Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For cost-saving purposes, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are being switched (for non-medical reasons) from biological originators to biosimilars. Here, we aimed to investigate those who switched from an anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) originator to a biosimilar, regarding drug survival and disease activity, compared with a matched cohort who continued the originator. METHODS: This analysis included all patients in the UK JIA Biologics Register switching directly from an anti-TNF originator to a biosimilar of the same product. All patients were matched (age, sex, disease duration, calendar year of when patients started originator therapy, line of therapy, and International League of Associations for Rheumatology [ILAR] category) to patients continuing the originator. For those matched successfully, a Cox proportional hazard model assessed whether drug persistence differed between those who switched compared with those who continued the originator. Overall change in the 71-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score and the proportion of patients with a clinically important worsening score (by ≥1·7 units) after 6 months was compared between cohorts. This analysis was designed to address a priority research area set by our patient partners. FINDINGS: There were 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA (139 [62%] were female, and 85 [38%] were male) identified as switching from a biological originator to a biosimilar of the same product from Jan 1, 2017, to July 7, 2023. 143 (64%) patients were originally on adalimumab, 56 (25%) on etanercept, and 25 (11%) on infliximab. Of these, 164 patients were matched successfully to those continuing the originator. There was no evidence that patients switching were more likely to stop treatment compared with those continuing the originator, with a hazard ratio of 1·46 (95% CI 0·93-2·30). Of the 51 patients in the biosimilar group who stopped treatment, 18 (35%) switched back to the originator (14 in the first year), 28 (55%) started a different biological drug, and five (10%) discontinued all treatment by the last follow-up. Of the 87 matched patients with available disease activity, there was no evidence that JADAS-71 worsened more after 6 months, with an odds ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·34-1·51; p=0·38). INTERPRETATION: In this matched comparative effectiveness analysis, children and young people with JIA switched from originators to biosimilars. Disease activity was similar between patients switching compared with those continuing the originator. Three quarters of patients were still receiving their biosimilar after 1 year, with switching back to originator uncommon, at only 9% after 1 year, suggesting good tolerability of non-medical switching in this patient population. This information is reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding the effect of non-medical biological switching. FUNDING: British Society for Rheumatology, Versus Arthritis, and National Institutes for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Obstacles to Biosimilar Acceptance and Uptake in Oncology: A Review.

Importance: Biosimilar drugs provide cost-effective yet clinically indistinguishable replications of target drugs. During initial development, this class of biologic medicines was expected to revolutionize pharmaceutical markets; however, following US Food and Drug Administration approval of the first biosimilar drug in 2015, the commercialization of biosimilars has been limited. The lack of biosimilar use may be especially salient in oncology, given that biosimilar distribution in this particularly high-cost area of medicine would bring savings on the order of many billions of dollars. Observations: While researchers have focused on salient economic barriers to biosimilar uptake in the US, the present review provides insight regarding noneconomic barriers. This review discusses psychological, attitudinal, and educational factors among both health care professionals and payers in the US that may play a role in slowing biosimilar uptake. More specifically, these factors include a lack of health care professional education, concerns of safety and efficacy, and overly complex product naming systems. Conclusions and Relevance: The pathway to biosimilar use has been obstructed by economic elements as well as attitudinal and psychological factors. For biosimilar drugs to achieve their potential in decreasing treatment costs and thus increasing patient access, it will be essential for both economic and noneconomic factors to be identified and systematically addressed.

Randomised clinical trial: First-line infliximab biosimilar is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in paediatric Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease are limited. Since biologics are increasingly prescribed and accompanied by high costs, this knowledge gap needs to be addressed. AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab compared to conventional treatment in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. METHODS: We included patients from the Top-down Infliximab Study in Kids with Crohn's disease randomised controlled trial. Children with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease were treated with azathioprine maintenance and either five induction infliximab (biosimilar) infusions or conventional induction treatment (exclusive enteral nutrition or corticosteroids). Direct healthcare consumption and costs were obtained per patient until week 104. This included data on outpatient hospital visits, hospital admissions, drug costs, endoscopies and surgeries. The primary health outcome was the odds ratio of being in clinical remission (weighted paediatric Crohn's disease activity index<12.5) during 104 weeks. RESULTS: We included 89 patients (44 in the first-line infliximab group and 45 in the conventional treatment group). Mean direct healthcare costs per patient were €36,784 for first-line infliximab treatment and €36,874 for conventional treatment over 2 years (p = 0.981). The odds ratio of first-line infliximab versus conventional treatment to be in clinical remission over 104 weeks was 1.56 (95%CI 1.03-2.35, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: First-line infliximab treatment resulted in higher odds of being in clinical remission without being more expensive, making it the dominant strategy over conventional treatment in the first 2 years after diagnosis in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02517684.

Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland.

A combination of improvements in patient survival, increasing treatment duration, and the development of more expensive agents has led to a doubling of per-capita spending on cancer medicines in Ireland (2008-2018). Despite this, access to new drugs is poor in comparison to other EU countries. We examine methods to optimise oncology drug spending to facilitate access to newer anticancer agents. Key targets for spending optimisation (biosimilar use, clinical trials and expanded access programs, waste reduction, avoidance of futile treatment, and altered drug scheduling) were identified through an exploratory analysis. A structured literature search was performed, with a focus on articles relevant to the Irish Healthcare system, supplemented by reports from statutory bodies. At the present time, EMA-approved agents are available once approved by the NCPE. Optimising drug costs occurs through guideline-based practice and biosimilar integration, the latter provides €80 million in cost savings annually. Access to novel therapies can occur via over 50 clinical trials and 28 currently available expanded access programmes. Additional strategies include reversion to weight-based immunotherapy dosing, potentially saving €400,000 per year in our centre alone, vial sharing, and optimisation of treatment schedules. A variety of techniques are being employed by oncologists to optimise costs and increase access to innovation for patients. Use of biosimilars, drug wastage, and prescribing at end of life should be audited as key performance indicators, which may lead to reflective practice on treatment planning. Such measures could further optimise oncology drug expenditure nationally facilitating approval of new agents.

The use of the biosimilar drug can lead to large health care savings that can be reinvested for continued innovation: Analysis of consumption of an Italian health care company.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar drugs offer an opportunity for all global healthcare systems because they provide significant cost savings while ensuring equal efficacy and safety in the treatment of chronic diseases. These savings can be allocated to support ongoing innovation. METHODS: An analysis of the usage of major biosimilar drugs across various therapeutic areas has been conducted within an Italian healthcare company serving a population of over one million. Data on consumption, expenditure, and the number of treated patients has been extracted from the company's databases. Finally, a comparison with the year 2021 has been performed to determine if biosimilar drug usage increased in 2022. RESULTS: In 2022, the data reveals that a substantial portion of the analysed active ingredients are being used as biosimilar drugs, except in a few residual cases. However, among the most consumed drugs, resistance still exists in the case of Adalimumab and Etanercept, for which expenditure on originator drugs exceeds 2 million euros. CONCLUSION: The 2022-2021 comparison highlights the increasing use of biosimilar drugs. This data is encouraging and suggests that in the coming months, we may achieve total utilization, which would be to the benefit of the National Health System (NHS) and the citizens who can rely on an efficient and sustainable healthcare policy that is continually improving.

Access to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: a nation-level study.

INTRODUCTION: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars provide an opportunity to improve accessibility to highly effective drugs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate access to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a 10 year timeframe in Poland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database. RESULTS: By 2022, 11 102, 6602, and 4400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs or JAKis. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab, followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased from 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.8% to 3.2%, 8.7%, and 3.5% for RA, PsA, and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) still predominate among innovative therapeutics, but their market share declined from 87% to 46%. The number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from 7315 EUR to 2886 EUR. Despite recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding the COVID­19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, biosimilars­related savings improved availability of higher­priced innovative drugs rather than less costly TNFis. Data­driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

The impact of an 'evergreening' strategy nearing patent expiration on the uptake of biosimilars and public healthcare costs: a case study on the introduction of a second administration form of trastuzumab in The Netherlands.

In this paper, we explore dynamic market share and public healthcare costs of trastuzumab's evergreening (subcutaneous) variant during introduction of trastuzumab's competitive biosimilar variants in the Netherlands. We used a time series design to assess dynamic market share of trastuzumab's evergreening variant after introducing trastuzumab's biosimilar variants, focusing on the number of treatments and patients. The public healthcare costs of this evergreening strategy were estimated using administrative claims data. Our results show that the original trastuzumab was completely replaced by the subcutaneous and biosimilar variants. The uptake of the subcutaneous form peaked at 50% market share but after the introduction of biosimilars progressively reduced to a market share of 20%, resulting in a more competitive market structure. The public healthcare costs for trastuzumab significantly decreased after the introduction of the biosimilars. After the introduction of the biosimilars, a substantial price drop is visible, with the subcutaneous version, still under patent, also falling sharply in price but less strongly than the iv/biosimilar version. As the costs are publicly funded, we recommend a more explicit societal debate to consider if the potential benefits of subcutaneous Herceptin® (and other similar medicines) are worth the additional costs, and at which price it should be reimbursed as the part of the benefit package.

Short and long-term economic implications of biosimilars.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars are gaining popularity due to their ability to offer comparable therapeutic benefits at potentially lower costs. AREAS COVERED: This article analyses studies that compare the cost savings of biosimilars with biologics. It also explores market competition dynamics and the impact of policies in countries. The focus is on the advantages of biosimilars in oncology and rheumatological treatments while considering broader economic implications for the pharmaceutical industry such as market displacement, pricing strategies and their influence on innovation and healthcare sustainability. EXPERT OPINION: The introduction of biosimilars marks a shift in healthcare economics by offering cost reductions and long-term potential for economic balance. However, I also recognize challenges related to research methodologies and regulatory inconsistencies across countries. To fully capitalize on their potential, future research and development in the field of biosimilars must emphasize harmonized approaches and comprehensive studies that ensure both cost containment in healthcare and wider access, to high quality treatments.

Expanded access to anticancer treatments from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv in US breast cancer patients.

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2+ (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. We calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 20,000 patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). We then computed the number of additional doses of AC chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. We did the same for a group of 5000 HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab). Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim could save $1,083 per patient per cycle. If all patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim over six cycles, $129.9 million could be saved in the AC group and $32.5 million in the TCH group. This could provide 220,468 additional AC doses and 6981 TCH doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings. These savings can be used to provide additional patients with chemotherapy cost-free.

Greater uptake, an alternative reimbursement methodology needed to realize cost-saving potential of oncology biosimilars in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are an important treatment option for solid tumors and hematological malignancies but are a primary driver of health care spending growth. The United States has yet to realize the promise of reduced costs via biosimilars because of slow uptake, partially resulting from commercial payer reimbursement models that create economic incentives favoring the prescribing of reference biologics. OBJECTIVE: To examine the economic feasibility of an alternative reimbursement methodology that prospectively shares savings across commercial payers and providers to shift economic incentives in favor of lower-cost oncology biosimilars. METHODS: Using 3 oncology monoclonal antibody drugs (trastuzumab, bevacizumab, and rituximab) as examples, we developed an alternative reimbursement model that would offer an additional per unit payment (or "extra consideration") such that providers' net income per unit for biosimilars and reference biologics become equal. Provider-negotiated rates (or payer-allowable amounts) and average sales prices were obtained from claims data and projected to develop prices/costs from 2021 through 2025. Scenario analyses by varying key model assumptions were performed. RESULTS: The alternative reimbursement model achieved 1-year and 5-year payer savings in the commercial market for all 3 drugs in the sites of service analyzed. The base analysis showed first-year cost savings to payers, net of cost sharing, of up to 9% in physician offices (POs) and up to 1% in non-340B hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) for patients using the drugs analyzed. Five-year cumulative savings per patient ranged from about $12,600-$16,100 in PO and $2,200-$4,100 in HOPD. Payer savings varied depending on the characteristics of the provider with which the payer was negotiating (eg, lower- vs highermarkup providers, POs vs HOPDs). CONCLUSIONS: Positive payer savings shown in our modeling suggest that an alternative reimbursement arrangement could facilitate an economic compromise wherein commercial payers can save on biosimilars while providers' incomes are preserved. DISCLOSURES: Research funding was provided by Pfizer Inc. Yang and Shelbaya are employees of Pfizer Inc. and own Pfizer stock. Carioto, Pyenson, Smith, Jacobson, and Pittinger are employees of Milliman Inc., which received research funding from Pfizer Inc., for work on this study. Milliman, Inc., provides actuarial and other professional services to organizations throughout the healthcare industry. None of these are contingent, equity or investment relationships.

Conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Lay abstract Pegfilgrastim is used to prevent low white blood cell count in patients receiving chemotherapy. Comparable to a generic version of a drug, a biosimilar is a follow-on version of a biologic treatment. The authors calculated the savings from using biosimilar pegfilgrastim in a hypothetical group of 2500 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and then computed the number of additional doses of FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy that could be purchased with those savings. Using biosimilar pegfilgrastim for 12 cycles could save US$6,907.41 per patient. If all 2500 patients were treated with biosimilar pegfilgrastim, US$17.3 million could be saved. This could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim can generate significant savings to purchase chemotherapy for additional patients cost-free.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Uptake of Biosimilars and Its Economic Implication for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the uptake of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and its economic implication for healthcare expenditure. METHODS: Using Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Samples, we extracted RA patients who used biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2009 and 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to explain the basic features of the data. We calculated the proportion of users of each bDMARD among total patients with bDMARDs half-yearly. We assessed changes in the utilization proportions of bDMARDs including 4 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and 2 non-TNFis, which have been approved for RA in Korea: etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, tocilizumab, and abatacept, and analyzed the changes in market share of biosimilars among the bDMARDs after their introduction. Overall trends of medical costs for each bDMARD were presented over the 10-year period. RESULTS: Since the introduction of the biosimilar TNFis in 2012, the proportion of their use among bDMARDs steadily increased to 15.8% in 2018. While there has been a gradual increase in the use of biosimilar TNFis, the use of the corresponding originators has been decreasing. The introduction of biosimilar TNFis has resulted in a decrease in the medical costs of patients using either originator or biosimilar TNFis. CONCLUSION: In Korea, the proportional use of biosimilar TNFis has gradually increased since their introduction. The availability of less expensive biosimilar TNFis seems to have brought about a decrease in the medical costs of users of the originators.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2021.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2021 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 2021 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2021 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2020, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the United States grew 4.9% compared to 2019, for a total of $535.3 billion. Utilization (a 2.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase, with price changes having minimal influence (a 0.3% increase). Adalimumab was the top drug in 2020, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $35.3 billion (a 4.6% decrease) and $98.4 billion (an 8.1% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals the decrease in expenditures was driven by reduced utilization. Several new drugs that will influence spending are expected to be approved in 2021. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2021, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4% to 6%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7% to 9% and 3% to 5%, respectively, compared to 2020. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab versus rituximab biosimilars for previously untreated follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized phase 3 GALLIUM trial, first-line treatment with obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus chemotherapy (G + chemo) resulted in superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus chemotherapy (R + chemo) for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). G + chemo was found to be cost-effective when compared with R + chemo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of approximately $2,300 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Two rituximab biosimilars, rituximab-abbs (Ra) and rituximab-pvvr (Rp), have been approved by the FDA for use in this setting. However, the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo has not yet been estimated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo in the first-line treatment of FL. METHODS: We adapted an existing Markov model that compared G + chemo with R + chemo, using investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression survival data from the GALLIUM trial to model overall survival. All patients in the study received induction chemoimmunotherapy with either G + chemo or R + chemo, with responders then receiving obinutuzumab or rituximab maintenance therapy for 2 years or until disease progression. We assumed that the efficacy and safety of the rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy were the same as the R + chemo arm of the GALLIUM study. Drug utilization and treatment duration were also derived from GALLIUM. Health care costs were based on Medicare reimbursements, and drug costs were average sale prices for intravenous therapies or wholesale acquisition costs for oral therapies used after progression. Utility estimates were based on the GALLIUM trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key drivers of the model and uncertainty in the results. Results: Treatment with G + chemo led to an increase of 0.93 QALYs relative to rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy (95% credible range [CR] = 0.36-1.46). The total cost of G + chemo was $191,317, whereas the total costs of Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo were $164,340 (Δ14.1%) and $169,755 (Δ11.3%), respectively, with G + chemo resulting in incremental costs of $26,978 (95% CR = $19,781-$33,119) and $21,562 (95% CR = $14,473-$28,389), respectively. The incremental total drug and administration costs were $32,678 (Δ25.4%) and $27,263 (Δ21.2%) for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and G + chemo versus Rp + chemo, respectively. There were cost savings of $7,050 (Δ-12.4%) related to disease progression for G + chemo ($56,727) compared with Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo ($63,777). ICERs were $28,879 and $23,082 per QALY gained for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, G + chemo was cost-effective at the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds versus both Ra + chemo (88% and 98% probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively) and Rp + chemo (93% and 98%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: G + chemo is projected to be cost-effective versus rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy in the United States as first-line treatment for FL, driven by increased QALYs for G + chemo and cost savings from delayed disease progression. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and writing of the report. All authors approved the decision to submit the report for publication. Spencer and Guzauskas report fees from Genentech during the conduct of the study. Felizzi was employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche at the time this study was conducted; Launonen is an employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Felizzi and Launonen previously had share ownership in Novartis. Dawson and Masaquel are employees of Genentech, and they have stock options in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Veenstra reports fees from Genentech, during the conduct of this study and outside of the submitted work. This work was presented, in part, at the AACR Virtual Meeting Advances in Malignant Lymphoma meeting (virtual; August 17-19, 2020) and the SOHO annual meeting (virtual; September 9-12, 2020).

Cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab and trastuzumab biosimilar combination therapy as initial treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab with trastuzumab biosimilar and docetaxel as initial treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab biosimilar and docetaxel with or without pertuzumab from a healthcare system perspective over a 15-year time horizon for patients with HER2-positive MBC. Key clinical inputs were derived from the CLEOPATRA trial. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. RESULTS: The base-case resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD366,658 (USD272,244) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to utilities in the progression-free state, price of pertuzumab and time horizon. When the price for trastuzumab reference biologic (branded) was applied, the ICER was even higher (SGD426,996 [USD317,045]/QALY). CONCLUSION: Although trastuzumab biosimilar reduced the cost of the pertuzumab combination regimen, the ICER remained high and was not cost effective in Singapore's context. As pertuzumab contributed 80% of the overall combination treatment cost, price reductions for pertuzumab will be required to improve the cost-effectiveness of combination treatment to an acceptable level.

Intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab, and trastuzumab biosimilars: implications for clinical practice.

Trastuzumab is a biologic therapy indicated for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer. Trastuzumab was originally approved as an intravenous (IV) formulation but has since been developed for subcutaneous (SC) administration for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Both formulations demonstrate generally comparable pharmacological and clinical profiles. Therefore, when deciding between treatment options, factors such as the route of administration, patient preference, value and cost must be considered. Studies comparing IV with SC trastuzumab indicate that each formulation offers unique advantages to patients depending on their individual needs. Concurrent with the development of SC trastuzumab, IV trastuzumab biosimilars comprise another treatment option that, in view of their reduced cost, might improve patient access and increase cost-effectiveness for healthcare providers and payers. In this review, we seek to raise awareness of the current options available for trastuzumab so that healthcare providers can optimally treat patients according to their individual situations and preferences.

Uptake of biosimilars for TNF-α inhibitors adalimumab and etanercept following the best-value biological medicine initiative in Ireland.

Background There is over 10 years of clinical experience and evidence to show that biosimilar medicines can be used as safely and effectively in approved therapeutic indications as their originator biological medicines. In Ireland, biosimilar medicine uptake has been very slow, and savings to the health service will only be realised through fostering a competitive biological medicine market. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the utilisation of biosimilars following a 'best-value biological' medicine initiative for adalimumab and etanercept in the Irish healthcare setting. Methods Data was extracted from the National High Tech claims database and High Tech ordering and management hub for the following drugs; adalimumab (Humira®, Amgevita®, Hulio®, Idacio®, and Imraldi®) and etanercept (Enbrel® and Benepali®). Main outcome measure: uptake of the best-value biological medicines. Results In June 2019, just over 90 patients had been initiated on, or switched to a best-value biological for adalimumab or etanercept. Over the next 12 months this increased to over 8500 patients. With the best-value biologicals accounting for approximately 50 % of market share in June 2020, the combined estimated savings and avoided costs are €22.7 million to date. The gain-share prescribing incentive has raised over €3.6 million for the specialties to invest back into patient care. Conclusion Against the background of a finite healthcare budget, this study shows that increasing use of biosimilars can create the financial savings and space to invest in new innovative therapies for the benefit of many patients.