Month: December 2025

Immunoglobulin (IG) has long been a specialized area within pharmacy, yet it continues to influence the broader market. As such, it’s important for pharmaceutical professionals to maintain at least a basic understanding of its role and impact. Today’s article offers a deep dive into increasingly turbulent IG waters.

In recent years, the landscape for immunoglobulin (IG) therapies – both intravenous (IVIG) and subcutaneous (SCIG) – has seen a wave of new entrants and formulations. While this offers important opportunities for improved treatment options, it also brings a suite of issues that pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmacies, and clinicians need to navigate carefully.

1. Indication and differentiation complexity
   One major issue is that each IG product has a slightly different approved indication set. As noted in the article, “no one Ig product has all 7 indications.” For pharma companies, the differentiation of new IG products (in terms of indication, concentration [e.g., 10 % vs 5 %], route of administration, stabilizers or excipients) becomes critical—both to claim a niche and to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Hence, strategy around label expansion, off-label usage, and lifecycle management becomes more complex.
2. Supply-chain & raw-material bottlenecks
   IG therapies are inherently dependent on human plasma donation, pooling thousands of donors, with rigorous viral-inactivation and fractionation processes. Demand for IG continues to grow strongly, yet the supply chain remains fragile. For example, the rising demand outstrips production capacity, creating potential shortages and price instability. For manufacturers and supply-chain teams, this means investing in donor centers, securing long-term contracts, and implementing risk mitigation (e.g., alternate sites, geographic diversification).
3. Regulatory & reimbursement pressures
   As IG products expand beyond classical primary immunodeficiency (PID) into autoimmune or neurologic indications, regulators and payers are scrutinizing the evidence base and value proposition. From a pharma perspective, this means that new IG launches must plan for rigorous clinical data, real-world evidence collection, and robust health-technology-assessment (HTA) strategies, especially when positioning new formulations or routes.
4. Product switching and patient transition issues
   With multiple IG brands and new entrants, there are operational challenges in switching patients from one IG product to another (for example when a new formulation is launched, or a payer mandates a change). Patient-and-physician reassurance, monitoring of tolerability and efficacy, and managing logistics (e.g., home infusion set-up) are all non-trivial.
5. Market‐access and cost pressure
   Given the high unit cost of IG therapies, the arrival of new products often raises questions of pricing, rebate strategies, and access. Manufacturers must balance premium positioning (e.g., higher concentration, faster infusion) with payer demands for cost containment and formulary space.

For pharma industry professionals, these five issue areas – indication differentiation, supply chain, regulatory/reimbursement, switching logistics, and market access/cost – represent the top strategic imperatives when launching or managing new IG products.

---

A Deeper Dive into the New IG Products

CLICK HERE to read the full article

Yeah, Yeah….
The message from the article below is preaching to the choir… but this hymn can’t be sung enough.

The central message in this article is that pharmaceutical manufacturers are increasingly relying on “limited-distribution drug (LDD) networks” as a key channel strategy—and that providers seeking to participate must adopt a proactive posture early on to gain access. Specialty pharmacies and provider partners must anticipate and demonstrate the kinds of capabilities manufacturers are now demanding.

Key points for management:

1. Why LDD networks matter: Manufacturers restrict distribution of certain high-cost, high-complexity therapies to a select network of pharmacies and distribution partners in order to maintain tighter control over clinical support, patient outcomes, data capture and risk-management.
2. What manufacturers look for: To be part of an LDD network, pharmacies/partners must showcase robust clinical infrastructure (disease-state expertise, adherence programs), strong data and reporting systems, national accreditations, payer-contracting strength and service models that align with the manufacturer’s goals.
3. What proactive means in practice: Rather than waiting for outreach, provider partners should conduct a “self-assessment” of readiness in those domains, articulate their unique value-proposition (e.g., rare disease specialty, high treatment-touch model), build relationships with manufacturers and internal teams, and present themselves as an extension of the manufacturer’s strategy rather than simply a dispensing partner.
4. Implications for life sciences: For manufacturers, the article suggests careful calibration of network size and partner criteria; for provider organizations, it highlights the competitive nature of gaining LDD network slots and the fact that access can be a differentiator in market strategy.
5. Bottom line: The era of open, commoditized distribution is fading for many specialty therapies. Success now requires alignment of clinical, operational and strategic capabilities—and readiness to demonstrate those proactively.

For life-sciences executives, the takeaway is clear… when planning launch and access strategies for specialty therapies, embed consideration of network partner readiness early and treat LDD network selection as a strategic tool—not an after-thought.

---

Being Proactive a Key to Gaining LDD Network Entry

CLICK HERE to read the full article

The FDA recently approved a new ORAL therapy, Jascayd (nerandomilast) from Boehringer Ingelheim, indicated for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in adult patients. IPF is a rare, progressive disease with no cure and limited treatment options. No other therapy has been approved for IPF in more than a decade.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive lung disease, deadlier than several common cancers, with most patients dying within five years of diagnosis. It mainly affects adults over 50, especially men, and is marked by symptoms such as persistent cough and shortness of breath. The cause is unknown, and about 200,000 people in the U.S. are affected.

CLICK HERE to access prescribing information

The company confirmed the list price of Jascayd at $16,219 per month.

The company did not announce plans for logistics /distribution. Given that it is an ultra-rare, high-cost oral therapy it is strongly felt that Jascayd will be available via specialty pharmacy limited distribution.

---

FDA approves drug to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

CLICK HERE to read the company press release

We’ve often written about white bagging, but today’s spotlight article bears yet another look. A recent NASP survey reinforces what many in specialty pharmacy already know: while awareness of white bagging is high, operational execution continues to vex the field. According to the NASP survey, a majority of respondents report active struggles around logistics, coordination, and financial alignment. 

Key Challenges

·  Supply chain and inventory risk — White bagging shifts the burden of drug delivery timing and storage to the provider site (infusion clinic or hospital) necessitating patient-specific inventory and managing  changes in dosing or therapy last minute that introduces waste, delays, and potential stockouts.

·  Coordination complexity — Because the specialty pharmacy (external to the site) controls dispatch, close coordination is paramount to avoid canceled or deferred infusions.

·  Liability and oversight gaps — When providers do not control procurement, they lose visibility into the handling, storage, and chain of custody of the drug — increasing safety and compliance risk.

·  Payment misalignment — Although payers push white bagging to shift cost structures, providers often lack commensurate reimbursement for the extra handling, scheduling, and inventory burden.

Emerging Solutions and Mitigations

·  Clear or ’in-system’ bagging models are gaining traction… the health system’s own specialty pharmacy procures and delivers to its clinics, maintaining internal control and reducing external dependencies. 

·  Stronger contracting and advance notice: Institutions are demanding advance payer notification, locked-in service-level agreements, and shared liability language in agreements.

·  Technology solutions: Systems that better integrate scheduling, inventory forecasts, and real-time delivery tracking help reduce misfires.

·  Advocacy and policy interventions: Professional bodies are pushing for rules that protect provider autonomy and patient safety, limiting when payers can mandate white bagging. 

The article also addresses a trend that’s emerging alongside white bagging, that of “zero-priced drugs”… drugs or tiers of drugs for which the patient (or provider site) has no out-of-pocket cost. These often include generic or preferred brand drugs, or specific drug classes adding yet another gambit to this four-dimensional chess game.

While payers see cost and control upside, providers face significant operational, clinical, and financial risks. For specialty pharmacy executives and provider leaders, the key is to anticipate these tensions, negotiate rigorously, invest in systems, and preserve clinical flexibility as new distribution policies proliferate.

————————————————————————————-

NASP Survey Spotlights Challenges of White Bagging

CLICK HERE to read the full article

The FDA recently approved a ‘2fer’, two biosimilars for the same reference therapy. The two in question are Bosaya and Aukelso, denosumab biosimilars for all indications of Amgen’s Prolia and Xgeva. Both biosims are from Biocon Biologics Ltd. The FDA also granted provisional interchangeability designation for both biosimilars reinforcing their use for all FDA-approved indications of the reference products.

Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody, supports bone resorption and reduces bone breakdown to increase bone mass and strength. It is most commonly used to treat osteoporosis in women to prevent fractures following menopause (Prolia) and prevent spinal cord compression or the need for radiation/surgery to the bone in patients with multiple myeloma and bone metastases from tumors (Xgeva).

These biosimilars add to an expanding roster of approved competitors. Notably, each new approval introduces two additional ‘branded biosimilar names’ to the market.

The company did not disclose pricing information, nor did it provide details regarding distribution plans for the therapies.

—————————————————————————————–

FDA Approves Bosaya and Aukelso, Biosimilars to Reference Denosumab (Prolia and Xgeva)

CLICK HERE to access the full article

Amid what some would call chaos in the halls of the FDA, HHS, etc., some light came shining through recently. The FDA announced a new collaborative approach to a procedural pathway called Rare Disease Evidence Principles (RDEP) targeted at ultra-rare genetic diseases. Under RDEP, drugs and biologics that meet defined criteria may engage earlier with FDA’s review teams to pre-negotiate what evidence can support a “substantial evidence of effectiveness” determination. FDA is signaling that it will more explicitly consider nontraditional evidence (e.g., single-arm trials, external control arms, natural history studies).

Eligibility for the RDEP pathway is limited and sponsors must meet specific requirements:

• address a known inborn genetic defect whose dysfunction is a principal driver of disease;
• target a very small patient population (often < 1,000 in the U.S.);
• treat a disease with severe progressive deterioration (rapid disability or mortality);
• have no adequate alternative therapies; and
• directly correct or replace the defective gene or protein.

Once accepted, sponsors may benefit from a meeting with FDA to agree on required evidence and clarify what confirmatory or supportive data the agency will accept. However, post-marketing obligations may increase for products approved under RDEP.

For pharmaceutical manufacturers, key issues include:

• Strategic planning: early determination whether a therapy qualifies for RDEP and timing of the meeting request.
• Trial design flexibility: need to justify use of single-arm designs, external/natural history controls, or novel endpoints in lieu of large, randomized trials.
• Regulatory risk: despite flexibility in evidence considerations, the “substantial evidence” legal standard remains unchanged, so the burden of persuasion stays high.
• Post-approval commitments: increased post marketing study or monitoring obligations.

Opportunities include:

• Faster, more efficient development pathways, with earlier regulatory clarity.
• Reduced trial size and burden where patient recruitment is inherently constrained.
• Enhanced collaboration possibilities with FDA — sponsors can negotiate evidence expectations up front, reducing uncertainty.
• Differentiation and leadership in gene therapy / rare disease portfolio development, especially for biopharma firms with relevant platforms.

---

New FDA approval process promotes development of rare disease gene therapies

CLICK HERE to read the full analysis

Cigna’s Evernorth Health Services is making a bold move in the specialty pharmacy space with a $3.5 billion investment in Shields Health Solutions. The deal comes on the heels of Sycamore Partners’ $10 billion acquisition of Walgreens, which carved Shields into a standalone company. The question remains….Is this price a wise investment for Evernorth?

Expanding a Strategic Footprint
Evernorth already commands significant scale through Express Scripts and Accredo, serving patients with complex therapies and infusion needs. Shields adds a new dimension: deep integration with health systems. With 80+ partnerships spanning more than 1,000 hospitals and clinics nationwide, Shields gives Evernorth a golden key to these provider networks, a critical differentiator as care delivery becomes increasingly fragmented across home, clinic, and hospital settings.

The Specialty Cost Imperative
Specialty drugs, from hepatis C to cell & gene therapies, now account for well over half of prescription spending in the US. Employers and payers report specialty costs consuming 60% or more of total drug budgets, making them the single biggest driver of pharmacy spend. This reality underscores why specialty pharmacy isn’t just a growth area… it’s the battleground for cost, access, and value in U.S. healthcare…. and large health systems have real leverage with manufacturers enabling access to even the highest cost, limited access drugs.

What It Means for the Market
Evernorth’s bet on Shields reflects a larger trend: integration across the pharmacy, payer, and provider landscape. As more high-cost therapies reach the market, the companies best positioned to manage specialty spend will be those that can control distribution channels, deliver clinical support, and align with health systems. Suddenly, $3.5 billion starts to look like a bargain price.

---

Cigna’s Evernorth Invests $3.5 Billion In Specialty Pharmacy Formerly Owned By Walgreens

CLICK HERE to read the article