Share This Page
ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE Drug Patent Profile
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Which patents cover Rosiglitazone Maleate And Metformin Hydrochloride, and when can generic versions of Rosiglitazone Maleate And Metformin Hydrochloride launch?
Rosiglitazone Maleate And Metformin Hydrochloride is a drug marketed by Teva and is included in one NDA.
The generic ingredient in ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE is metformin hydrochloride; rosiglitazone maleate. There is one drug master file entry for this compound. Additional details are available on the metformin hydrochloride; rosiglitazone maleate profile page.
AI Deep Research
Questions you can ask:
- What is the 5 year forecast for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE?
- What are the global sales for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE?
- What is Average Wholesale Price for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE?
Summary for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE
| US Patents: | 0 |
| Applicants: | 1 |
| NDAs: | 1 |
| Raw Ingredient (Bulk) Api Vendors: | 3 |
| Clinical Trials: | 5 |
| DailyMed Link: | ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE at DailyMed |
Recent Clinical Trials for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE
Identify potential brand extensions & 505(b)(2) entrants
| Sponsor | Phase |
|---|---|
| GlaxoSmithKline | Phase 1 |
| Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. | Phase 3 |
| Daiichi Sankyo Inc. | Phase 3 |
See all ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE clinical trials
US Patents and Regulatory Information for ROSIGLITAZONE MALEATE AND METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE
Rosiglitazone Maleate and Metformin Hydrochloride: Market Dynamics, Patent Exposure, and Financial Trajectory
Rosiglitazone maleate and metformin hydrochloride, commercialized primarily as Avandamet, moved from a combination-product growth opportunity to a low-value, largely generic market. The product combined rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizer, with metformin, a first-line type 2 diabetes treatment. Its commercial decline was driven by cardiovascular-safety restrictions on rosiglitazone, strong generic competition, loss of patent protection, and the availability of cheaper metformin-based alternatives.
Standalone Avandamet revenue was not separately reported by GlaxoSmithKline. The relevant financial proxy is the broader Avandia franchise, which included rosiglitazone monotherapy, Avandamet, and Avandaryl. That franchise generated more than $2 billion annually at its peak but declined sharply after cardiovascular-risk concerns intensified and US prescribing restrictions were imposed.
What is rosiglitazone maleate and metformin hydrochloride?
Rosiglitazone maleate and metformin hydrochloride is an oral fixed-dose combination for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. It contains:
| Component | Pharmacologic class | Primary action |
|---|---|---|
| Rosiglitazone maleate | Thiazolidinedione, or TZD | Activates PPAR-gamma and improves insulin sensitivity |
| Metformin hydrochloride | Biguanide | Reduces hepatic glucose production and improves insulin sensitivity |
The product was designed for patients who required more than metformin alone or who were already receiving both agents separately. Avandamet tablets were marketed in multiple strengths, including combinations of rosiglitazone 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg with metformin 500 mg or 1,000 mg, depending on market and formulation.
Rosiglitazone carries clinically important risks, including fluid retention, edema, weight gain, heart failure exacerbation, fractures, and hypoglycemia when used with other glucose-lowering drugs. Metformin carries gastrointestinal tolerability issues and a rare risk of lactic acidosis, particularly in patients with significant renal impairment. The combination therefore had a narrower commercial profile than metformin-based combinations involving newer agents.
When was Avandamet approved and how did its market evolve?
The US Food and Drug Administration approved Avandamet in 2002 under NDA 021410. GlaxoSmithKline positioned the product as a convenient alternative to separate rosiglitazone and metformin tablets (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2002).
The commercial trajectory had four phases:
| Period | Market phase | Commercial effect |
|---|---|---|
| 2002-2006 | Launch and expansion | Combination therapy benefited from Avandia franchise growth |
| 2007-2010 | Safety controversy | Cardiovascular-risk debate began reducing prescribing confidence |
| 2010-2014 | Regulatory restriction | US access and promotion declined sharply |
| 2015 onward | Generic and legacy market | Brand economics deteriorated; product became commercially marginal |
Avandia franchise sales peaked before the full impact of the safety controversy. GSK reported Avandia sales of approximately £1.6 billion in 2006, followed by substantial declines in subsequent years. Avandamet was not reported as a separate revenue line, so its exact contribution cannot be isolated from public company filings (GlaxoSmithKline, 2007).
What regulatory actions affected rosiglitazone sales?
The major commercial shock came from regulatory action concerning cardiovascular risk.
In 2010, the FDA required a restricted distribution and prescribing framework for rosiglitazone products after reviewing evidence concerning myocardial infarction and other cardiovascular outcomes. The restrictions limited prescribing largely to patients who could not achieve adequate glycemic control with other medicines or who were already benefiting from rosiglitazone (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010).
The FDA later removed major elements of the restricted-access program in 2013 after reviewing updated data, including results from the RECORD study and a reanalysis requested by the agency. The removal of restrictions did not restore the product to its prior commercial position because physicians had already shifted toward other diabetes therapies and payers had little incentive to favor rosiglitazone (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2013).
The regulatory sequence damaged the brand in three ways:
- It reduced new patient starts.
- It weakened physician confidence in the entire rosiglitazone franchise.
- It accelerated payer and formulary preference for generic metformin, sulfonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors.
What is the FDA and Orange Book status of Avandamet?
Avandamet is a legacy FDA-approved product. The original US application was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The product is not a current growth brand in the US market, and its commercial importance has diminished substantially following product discontinuation and generic substitution.
The key regulatory distinctions are:
- The product’s original FDA approval established the fixed-dose combination.
- Rosiglitazone and metformin are small molecules, not biologics.
- The product is subject to abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, competition rather than biosimilar competition.
- The original product’s patent-based exclusivity has expired.
- FDA safety restrictions materially reduced the economic value of any remaining brand rights.
The FDA’s discontinued-drug records and Orange Book framework distinguish products that are discontinued for commercial reasons from products withdrawn for safety or effectiveness. Avandamet’s market decline reflects both commercial discontinuation and the loss of viable demand; it does not create a current biologic-style reference-product exclusivity position (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.-a).
How many patents protect rosiglitazone and metformin?
The meaningful US patent estate for the combination has expired or lost practical commercial value.
Rosiglitazone patent protection
Rosiglitazone was protected primarily through composition-of-matter and related pharmaceutical patents held by SmithKline Beecham and later GlaxoSmithKline. The core patent term ended around the period when generic rosiglitazone products became commercially possible. Pediatric exclusivity and regulatory extensions did not create a long-term barrier to generic entry.
Metformin patent protection
Metformin is an old generic drug with no commercially meaningful composition-of-matter exclusivity in the US. Its low manufacturing cost and broad availability made it an unfavorable component for premium pricing unless paired with a strongly differentiated second agent.
Combination patents
Any formulation or combination claims covering rosiglitazone plus metformin had limited remaining value after the core rosiglitazone patent expired. A combination patent would not have protected the individual active ingredients from generic competition unless its claims were sufficiently narrow and enforceable against the proposed generic product.
The practical patent conclusion is straightforward: patent protection did not preserve Avandamet revenue after the rosiglitazone franchise lost clinical and regulatory momentum.
When did rosiglitazone lose exclusivity?
Rosiglitazone lost effective commercial exclusivity in the early 2010s. The precise economic loss of exclusivity differed by jurisdiction and dosage form, but the core US composition protection had expired by the period when generic rosiglitazone products entered or became legally available.
The commercial loss of exclusivity occurred earlier than the complete disappearance of the brand from clinical use. A drug can retain prescriptions after patent expiry, but Avandamet had several disadvantages:
- Generic metformin was already widely available.
- Rosiglitazone had a damaged safety profile.
- Doctors could prescribe the components separately.
- Competing combinations offered newer mechanisms.
- Payers had no reason to pay a premium for the fixed-dose product.
Which companies challenged or competed with Avandamet?
Competition came from both generic manufacturers and branded diabetes companies.
Generic manufacturers
Potential or actual generic competition involved companies active in oral antidiabetic products, including:
- Teva Pharmaceuticals
- Mylan, now part of Viatris
- Sandoz
- Lupin
- Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
- Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
- Torrent Pharmaceuticals
- regional manufacturers in Europe, India, Latin America, and other markets
The most important competitive mechanism was not necessarily a large number of direct rosiglitazone/metformin tablets. It was therapeutic substitution. Generic metformin plus another agent often replaced the fixed-dose combination without requiring a direct generic copy of Avandamet.
Branded competitors
Avandamet competed with:
- Metformin plus sulfonylureas
- Metformin plus DPP-4 inhibitors
- Metformin plus GLP-1 receptor agonists
- Metformin plus SGLT2 inhibitors
- Pioglitazone/metformin combinations
- Insulin-based regimens for advanced disease
The shift toward GLP-1 and SGLT2 therapies was especially important because these classes offered cardiovascular, renal, or weight-related benefits that rosiglitazone did not provide.
What formulations were protected by Avandamet patents?
The commercial product was an immediate-release oral tablet containing fixed strengths of rosiglitazone and metformin. The relevant protection would have covered some combination of:
- The active ingredient combination
- Specific dosage ratios
- Tablet composition
- Manufacturing methods
- Use in patients inadequately controlled on monotherapy
Formulation protection was weaker than clinical differentiation. Even where a particular tablet composition remained technically distinct, physicians could use separate rosiglitazone and metformin tablets. That substitution reduced the value of fixed-dose formulation claims.
Extended-release metformin products and newer combination products also competed for adherence benefits. A fixed-dose tablet did not provide sufficient differentiation once the rosiglitazone safety profile became a prescribing concern.
Did Avandamet face Paragraph IV challenges?
A generic applicant can file a Paragraph IV certification asserting that an Orange Book-listed patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. Avandamet’s relevant patent estate was exposed to this pathway after the core rosiglitazone protection approached expiration.
Publicly visible commercial impact from Paragraph IV litigation was limited compared with major blockbuster products. The more important event was the disappearance of meaningful brand economics. Even a successful patent defense would not have restored the pre-2010 market because prescribing restrictions and safety concerns had already reduced demand.
For investors and licensing parties, Avandamet should be treated as an expired small-molecule combination with low litigation value, not as an active patent-enforcement asset.
What litigation affected rosiglitazone?
Rosiglitazone faced extensive litigation and regulatory scrutiny relating to alleged cardiovascular injuries and the adequacy of risk disclosures. The litigation environment included:
- Product-liability claims involving myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events
- Regulatory review of clinical-trial evidence
- Congressional and public scrutiny of safety communications
- Disputes concerning the interpretation of cardiovascular-risk data
These matters increased legal costs and weakened the commercial franchise. They also reduced the probability that GSK could maintain premium pricing for Avandamet or rebuild physician demand after the restrictions were relaxed.
What is the financial trajectory of rosiglitazone and Avandamet?
The financial trajectory was sharply negative.
| Financial driver | Early commercial period | Later period |
|---|---|---|
| Brand pricing | Premium branded pricing | Generic and payer-driven pricing |
| Prescriber demand | Broad use in type 2 diabetes | Restricted and declining use |
| Product mix | Avandia franchise growth | Substitution by other drug classes |
| Marketing return | High | Low |
| Manufacturing scale | Blockbuster-scale potential | Small legacy volumes |
| Litigation exposure | Manageable | Material product-liability burden |
| Strategic value | Core diabetes asset | Non-core or discontinued product |
GSK’s Avandia franchise was one of its major commercial products before the safety controversy. GSK’s annual reports documented a significant decline in Avandia sales after the US prescribing restrictions and broader safety debate (GlaxoSmithKline, 2008, 2011).
Avandamet’s revenue exposure was smaller than total Avandia franchise revenue because Avandia monotherapy represented a large portion of the portfolio. Still, the combination product was affected by the same clinical concerns. Its financial value declined faster than a typical mature brand because:
- The second ingredient, metformin, was inexpensive and generic.
- The rosiglitazone component was clinically controversial.
- Generic substitution could occur through separate tablets.
- The product lacked a durable reimbursement advantage.
- No meaningful patent-based premium remained.
How does Avandamet compare with pioglitazone/metformin?
Pioglitazone/metformin had a similar mechanism profile but a stronger commercial position in some markets because pioglitazone avoided the same degree of rosiglitazone-specific cardiovascular controversy.
| Factor | Rosiglitazone/metformin | Pioglitazone/metformin |
|---|---|---|
| Drug class | TZD plus biguanide | TZD plus biguanide |
| Core safety concern | Cardiovascular-risk controversy, edema, heart failure | Edema, heart failure, weight gain, fracture risk |
| Generic status | Generic and legacy | Generic and legacy |
| Prescribing trend | Sharp decline | More persistent use in selected markets |
| Premium potential | Very low | Very low |
| Current strategic value | Limited | Limited but generally broader historical acceptance |
Both combinations face competition from newer diabetes therapies. Neither has the growth profile of GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors.
What generic entry risks exist for Avandamet?
Generic entry risk is effectively realized rather than prospective. The principal risks are:
- Direct ANDA competition against the fixed-dose tablet
- Substitution with generic metformin plus another glucose-lowering drug
- Hospital and payer formulary exclusion
- Parallel international competition from low-cost manufacturers
- Physician avoidance of rosiglitazone because of safety history
Manufacturing barriers are low. The active ingredients are established small molecules with well-understood analytical methods and conventional tablet manufacturing requirements. No complex biologic process, device platform, sterile facility, or specialized delivery technology protects the product.
What is the international market position?
Outside the US, rosiglitazone availability has varied by country. Some regulators restricted, suspended, or removed rosiglitazone products, while others maintained more limited use. Generic fixed-dose combinations may continue to appear in markets where local approvals remain active or where prescribing restrictions are less stringent.
Geographic commercial value depends on:
- Local regulatory treatment of rosiglitazone
- Generic price controls
- Availability of pioglitazone
- National diabetes-treatment guidelines
- Physician concern regarding heart failure and cardiovascular outcomes
- Local manufacturing and distribution agreements
The highest remaining demand is likely in price-sensitive markets where older oral therapies remain common. That demand does not translate into substantial originator revenue because local markets are highly genericized.
What licensing deals affect rosiglitazone/metformin?
No major current licensing transaction is central to the commercial outlook for Avandamet. The product was developed and commercialized within the SmithKline Beecham and GlaxoSmithKline corporate structure. Later-stage commercial activity was shaped more by discontinuation, generic supply, and regulatory restrictions than by strategic licensing.
Any remaining licensing value would be local and supply-oriented rather than based on global exclusivity. A transaction involving the product would likely focus on registration rights, manufacturing rights, or regional distribution rather than a premium commercial asset.
What is the competitive outlook for type 2 diabetes drugs?
The market has moved decisively away from rosiglitazone/metformin toward therapies with differentiated clinical outcomes.
| Segment | Market position |
|---|---|
| Metformin | Low-cost foundational therapy |
| Sulfonylureas | Low-cost but increasingly mature |
| DPP-4 inhibitors | Established, but facing patent expiry in several products |
| SGLT2 inhibitors | Strong growth due to cardiovascular and renal benefits |
| GLP-1 receptor agonists | Strong growth due to glucose control and weight reduction |
| Thiazolidinediones | Mature, low-cost, safety-limited |
| Rosiglitazone/metformin | Legacy combination with minimal growth potential |
The combination has no credible path to renewed blockbuster status. Its remaining market is maintenance-oriented, price-sensitive, and concentrated in jurisdictions where older oral therapies are still widely used.
Key Takeaways
- Avandamet is the principal historical brand associated with rosiglitazone maleate and metformin hydrochloride.
- FDA approval occurred in 2002 under NDA 021410.
- The broader Avandia franchise exceeded $2 billion in annual sales at its peak, but Avandamet revenue was not separately disclosed.
- Cardiovascular-risk restrictions beginning in 2010 caused a major and lasting decline in demand.
- US patent protection for the active ingredients and commercially relevant combination claims has expired or lost practical value.
- The product faces generic competition rather than biosimilar competition.
- Direct generic substitution is less important than therapeutic substitution with newer diabetes medicines.
- No major current licensing transaction supports a meaningful commercial recovery.
- Manufacturing barriers are low because the product uses established small-molecule APIs and conventional tablets.
- The financial outlook is legacy, low-margin, and geographically fragmented.
FAQs
Is rosiglitazone metformin still sold in the United States?
The original Avandamet brand is a legacy or discontinued US product. Any remaining availability depends on FDA-listed generic products, pharmacy inventory, and current manufacturer status.
Does rosiglitazone metformin have biosimilar competition?
No. Rosiglitazone and metformin are small-molecule drugs. Competition proceeds through generic drug applications, not the FDA biosimilar pathway.
Is Avandamet safer than taking rosiglitazone and metformin separately?
The fixed-dose combination does not remove the known risks of rosiglitazone or metformin. Its principal advantage was dosing convenience rather than a distinct safety benefit.
Can a company obtain new patents on rosiglitazone metformin?
New patents could theoretically cover a genuinely novel formulation, use, dosage regimen, or manufacturing process. Such claims would not restore the expired composition-of-matter exclusivity and would face substantial validity and obviousness scrutiny.
Why did Avandamet lose value faster than many older diabetes medicines?
Its decline combined patent expiry with a severe safety-related loss of physician confidence. Because metformin was already inexpensive and widely available, prescribers could replace the product without sacrificing access to the combination’s foundational therapy.
References
-
GlaxoSmithKline. (2007). Annual report 2006. GlaxoSmithKline plc.
-
GlaxoSmithKline. (2008). Annual report 2007. GlaxoSmithKline plc.
-
GlaxoSmithKline. (2011). Annual report 2010. GlaxoSmithKline plc.
-
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2002). Avandamet prescribing information. FDA.
-
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). FDA drug safety communication: Ongoing evaluation of Avandia, rosiglitazone, and cardiovascular risk. FDA.
-
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). FDA requires removal of certain restrictions on prescribing and dispensing rosiglitazone-containing diabetes medicines. FDA.
-
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.-a). Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations, Orange Book. FDA.
More… ↓
