalent flu vaccine strains. Chiron must retrain
more than 100 production workers involved in quality control activities
plus integrate hundreds of manufacturing process changes into its newly
overhauled production system. FDA was scheduled to inspect the
re-engineered facility in July, which will determine the company's
ability to begin shipping vaccine in September.
Countering bioterrorism
Many of the challenges confronting vaccine manufacturers during an
influenza pandemic also affect the development of treatments to counter
potential bioterrorist attacks. Congress approved Project BioShield
legislation in July 2004 after months of debate. That bill provides
funding for government purchase of vaccines and therapies for national
stockpiles and supports R&D funding for biopharmaceutical companies
developing new treatments. It also allows FDA to authorize emergency
use of unapproved new products and permits the agency to approve
countermeasures on the basis of animal testing.
The policy has generated little enthusiasm among pharmaceutical
companies, however, primarily because it fails to shield manufacturers
from lawsuits related to anti-bioterrorism products. In response,
members of Congress who want to spur industry investment in this area
have been crafting BioShield II legislation. Senators Orrin Hatch
(R-UT), Joe Lieberman (D-CN), and Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced a
bill (S. 975) that aims to assure the biopharmaceutical industry
that the government will be a reliable partner in this high-risk
R&D field. Key provisions expand liability protections, boost tax
incentives for countermeasure development, and support FDA fast-track
approval of such treatments. Manufacturers have called on Congress to
remedy the "valley of death"—the gap between funds available
for basic research to document scientific proof of principle and actual
procurement orders from federal agencies—in financial support for
countermeasures. Small biopharmaceutical companies interested in
pursuing counter-terrorism projects maintain that they need public
funding to move from the lab into commercial production because they
cannot raise private capital for such high-risk projects without
purchase agreements in hand.
New BioShield legislation also aims to be more explicit about offering
R&D incentives for dual-use medical products that combat infectious
diseases as well as bioterrorist chemicals. Although the proposed bill
primarily encourages government funding for medical countermeasures, it
recognizes that many new treatments will be appropriate for the
civilian market for antibiotics and could be important in combating
diseases in the developing nations, where malaria and tuberculosis have
become resistant to current drugs.
Even though proposals to indemnify pharmaceutical companies have drawn
fire, the big fight is over proposals to enhance intellectual property
protections. A highly contentious provision would award companies that
develop biodefense products "wild card" patents (i.e., up to two
years extended exclusivity on another company product). Generic-drug
makers as well as pharmacy benefit managers insist that such
legislation will delay competition from low-cost generics and raise
pharmaceutical costs for public and private healthcare programs.
The wild card provision is likely to be dropped as Senate leaders move
to combine more acceptable provisions of this and other biodefense
measures into a bill with sufficient bipartisan support to gain
approval. With six Senate committees evaluating various sections of
Bioshield proposals, there will be ample opportunity to debate whether
the legislation is a giveaway to pharmaceutical manufacturers or a
reasonable approach to spurring new countermeasure development. PT