Repurposing of rituximab biosimilars to treat B cell mediated autoimmune diseases.

Rituximab, the first monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of lymphoma, eventually became one of the most popular and versatile drugs ever in terms of clinical application and revenue. Since its patent expiration, and consequently, the loss of exclusivity of the original biologic, its repurposing as an off-label drug has increased dramatically, propelled by the development and commercialization of its many biosimilars. Currently, rituximab is prescribed worldwide to treat a vast range of autoimmune diseases mediated by B cells. Here, we present a comprehensive overview of rituximab repurposing in 115 autoimmune diseases across 17 medical specialties, sourced from over 1530 publications. Our work highlights the extent of its off-label use and clinical benefits, underlining the success of rituximab repurposing for both common and orphan immune-related diseases. We discuss the scientific mechanism associated with its clinical efficacy and provide additional indications for which rituximab could be investigated. Our study presents rituximab as a flagship example of drug repurposing owing to its central role in targeting cluster of differentiate 20 positive (CD20) B cells in 115 autoimmune diseases.

Qualification of a LC-HRMS platform method for biosimilar development using NISTmab as a model.

Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biopharmaceuticals, necessitating rigorous analytical methods for consistency and compliance. Liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) is a versatile tool for assessing key attributes, encompassing molecular mass, primary structure, and post-translational modifications (PTMs). Adhering to ICH Q2R1, we validated an LC-HRMS based peptide mapping method using NISTmab as a reference. The method validation parameters, covering system suitability, specificity, accuracy, precision, robustness, and carryover, were comprehensively assessed. The method effectively differentiated the NISTmab from similar counterparts as well as from artificially introduced spiked conditions. Notably, the accuracy of mass error for NISTmab specific complementarity determining region peptides was within a maximum of 2.42 parts per million (ppm) from theoretical and the highest percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) observed for precision was 0.000219 %. It demonstrates precision in sequence coverage and PTM detection, with a visual inspection of total ion chromatogram approach for variability assessment. The method maintains robustness when subjected to diverse storage conditions, encompassing variations in column temperature and mobile phase composition. Negligible carryover was noted during the carryover analysis. In summary, this method serves as a versatile platform for multiple biosimilar development by effectively characterizing and identifying monoclonal antibodies, ultimately ensuring product quality.

Safety of Rituximab biosimilar (Riximyo®) following a single switch from the reference product in patients with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a retrospective study.

Unlike small molecule drugs and generic products, the active component of biologics and biosimilars are not identical chemical entities. Despite bioequivalence, there is limited evidence in clinical practice (i.e. Phase IV post-marketing surveillance) regarding the safety of biosimilar rituximab and even less so for "switching therapy" with respect to safety. Drug substitution by switching aims to realise cost savings by changing therapy involving a reference (biologic) product to a biosimilar. A retrospective analysis of safety outcomes including treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs), rates of death and discontinuation of therapy, for all patients that received switching therapy (from reference to biosimilar rituximab, n = 33) was compared to patients who did not did not switch therapy (received biosimilar rituximab only, n = 18) at an Australian metropolitan cancer centre, over a six-month period. There was no statistical significant differences for any safety outcomes examined. Switching therapy for patients receiving rituximab does not lead to poorer safety outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar Peg-filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant in myeloma and lymphoma patients: a comparative study with biosimilar Filgrastim, Lenograstim, and originator Peg-filgrastim.

Data about biosimilar Peg-filgrastim (bioPEG) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) are still scarce. The aim of this study has been to assess efficacy and safety of bioPEG among lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT, comparing these data with historical controls receiving other G-CSFs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation has been included to estimate the savings by using bioPEG. This is a prospective cohort study comparing lymphoma and myeloma patients undergoing ASCT and receiving bioPEG (n = 73) with three historical consecutive cohorts collected retrospectively who received other G-CSFs (Lenograstim - Leno - n = 101, biosimilar Filgrastim - bioFIL n = 392, and originator Peg-filgrastim - oriPEG n = 60). We observed a significantly shorter time to neutrophils and platelet engraftment (p < 0.001) in patients treated with bioPEG and oriPEG. Moreover, patients who received bioPEG showed a shorter hospitalization time (p < 0.001) and a lower transfusion need (p < 0.001). We did not observe any significant difference in terms of transplant-related mortality, mucositis, and diarrhea among the four groups. No serious adverse events were associated with bioPEG. Similar data were obtained after running a stratified analysis for lymphomas and myeloma separately conducted by using a propensity score matching. The average total cost per patient of bioPEG was € 18218.9 compared to € 23707.8, € 20677.3 and € 19754.9 of Leno, oriPEG, and bioFIL, respectively. In conclusion, bioPEG seems to be as effective as the originator and more effective than short-acting G-CSFs in terms of post-transplant engraftment in myeloma and lymphoma patients undergoing ASCT. Moreover, bioPEG was cost-effective when compared with the other G-CSFs.

Are Manufacturing Patents to Blame for Biosimilar Market Launch Delays?

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilar market launch delays are likely costing healthcare systems billions of dollars and preventing patients accessing affordable biologic therapies sooner. Many claim these delays are mostly caused by originator biologics' large patent portfolios asserted during litigation against biosimilar developers, particularly that the manufacturing patents filed after the originator is approved is an important driver of these delays. Our objective was to investigate the accuracy of these claims. METHODS: We reviewed US Court document submissions for litigation data, including the details of patents asserted against biosimilar owners, and collated biosimilar market launch dates from publicly available databases. RESULTS: We find that, although approximately half of all patents asserted in litigation were manufacturing patents, a greater proportion of composition, active pharmaceutical ingredient, and treatment patents are associated with longer market launch delays, whereas a greater proportion of manufacturing patents are associated with shorter market launch delays. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that manufacturing patents were having less of an impact on market launch delays than other types of patents. Our findings have implications for both biosimilar and originator developers, as well as patent policy and its association with healthcare accessibility.

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.

Biosimilars in IBD: What Every Clinician Needs to Know.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Biosimilars were introduced to decrease biologic-related expenditures, but their uptake in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains suboptimal. Herein, we review biosimilar concepts, current products available for IBD treatment, and resources to support biosimilar utilization. RECENT FINDINGS: Although a cornerstone of IBD treatment, biologics are costly due to their development. Biosimilars, which are biologic products highly similar to a reference product, aim to decrease these expenditures. Infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab biosimilars are approved for IBD, but uptake remains low due to biosimilar efficacy and safety concerns and delayed market entry. Clinicians can effectively address some of these barriers and help patients and healthcare systems reap the benefits of decreased costs and increased treatment access. Data shows comparable efficacy and safety outcomes with biosimilars in IBD. Several biosimilar products are available and in the pipeline, but efforts are needed from various stakeholders to bolster utilization and generate benefits.

Perception of pharmacological equivalence of generics or biosimilars in healthcare professionals in Vienna.

PURPOSE: Due to constantly rising therapy costs, biosimilars and generic drugs have gained tremendous importance through recent decades. Nevertheless, the acceptance among healthcare workers regarding biosimilars and generic drugs in previously published international studies is considerably lower than the scientific data on equivalent safety and efficacy would suggest. The aim of this questionnaire-based survey was to determine the perception and knowledge regarding generic drugs and biosimilars by medical professionals from different healthcare facilities in Vienna, Austria. METHODS: The online questionnaire was sent to public and religious hospitals in Vienna, including the university hospital "Vienna General Hospital." In addition, doctors' offices were reached by sending out the questionnaire in the weekly news of the Vienna Medical Association. RESULTS: A total of 282 physicians and 311 graduated nurses took part in the study. 63% and 62% of the participants were convinced that generic respective biosimilar drugs were clinically equivalent to the original reference drug. On average, 1.6 out of 4 knowledge questions were answered correctly about generics, while only 0.87 out of 4 questions were answered accurately about biosimilars. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the outcome from previous surveys demonstrating that a large proportion of healthcare professionals is still skeptical about generics and biosimilars. According to the results of this study, better education of the medical staff might ensure greater acceptance of these types of drugs.

Plain language review: what are biosimilar medicines and how can they be used to treat people with cancer?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: The aim of this plain language review article is to help you to understand biosimilar medicines (called biosimilars) by giving a summary of biologic medicines and biosimilars. It is based on the experience of an international panel of physicians with expertise on biosimilars who discussed and agreed on the topics and information included in this review article. Biologic medicines are medicines that come from living organisms such as bacteria and animal or plant cells. Biosimilars are a group of approved biologic medicines that are similar to original biologic medicines that are already available. This review explains how biosimilars are developed and approved, and how they are used to treat people with cancer. It also answers some common important questions people with cancer might have when taking biosimilars. The purpose of this plain language review is to help you to understand the findings from recent research. This review reports information from peer-reviewed literature and other sources available in the public domain (e.g., regulatory documents or product information labels). The findings may differ from those of other review articles. Health professionals should make treatment decisions based on all available evidence.

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.

Comparative assessment of immunogenicity of recombinant insulin Aspart from BioGenomics and its originator NovoRapid® in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the immunogenicity of recombinant Insulin Aspart [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its originator NovoRapid® (manufactured by Novo Nordisk) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: BGL-IA-CTP301 study was a randomized, open label, parallel group, multicenter phase-III clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of recombinant Insulin Aspart 100 U/mL [manufactured by BioGenomics Limited (BGL-ASP)] with its reference medicinal product (RMP); NovoRapid® [manufactured by Novo Nordisk], in adult patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The primary objective of the study was to compare the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid® in patient serum samples collected from phase-III clinical study. Immunogenicity was studied as the incidence of patients positive for anti-insulin Aspart (AIA) antibodies, developed against BGL-ASP/RMP at baseline, end of 12 week and end of 24 week of the treatment period. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies post-baseline were also studied to assess and compare the treatment-emergent antibody response (TEAR) between the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). Statistical evaluation was done by Fisher's exact test to compare the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA antibodies and the TEAR positives observed post-baseline in both the treated groups. An in-vitro neutralizing antibody assay (Nab assay) was also performed to study the effect of AIA antibodies in neutralizing the biological activity/metabolic function of the insulin. The neutralizing potential of AIA was studied by its effect on %glucose uptake. We also evaluated the association between AIA antibody levels and its impact on biological activity by studying the correlation between them. RESULTS: Analysis of immunogenicity data suggested that the percentage of patients positive for AIA antibodies until week 24 was similar and comparable in both the treatment groups, BGL-ASP and RMP; NovoRapid®. The changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline in terms of TEAR positives were also similar and comparable between the treatment groups. The results of the Nab assay with confirmed positive AIA samples from BGL-ASP- and RMP-treated groups did not have any negative impact on %glucose uptake by the cells in Nab assay, confirming the absence of neutralizing antibodies in both the treatment groups. The correlation studies also showed absence of association between AIA antibody levels and percentage glucose uptake in both BGL-ASP and RMP-NovoRapid® treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity assessment based on the overall incidence of patients positive for AIA, changes in incidence of patients positive for AIA post-baseline, TEAR rates and absence of neutralizing antibodies, were found to be apparently similar and comparable in both the treatment groups (BGL-ASP and RMP). We conclude from our studies that the immunogenicity of BGL-ASP is similar and comparable to RMP and the observed immunogenicity in terms of anti-insulin Aspart antibody levels had no impact on the biological activity of insulin.

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.

Biologics for inherited disorders of keratinisation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Recent literature highlights the potential of biologics in the management of inherited disorders of keratinisation. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of existing literature on treatment outcomes of inherited keratinisation disorders treated with biologics. METHODS: Eligible records were retrieved through searches of the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Databases were searched from inception to July 2023 for eligible records. A snowballing method was employed to search the references of the retrieved records for the identification of potentially relevant articles. RESULTS: One hundred and four eligible studies consisting of a total of 166 patients with an inherited disorder of keratinisation were included. Patients had a median age of 19 years (range: 0.5 to 70 years). The most common disorders were Netherton syndrome (n = 63; 38%), autosomal recessive congenital ichthyoses (n = 27; 16%), CARD14-associated papulosquamous eruptions (n = 17; 10%) and familial pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) (n = 15; 9%).Of the 207 times biologics were employed, the three most frequently employed biologics were secukinumab (n = 47; 23%), dupilumab (n = 44; 21%) and ustekinumab (n = 37; 18%). Complete remission was observed in 10 (5%) instances, partial remission in 129 (62%), no or limited response to biologic therapy in 68 (32%) cases, and results are still pending in one case. A total of 33 adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst biologics may be considered in cases of inherited keratinisation disorders recalcitrant to standard therapy, definitive conclusions are prohibited by the low-level of evidence and substantial heterogeneity in methodology across the included studies. Establishment of consensus definitions, and randomised clinical trials may help ascertain the efficacy and safety of biologic therapy in this context and establish the best agent and dosing protocol for each disorder.

Lectin-Based Fluorescent Comparison of Glycan Profile-FDA Validation to Expedite Approval of Biosimilars.

Glycan profile comparisons are one of the most tedious analytical exercises for establishing compliance with recombinant therapeutic protein batches. Based on its intensive research, the FDA has confirmed that lectin array binding with fluorescent monitoring is the fastest and most reliable method for profile comparisons. Using a database of over 150 biological products expressed in nine diverse mammalian cell systems, the FDA immobilized 74 lectins to study their binding using fluorescently labeled glycoproteins. The FDA identified nine distinct lectins from a custom-designed lectin microarray: rPhoSL, rOTH3, RCA120, rMan2, MAL_I, rPSL1a, PHAE, rMOA, and PHALs, which detect core fucose, terminal GlcNAc, terminal ß-galactose, high mannose, α-2,3-linked sialic acids, α-2,6-linked sialic acids, bisecting GlcNAc, terminal α-galactose, and triantennary structures, respectively. This method can be used for screening and routine testing and to monitor batch-to-batch variability of therapeutic proteins, including establishing analytical similarity as a crucial part of biosimilar development.

Exploring the Combined Action of Adding Pertuzumab to Branded Trastuzumab versus Trastuzumab Biosimilars for Treating HER2+ Breast Cancer.

The binding activity of various trastuzumab biosimilars versus the branded trastuzumab towards the glycosylated extracellular domain of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) target in the presence of pertuzumab was investigated. We employed size exclusion chromatography with tetra-detection methodology to simultaneously determine absolute molecular weight, concentration, molecular size, and intrinsic viscosity. All trastuzumab molecules in solution exhibit analogous behavior in their binary action towards HER2 regardless of the order of addition of trastuzumab/pertuzumab. This analogous behavior of all trastuzumab molecules, including biosimilars, highlights the robustness and consistency of their binding activity towards HER2. Furthermore, the addition of HER2 to a mixture of trastuzumab and pertuzumab leads to increased formation of high-order HER2 complexes, up to concentrations of one order of magnitude higher than in the case of sequential addition. The observed increase suggests a potential synergistic effect between these antibodies, which could enhance their therapeutic efficacy in HER2-positive cancers. These findings underscore the importance of understanding the complex interplay between therapeutic antibodies and their target antigens, providing valuable insights for the development of more effective treatment strategies.

[Therapeutic antibodies in rheumatology]. / Therapeutische Antikörper in der Rheumatologie.

Emil von Behring's serum therapy for diphtheria was the first therapeutic use of antibodies. More than 100 years later, a new era in the treatment of rheumatic diseases began in 1998 with the approval of infliximab, an antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha). The special feature of antibody therapy is the ability to bind and neutralize antigens in a highly specific manner. In addition, target cells can be eliminated by activation of the immune system. These properties of the immune system are exploited in rheumatology to eliminate inflammatory cytokines or antibody-producing B lymphocytes. The tolerability is usually good but potential side effects, such as reactivation of tuberculosis with anti-TNF alpha treatment must be considered. Currently, 20 different antibodies and fusion proteins have been approved in Germany for the treatment of various inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Biosimilars can contribute to a price reduction after the patent protection expires. Many additional target antigens are being investigated and further structural innovations (e.g., bispecific antibodies, nanobodies or coupling with small molecules) are being developed.

Approaches to optimising access to NICE-approved biologic anti-TNFs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with moderately active disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that is associated with joint pain and stiffness. Biologics represent some of the most effective treatments for RA, but previous guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has limited their use to patients with severely active disease. This has meant patients with moderately active RA have been treated as if they have an acceptable disease state, despite many cases where the inflammation has a major impact on joint damage, mobility, pain and quality of life. However, recent guideline changes (NICE TA715) have approved the use of three biologics - adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab - for the treatment of moderately active RA. MAIN BODY: In response to these changes, we have held discussions with medical teams from across the UK to consider the main implications for implementation of these new recommendations, as well as any differences in approach that may exist at a local level. Several key challenges were identified. These included establishing methods of educating both physicians and patients concerning the new availability of the biologic treatments, with suggestions of various organisations that could be approached to circulate informative material. Identifying which patients with moderately active RA stand to benefit was another discussion topic. Relying solely on scoring systems like Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28) was acknowledged to have limitations, and alternative complementary approaches such as ultrasound, as well as assessing a patient's co-morbidities, could also be useful tools in determining those who could benefit from biologics. An additional challenge for the process of patient identification has been the increase in the use of telemedicine consultations in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. More use of patient-reported outcomes was raised as one possible solution, and the importance of maintaining up-to-date databases on patient disease scores and treatment history was also stressed. CONCLUSION: While challenges exist in education and identifying patients who may benefit from the use of biologics, the NICE TA715 recommendations hold great potential in addressing an unmet need for the treatment of moderate RA.

The Biosimilar Paradox: How Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Biosimilars Could Increase Patient and Overall Health Care Costs.

PURPOSE: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications for intraocular use are a major and increasing cost, and biosimilars may be a means of reducing the high cost of many biologic medications. However, a bevacizumab biosimilar, which is currently pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (bevacizumab-vikg), paradoxically may increase the cost burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, because off-label repackaged drugs may no longer be allowed per the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA). We aimed to investigate the potential impact of biosimilars on costs in the United States. DESIGN: Cost analysis of anti-VEGF medications. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare data from October 2022 and previously published market share data from 2019. METHODS: Average sales prices (ASPs) of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab were calculated from Medicare allowable payments. The ASPs of biosimilars were calculated from wholesale acquisition costs from a representative distributor. The cost of an intraocular bevacizumab formulation is modeled at $500/1.25-mg dose and $900/1.25-mg dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of anti-VEGF drugs to Medicare Part B and patients. RESULTS: If an intraocular bevacizumab biosimilar were to be priced at $500, costs to Medicare would increase by $457 million from $3.01 billion to $3.47 billion (15.2% increase). Patient responsibility would increase by $117 million from $768 million to $884 million. Similarly, if intraocular bevacizumab were priced at $900, Medicare costs would increase by $897 million to $3.91 billion (29.8% increase), and patient responsibility would increase by $229 million to $997 million. If bevacizumab were $500/dose, switching all patients currently receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept to respective biosimilars would compensate for only 28.8% of the increased cost. Current prices of ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilars would have to decrease by an aggregate of 15.7% to $616.80/injection, $1027.97/injection, and $1436.88/injection for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An FDA-approved bevacizumab biosimilar for ophthalmic use could increase costs to the health care system and patients, raising concerns for access. This increase would not be offset by ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilar use at current prices. These data support the need for an exemption of section 503B of the DQSA and continued use of repackaged off-label bevacizumab. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Effectiveness of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in patients with multiple myeloma after high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the main indication for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Novel supportive therapies (e.g., granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) have significantly improved post-ASCT-related mortality; however, data on biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez (BIO/PEG) in this setting is lacking. This prospective cohort study compared Italian patients with MM who received BIO/PEG post-ASCT with data collected retrospectively from historical control groups from the same center who received either filgrastim-sndz (BIO/G-CSF) or pegfilgrastim (PEG; originator). The primary endpoint was time to neutrophil engraftment (three consecutive days with an absolute neutrophil count ≥ 0.5 × 109/L). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of febrile neutropenia (FN). Of the 231 patients included, 73 were treated with PEG, 102 with BIO/G-CSF, and 56 with BIO/PEG. Median age was 60 years and 57.1% were male. Neutrophil engraftment was reached after a median of 10 days in the BIO/PEG and PEG groups and 11 days in the BIO/G-CSF group. Among patients who achieved neutrophil engraftment earlier than this (i.e., day 9), 58% (29/50) were on PEG; of those who achieved it later (i.e., day 11), 80.8% (59/73) were on BIO/G-CSF. FN incidence was higher with BIO/G-CSF (61.4%) versus PEG (52.1%) or BIO/PEG (37.5%) (p = 0.02 among groups). Patients on BIO/PEG had less frequent grade 2-3 diarrhea (5.5%) compared with BIO/G-CSF (22.5%) or PEG (21.9%); grade 2-3 mucositis was most frequent in the BIO/G-CSF group. In conclusion, pegfilgrastim and its biosimilar displayed an advantageous efficacy and safety profile compared with biosimilar filgrastim in patients with MM post-ASCT.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.