Biosimilar underutilization alone does not foretell a broken biologics market.

Biosimilars offer the potential for cost savings and expanded access to biologic products; however, there are concerns regarding the rate of biosimilar uptake. We assessed the relationship between biosimilar and originator pricing, coverage, and market share by describing four case studies that fall into two categories: (1) sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred; biosimilar(s) non-preferred), defined as steep average sales price (ASP) reductions for originator products (decline in net prices by at least 50% following the introduction of biosimilar competition by 2022) and (2) non-sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred alongside biosimilar products), defined as moderate ASP reductions for originator products with (net prices did not decline by at least 50% of its pre-biosimilar competition value). We found that originators with sole preferred coverage strategies maintained formulary preference and market share relative to originators with non-sole preferred coverage strategies. Regardless of strategy, the market-weighted ASP for all four product families (originator and biosimilars) declined significantly in the years following the introduction of biosimilars, suggesting that biosimilar uptake alone may not be a complete measure of whether the biosimilar market is facilitating competition and lowering prices.

The Economics of Colon Cancer.

The economic burden of cancer on the national health expenditure is billions of dollars. The economic cost is measured on direct and indirect medical costs, which vary depending on stage at diagnosis, patient age, type of medical services, and site of service. Costs vary by region, physician behavior, and patient preferences. When analyzing the economic burden of survivors of colon cancer, we cannot forget the societal burden. Post-acute care and readmissions are major economic burdens. People with colon cancer have to be followed for their lifetime. Economic models are being studied to give cost-effective solutions to this problem.

Comparing the Cost of Treatment with Octreotide Long-Acting Release versus Lanreotide in Patients with Metastatic Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The 2 somatostatin analogs currently recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) include octreotide long-acting release (Sandostatin LAR) for injectable suspension and lanreotide (Somatuline Depot) injection for subcutaneous use. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs to payers associated with 30-mg octreotide LAR and 120-mg lanreotide treatment among patients with metastatic GI-NETs. METHODS: The costs to payers associated with the 2 drugs were estimated by including the costs of each drug, drug administration, and adverse events. The unit drug costs for octreotide LAR and for lanreotide were obtained from ReadyPrice Wholesale Acquisition Cost; the doses were obtained from published studies. The adverse event rates were obtained from 2 phase 3 clinical trials, PROMID and CLARINET. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of modifying assumptions and inputs on the results, including the 2017 Average Sales Price (ASP). All costs were estimated in 2016 US dollars, with a constant discount of 3%. RESULTS: The costs to payers associated with the treatment of GI-NETs during 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons were $74,566, $180,082, and $262,344, respectively, for octreotide LAR and $84,856, $205,562, and $299,667, respectively, for lanreotide. Thus, octreotide LAR was associated with lower costs by $10,290 (1 year), $25,480 (3 years), and $37,323 (5 years) compared with lanreotide. Over a 5-year horizon, the costs of adverse events and administration accounted for 0.72% of the total cost for octreotide LAR and 0.51% of the total cost for lanreotide. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the main factor affecting the cost difference was the price of the drugs; analyses using the ASP yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: For the management of metastatic GI-NETs, the cost to payers of treatment with 30-mg octreotide LAR is considerably lower than with 120-mg lanreotide over 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons. In the presence of healthcare resource constraints, these findings may support decision-making when considering the care of patients with metastatic GI-NETs.