Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients.

PURPOSE: Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV. RESULTS: Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly. CONCLUSION: Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model. RESULTS: Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

ESO-ESMO Masterclass in Clinical Oncology: Analysis and Evaluation of the Learning Self-Assessment Test.

Masterclass in Clinical Oncology (MCO) represents the "key educational event" of European School of Oncology's (ESO) teaching program. MCO in collaboration with European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is a multidisciplinary and clinical oriented educational event offered mainly to young oncologists worldwide. It provides full immersion in oncology with clinical case presentations and a Learning Self-Assessment Test (LSAT).LSAT is consisting of 45 multiple choice questions on an electronic platform referring to the material taught during the MCO. Three questions related to their topics are requested in advance from each faculty member. The major intentions of LSAT are the following: (a) the learning reflection of the massive information given during 4-5 days of intensive teaching and (b) to offer the opportunity to the participants to prepare themselves for their National Boards or for ESMO examination.In this article, we are analyzing and evaluating the results of LSAT from the ESO-ESMO Central European MCOs. We used the information of Central European MCOs for analysis due to the homogeneity of the available data. We assessed the level of participants' knowledge in relation to their oncology specialty or to their country of origin and the level of the quality of faculty teaching.

The management of patients with cancer of unknown primary in middle-income countries: an ESO-AROME survey.

Aim: To report on the management strategies in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) in middle-income countries. Methods: We conceived a survey of 20 items concerning the management of patients with CUP in daily clinical practice. Only participants from lower- and higher-middle-income countries, as per the World Bank Classification, were eligible for this study. Results: The indications for the first-line treatment did not differ between the two economic regions, whereas those for second-line treatment were more prevalent in higher-middle-income countries. The use of targeted therapy based on immunohistochemistry alone was higher in lower-middle-income countries, although the access to CUP classifiers was similar between the two regions. Conclusions: Proper recommendations must ensure that the economic burden is minimized and that other benefits outweigh the limited survival benefit achieved in patients with CUP.

The clinical training centers fellowships: a European School of Oncology career development program (2013-2019).

Aim: This article refers to the European School of Oncology Clinical Training Centers (CTCs) program, which is a granted Fellowships program dedicated to young oncologists in training. Materials & methods: A total of 74 fellowships were offered by several CTCs during the last 7 years. Candidates were enrolled for 3-6 months of training rotations as fellows or observers in more than 30 training programs in well known Cancer Centers around Europe. Fellowships were covering medical, surgical, radiation and pediatric oncology specialties, laboratory diagnostic training and experimental, translational and clinical research. Fellows originated from Europe, Latin America and Mediterranean Africa. Results: Analysis of the questionnaire assessment showed that 95.5% of the fellows evaluated CTC programs with an 'excellent' or 'very good' score, while 100% declare that they had reached their objectives. Conclusion: The European School of Oncology CTC program designed for an additional practical education abroad meets the needs of young oncologists.

AROME-ESO Oncology Consensus Conference: access to cancer care innovations in countries with limited resources. Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Mediterranean Area (AROME-Paris) and European School of Oncology (ESO - Milan).

PURPOSE: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Its incidence is still increasing, particularly in developing countries. Recent progresses further strengthen the differences between low/middle and high-income countries. This situation calls for joint action to reduce inequities in cancer outcomes among the patients. The Association of Radiotherapy and Oncology of the Mediterranean Area (AROME) and the European School of Oncology (ESO), have initiated joint conferences devoted to access to innovations in oncology in the Mediterranean area. The heterogeneity of the economic, political and cultural situations of the different participating countries, offers the opportunity to develop consensus conference. METHODS: Cancer prevention and treatment strategies were discussed according to existing international guidelines. The Scientific committee prepared 111 questions with an objective to prioritize the access to treatments and innovations in low/middle-income Mediterranean countries. The results from the votes of 65 oncology experts, coming from 16 countries and 33 institutions have been analysed and access priorities classified accordingly. RESULTS: Ninety six percent of the proposed general recommendations concerning national health care strategies, oncology education, and treatment organization were considered to be high priorities. Regarding access to systemic treatments, 41% of the drugs without validated predictive markers and 53% of those with validated predictive markers were considered to be 1st level priority. Only 4 biological tests were considered to be 1st level priority to access to innovation. CONCLUSIONS: AROME-ESO consensus offers to cancer specialists from developing countries a basis for discussion with health authorities and payers on the prioritization of access to innovations in cancer care.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the elderly: impact of prognosis, comorbidities, geriatric assessment, and supportive care on clinical practice. An International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) expert position paper.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the elderly, and is increasing in incidence. Although significant therapeutic advances have recently been made in the care of older patients with DLBCL, based upon results of randomized clinical trials, many older patients are not eligible for such trials due to comorbidities and functional decline. Pre-treatment evaluation of older patients to ascertain potential tolerance to therapy is especially important in therapeutic decisions for this population. Evaluation by performance status alone is insufficient, especially in the elderly, and consideration of the impact of comorbidities and functional/social decline needs to be included in such assessment. As part of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force, the issues of prognosis, comorbidities, geriatric assessment, and supportive care measures in older patients with DLBCL will be reviewed, and recommendations for assessment and allied care made.

Cost savings from anemia management with biosimilar epoetin alfa and increased access to targeted antineoplastic treatment: a simulation for the EU G5 countries.

AIM: We simulated the budget impact of biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) in EU G5 countries. MATERIALS & METHODS: Three models were built to estimate the number of patients who could be provided with antineoplastic therapy with rituximab, bevacizumab or trastuzumab from cost savings of biosimilar erythropoietin use in a hypothetical panel of 100,000 patients. The associated number of patients needed to convert to biosimilar ESA to provide such treatments was also calculated. RESULTS: Under fixed dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €110,592,159, translating into an additional 9770 rituximab, 3912 bevacizumab, or 3713 trastuzumab treatments. Under weight-based dosing, the savings from 100% conversion were €146,170,333, corresponding to an additional 12,913 rituximab, 5171 bevacizumab or 4908 trastuzumab treatments. The number of patients needed to convert ranged from four to 51. CONCLUSION: Using biosimilar ESA for supportive cancer care yields significant savings and increases accessibility to primary antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

Disease burden and treatment outcomes in second-line therapy of patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variable burden of disease of patients with advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer and assess the current treatment landscape after failure of first-line endocrine therapy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed (2000-2011) by searching Medline via PubMed, and Embase and Cochrane databases, to assess disease burden (i.e. societal, humanistic, and/or economic burden) and treatment landscape for second-line therapy of ER+ advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. RESULTS: Only 1 study was identified that evaluated burden of disease based on ER status (ER+, ER-negative, or ER-unknown); this study was a subgroup analysis assessing the impact of breast cancer recurrence over 10 years. The investigators reported that only minor differences in survival and medical costs were noted based on ER status in relapsing patients. Regardless of ER status, patients with breast cancer recurrence consumed more healthcare resources and were associated with more costly care than those without recurrence. A total of 7 studies were identified related to treatment outcomes of second-line therapy in ER+ patients. A combined international population totaled >3800 patients who had progressed on prior hormonal therapy, including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors. Three trials performed a comparative efficacy/safety assessment of an ER antagonist vs. aromatase inhibitor, 1 trial compared an aromatase inhibitor to megestrol acetate, and 1 trial compared 2 aromatase inhibitors. Among each of the studies evaluated, no significant differences were observed in the primary efficacy endpoint, and the safety profiles were similar. Two additional studies demonstrated a similar or better efficacy and safety profile based on different dosing evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the economic and humanistic burden associated with ER status, and this gap warrants further research. With increasing drug resistance and greater economic burden associated with breast cancer recurrence, there is an unmet medical need for improved treatment in this patient population.

Comparative cost efficiency across the European G5 countries of originators and a biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent to manage chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative cost efficiency across the European Union G5 countries of the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin α (originator [Eprex®] and biosimilar [Binocrit®]; once weekly), epoetin ß (NeoRecormon®; once weekly), and darbepoetin α (Aranesp®; once weekly or once every 3 weeks) under different scenarios of fixed and weight-based dosing in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. METHODS: Direct costs of ESA treatment were calculated for one patient with cancer undergoing chemotherapy (six cycles at 3-week intervals) with ESA initiated at week 4 and continued for 15 weeks. Five scenarios were developed under fixed and weight-based dosing: continuous standard dose for 15 weeks; sustained dose escalation to 1.5× or double the standard dose at week 7, continued for 12 weeks; and discontinued dose escalation to 1.5× or double the standard dose at week 7 for a 3-week period, then 9 weeks of standard dose. RESULTS: Under fixed dosing, the average cost of biosimilar epoetin α treatment across scenarios was €4643 (30,000 IU) or €6178 (40,000 IU). Corresponding estimates were €7168 for originator epoetin α, €7389 for epoetin ß, €8299 for darbepoetin α once weekly, and €9221 for darbepoetin α once every 3 weeks. Under weight-based dosing, the average cost of biosimilar epoetin α treatment across scenarios was €4726. Corresponding estimates were €5484 for originator epoetin α, €5652 for epoetin ß, and €8465 for both darbepoetin α once weekly and once every three weeks. CONCLUSION: Managing chemotherapy-induced anemia with biosimilar epoetin α is consistently cost efficient over treatment with originator epoetin α, epoetin ß, and darbepoetin α under both fixed and weight-based dosing scenarios.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg. METHODS: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries. RESULTS: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.