Introducing biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapy products.

This article provides an early analysis of the potential for creating future biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapies (CGTs) to lower prices and improve patient access, building on a unique set of interviews with relevant experts. Our discussion addressed regulatory, manufacturing, intellectual property, and market size challenges. Due to CGTs' complexity, meeting the regulatory requirement of 'high similarity with no clinically meaningful differences' will be difficult. Gene therapies are likely better candidates for biosimilar development than cell therapies. Biosimilarity should be met when gene therapy biosimilars contain the same genetic sequence as a reference product, and the variability in the vector meets the high similarity standard. Manufacturing challenges, including the lack of standardized platforms, high production costs, and complexity, pose significant obstacles. It may also be important to demonstrate biosimilarity within the manufacturing process. Intellectual property barriers, specifically patenting, trade secrecy, and regulatory exclusivity, could hinder biosimilars' ability to gain market share, although recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the breadth of patent claims could ease barriers to future CGT competition, including from biosimilars. Finally, inadequate market sizes might create hurdles, especially for curative treatments, as patient pools shrink following treatment by the reference CGT.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested. RESULTS: Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments.

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Systematic review: effectiveness and safety of switching between originator infliximab and biosimilar infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION: Infliximab (IFX) biosimilars are available to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), offering cost reductions versus originator IFX in some jurisdictions. However, concerns remain regarding the efficacy and safety of originator-to-biosimilar switching. This systematic literature review evaluated safety and effectiveness of switching between IFX products in patients with IBD, including multiple switchers. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to capture studies (2012-2022) including patients with IBD who switched between approved IFX products. Effectiveness outcomes: disease activity; disease severity; response to treatment; patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety outcomes: incidence and rate of adverse events (AEs); discontinuations due to AEs, failure rate; hospitalizations; surgeries. Immunogenicity outcomes (n, %): anti-drug antibodies; patients receiving concomitant immunomodulatory medication. RESULTS: Data from 85 publications (81 observational, two randomized controlled trials) were included. Clinical effectiveness outcomes were consistent with the known profile of originator IFX with no difference after switching. There were no unexpected/serious AEs after switching, and rates of AEs were generally consistent with the known profile of IFX. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported that clinical, PROs, and safety outcomes for originator-to-biosimilar switching were clinically equivalent to originator responses. Limited data are available regarding multiple switches. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42021289144.

Cancer treatment with biosimilar drugs: A review.

Biosimilars are biological drugs created from living organisms or that contain living components. They share an identical amino-acid sequence and immunogenicity. These drugs are considered to be cost-effective and are utilized in the treatment of cancer and other endocrine disorders. The primary aim of biosimilars is to predict biosimilarity, efficacy, and treatment costs; they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and have no clinical implications. They involve analytical studies to understand the similarities and dissimilarities. A biosimilar manufacturer sets up FDA-approved reference products to evaluate biosimilarity. The contribution of next-generation sequencing is evolving to study the organ tumor and its progression with its impactful therapeutic approach on cancer patients to showcase and target rare mutations. The study shall help to understand the future perspectives of biosimilars for use in gastro-entero-logic diseases, colorectal cancer, and thyroid cancer. They also help target specific organs with essential mutational categories and drug prototypes in clinical practices with blood and liquid biopsy, cell treatment, gene therapy, recombinant therapeutic proteins, and personalized medications. Biosimilar derivatives such as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab and rituximab are common drugs used in cancer therapy. Escherichia coli produces more than six antibodies or antibody-derived proteins to treat cancer such as filgrastim, epoetin alfa, and so on.

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.

Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations.

Biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic are innovative approaches in medical research. This commentary addresses the current disparities in regulations of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products across different nations. It also navigates the benefits of global regulatory alignment and challenges that may be encountered. The current discrepancies in regulations across different countries, which pose significant challenges for the development and approval of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products. These disparities often lead to delayed market access, increased development costs, and hindered innovation. The commentary stresses that such obstacles could be mitigated through harmonized regulations, resulting in faster approvals, reduced healthcare costs, and improved patient outcomes. Moreover, the commentary explores the specific complexities associated with biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic, such as the intricate evaluation of biosimilarity due to their molecular composition and immunogenic properties. In conclusion, the editorial advocates for collaborative efforts to overcome the challenges in achieving global regulatory harmonization for biosimilars. This includes establishing uniform standards, fostering international cooperation among regulatory agencies, and promoting educational initiatives for healthcare providers and regulators. The ultimate goal is to ensure that patients worldwide have timely access to safe, effective, and affordable biosimilar treatments.

Analysis of the situation of pharmaceutical care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. / Análisis de la situación de la atención farmacéutica a pacientes con enfermedades inflamatorias inmunomediadas antes y después de la pandemia COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe, analyze and compare the situation of pharmaceutical care consultations for outpatients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases of the Pharmacy Services of Spain at two different times. METHOD: Longitudinal, multicenter and unidisciplinary descriptive observational study, carried out by the Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases Working Group of the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy through a virtual survey in 2019 and 2021. Variables were collected regarding coordination, resources, biosimilars, unmet needs and telepharmacy. Numerical results were presented in absolute value and percentage and free text responses were grouped by topic areas. To compare the results between the two collection times, the Chi-Square test was used with a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: The level of participation was 70 pharmacists in 2019 and 53 in 2021. The main significant findings obtained were an increase in participation in asthma biologic committees (p=0.044) and care coordination in dermatology (p=0.003) and digestive system (p=0.022). The wide use of biosimilar biological medicines stood out, with a 15% increase in the exchange of the reference biological to the biosimilar. The lack of research in the field and insufficient human resources, among other unmet needs, were revealed. In the outpatient units, the use of the stratification model of the MAPEX project was a minority and an increase in the use of information and communication technologies was promoted. Motivated by the pandemic derived from COVID-19, telepharmacy was established for the first time in 85% of the centers, maintaining the service at 66% at the time of the second survey. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient units are undergoing constant change to adapt to new times, for which institutional support is needed to invest more resources to promote the development of strategies to reduce unmet needs. We must continue working to achieve a pharmaceutical practice that provides efficiency, safety, quality of life and access to innovative drugs in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Examining the Impact of the World Health Organization 2022 Guidelines on Evaluation of Biosimilars for Non-Local Comparators in Biosimilar Studies on Middle East and North Africa Member States.

Global support and standardization of regulation for biosimilars approval owes much of its legacy to the World Health Organization (WHO), since the first guidance by the organization on the matter was released in 2009. Since then, and with over a decade of research, the 2022 revision provides opportunities for time and financial savings to pharmaceutical manufacturers aiming to prove similarity of a potential biosimilar product to some reference product, particularly by clarifying that the use of a non-local reference product as a comparator in certain studies is permissible. This declaration has important implications, particularly in the emerging biological markets of the Middle East and North Africa region, where WHO guidelines have been integral to the regulatory framework of over a dozen countries for more than a decade. This article aims to review the impact of this revision on these countries and relevant policies on non-local comparator usage. Since 2022, this revision has been adopted only in Egypt. Many North African countries are yet to adopt a first draft of the formalized guidance. This analysis revealed that, although many of these countries reference the WHO guidelines, hesitation remains in terms of sourcing comparator products outside the US or European countries. This likely translates to slow regional development and cooperation of functioning, sustainable biosimilars markets. Future studies will be necessary to evaluate the continued development of guidance within these countries and changes in comparator sourcing norms as more time is allowed for their policies to mature and adapt to new standards.

A descriptive analysis of real-world oncology biosimilar use in Japan.

Aim: To describe patient and treatment characteristics associated with bevacizumab BS-Pfizer, rituximab BS-Pfizer and trastuzumab BS-Pfizer and their reference products in Japan. Methods: This retrospective observational study used an administrative claims database to identify patients with ≥1 biosimilar or reference product prescription from 2019 to 2022 for approved indications. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Overall, 14-39% of biosimilar-prescribed patients initiated therapy with reference products. Biosimilar utilization significantly increased from 2019 to 2022. The most-commonly prescribed concomitant class of therapy with biosimilars was antineoplastic therapy. Conclusion: Reference products were most frequently prescribed among the Japanese cohorts, but substantial and increasing proportions received biosimilars over time. Future studies should extend our initial insights to assess biosimilar clinical outcomes in Japanese settings.

This study examines the adoption of cancer biosimilar therapies in Japan from 2019 to 2022. Cancer biosimilars are complex treatments that closely resemble established cancer therapies already available in Japan. We looked into the characteristics of patients receiving three specific biosimilars ­ bevacizumab BS-Pfizer, rituximab BS-Pfizer and trastuzumab BS-Pfizer. We also investigated where patients received biosimilar treatment, other therapies they received alongside biosimilars and the proportion of patients using these therapies each year during the study. Our analysis utilized data from the 'Medical Data Vision' database, which records care provided in hospitals across Japan. We analyzed patient demographics and treatment patterns, and compared different groups using statistics to identify significant differences. Notably, we observed that between 14 and 39% of patients initially started treatment with the original version of the drug on the market, known as the 'reference product,' before switching to the biosimilar. Furthermore, our findings revealed a significant increase in the use of biosimilars each year during the study period. Biosimilars were most-commonly used alongside chemotherapy drugs. These initial findings shed light on the patient population using cancer biosimilars in Japan and the treatment contexts in which they are utilized. Future research should delve deeper into aspects such as cost of care, patient survival, side effects and other pertinent factors related to the use of biosimilars in cancer care in Japan.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis and Simulation of Alternative Dosing Regimens for Biosimilars to Adalimumab and Etanercept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Efficacy to biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is variable and is likely influenced by each patient's circulating drug levels. Using modelling and simulation, the aim of this study was to investigate whether adalimumab and etanercept biosimilar dosing intervals can be altered to achieve therapeutic drug levels at a faster/similar time compared to the recommended interval. RA patients starting subcutaneous Amgevita or Benepali (adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars, respectively) were recruited and underwent sparse serum sampling for drug concentrations. Drug levels were measured using commercially available kits. Pharmacokinetic data were analysed using a population approach (popPK) and potential covariates were investigated in models. Models were compared using goodness-of-fit criteria. Final models were selected and used to simulate alternative dosing intervals. Ten RA patients starting the adalimumab biosimilar and six patients starting the etanercept biosimilar were recruited. One-compartment PK models were used to describe the popPK models for both drugs; no significant covariates were found. Typical individual parameter estimates were used to simulate altered dosing intervals for both drugs. A simulation of dosing the etanercept biosimilar at a lower rate of every 10 days reached steady-state concentrations earlier than the usual dosing rate of every 7 days. Simulations of altered dosing intervals could form the basis for future personalised dosing studies, potentially saving costs whilst increasing efficacy.

On-body injector pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prophylaxis: Current Status.

INTRODUCTION: Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations. DISCUSSION: OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics. CONCLUSION: The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.

Switching patterns of biological drugs in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: insight from the VALORE database network.

BACKGROUND: Switch patterns among different biologics and from originators to biosimilars (and vice versa) can be complex in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe switching patterns of biological drugs in PsO/PsA patients and to explore predictors of multiple switches and switch-back. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A large-scale retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Italian VALORE database. Bio-naïve users treated for PsO/PsA during 2010-2022 were included. Time to switch/swap and predictors of multiple switches and switch-back were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-thousand seven hundred bio-naïve users were included. At 3 and 5 years of follow-up, patients with at least one switch/swap were 37.1% and 47.8%, respectively. The median time to first switch/swap was significantly shorter (p< 0.001) for TNF-α inhibitors (2,068 days) than anti-IL (2,780 days). At 1 year of follow-up patients starting with IL-23 switched/swapped biological therapy less frequently than those with anti-IL-12/23 and anti-IL-17 (4.9% vs. 8.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Patients starting with anti-IL-12/23 reported a significantly lower risk of multiple switches and switch-back (0.74, 95% CI, 0.67-0.83; 0.58, 95% CI, 0.44-0.77, respectively) than those with TNF-α inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsO/PsA starting with TNF-α inhibitors switch/swap more rapidly and frequently than those with anti-IL, which are also associated with a reduced risk of multiple switches during follow-up.

Emerging trends and therapeutic applications of monoclonal antibodies.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are being used to prevent, detect, and treat a broad spectrum of malignancies and infectious and autoimmune diseases. Over the past few years, the market for mAbs has grown exponentially. They have become a significant part of many pharmaceutical product lines, and more than 250 therapeutic mAbs are undergoing clinical trials. Ever since the advent of hybridoma technology, antibody-based therapeutics were realized using murine antibodies which further progressed into humanized and fully human antibodies, reducing the risk of immunogenicity. Some of the benefits of using mAbs over conventional drugs include a drastic reduction in the chances of adverse reactions, interactions between drugs, and targeting specific proteins. While antibodies are very efficient, their higher production costs impede the process of commercialization. However, their cost factor has been improved by developing biosimilar antibodies, which are affordable versions of therapeutic antibodies. Along with biosimilars, innovations in antibody engineering have helped to design bio-better antibodies with improved efficacy than the conventional ones. These novel mAb-based therapeutics are set to revolutionize existing drug therapies targeting a wide spectrum of diseases, thereby meeting several unmet medical needs. In the future, mAbs generated by applying next-generation sequencing (NGS) are expected to become a powerful tool in clinical therapeutics. This article describes the methods of mAb production, pre-clinical and clinical development of mAbs, approved indications targeted by mAbs, and novel developments in the field of mAb research.

Trends in Targeted Therapy Usage in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: TRENDY Study of ENEIDA.

Markers that allow for the selection of tailored treatments for individual patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are yet to be identified. Our aim was to describe trends in real-life treatment usage. For this purpose, patients from the ENEIDA registry who received their first targeted IBD treatment (biologics or tofacitinib) between 2015 and 2021 were included. A subsequent analysis with Machine Learning models was performed. The study included 10,009 patients [71% with Crohn's disease (CD) and 29% with ulcerative colitis (UC)]. In CD, anti-TNF (predominantly adalimumab) were the main agents in the 1st line of treatment (LoT), although their use declined over time. In UC, anti-TNF (mainly infliximab) use was predominant in 1st LoT, remaining stable over time. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab were the most prescribed drugs in 2nd and 3rd LoT in CD and UC, respectively. Overall, the use of biosimilars increased over time. Machine Learning failed to identify a model capable of predicting treatment patterns. In conclusion, drug positioning is different in CD and UC. Anti-TNF were the most used drugs in IBD 1st LoT, being adalimumab predominant in CD and infliximab in UC. Ustekinumab and vedolizumab have gained importance in CD and UC, respectively. The approval of biosimilars had a significant impact on treatment.

Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars.

Background: Physicians often prescribe original biologic products to patients who have not used them before and are reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already-approved biologics, but healthcare professionals typically hesitate to transition patients from the original products to biosimilars. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence U.S. healthcare professionals' intentions to use biosimilars. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. 510 participants were eligible healthcare professionals (279 physicians and 231 pharmacists). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to identify which factors affect healthcare professionals' intentions. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and the logistic regression model tested the TPB constructs as predictors of intentions toward biosimilars. Results: Among 279 physicians, most were aged 61 and above, with high (n = 142) and low (n = 137) intentions. Male physicians constituted 71% of the population. Attending physicians (66.3%) showed consistent perceptions towards biosimilars, primarily in the private sector (76.3%). Pharmacists (n = 231), a higher percentage of females demonstrated higher intentions compared to males (35.5% vs. 28.1%); the majority were community pharmacists. Associations between years of practice and intentions were significant. Positive correlations existed between beliefs and intentions, except for normative beliefs. Conclusions: This study revealed diverse attitudes among healthcare professionals towards biosimilars in the USA. Pharmacists and physicians, especially those with limited experience, require ongoing education on biosimilar manufacturing pathways. This education supports the appropriate use of biosimilars and helps standardize federal and state legislation.

Mapping Health Technology Assessment Agency Approaches for Biosimilar Value Assessment: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2024.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2024 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2024 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, endocrine drugs, generics, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2024 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2023, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 13.6% compared to 2022, for a total of $722.5 billion. Utilization (a 6.5% increase), new drugs (a 4.2% increase) and price (a 2.9% increase) drove this increase. Semaglutide was the top drug in 2023, followed by adalimumab and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.1 billion (a 1.1% decrease) and $135.7 billion (a 15.0% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, increased utilization drove growth, with a small impact from price and new products. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led the decrease in expenditures, with price and new drugs modestly contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2024. Specialty, endocrine, and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. CONCLUSION: For 2024, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 10.0% to 12.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate an 11.0% to 13.0% increase and a 0% to 2.0% increase, respectively, compared to 2023. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Biosimilars production in Africa opportunities & challenges.

The healthcare systems of African nations heavily rely on importing and repackaging biological medicine. More than 70% of the pharmaceutical products consumed in Africa are imported. The localization of biosimilar production can have a positive impact on the availability and cost of these products by reducing the expenses for African governments and making essential healthcare products more accessible to the population. However, it is evident that the developing countries, particularly African nations, face various obstacles and difficulties in localizing biosimilar production. These challenges encompass development, manufacturing, evaluation, and registration processes. In this review, we will highlight the significant hurdles and achievements encountered during the localization process of biosimilars.