Policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar uptake: a systematic review.

Introduction: While biosimilar medicines can contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems, their utilization rate varies across European countries. This study aims to identify and systematize policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar market share. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Medline-PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched using inclusion criteria that required full articles published in English between January 2006 and November 2023. Reviews, letters, reports, editorials and comments or opinion articles were excluded from this study. Results: Of the 1,137 articles, only 13 met the eligibility criteria for analysis, which covered a total of 28 European countries. Pricing regulation measures were found in 27 of these countries with tendering, price-linkage and internal reference price being the most used. Tendering was used by 27 countries to procure biosimilars in inpatient setting. Prescribing guidelines and recommendations were the widely used instrument. Some European countries adopted physician incentives, quotas, and prescription by international non-proprietary name. Conclusion: Automatic substitution was not commonly recommended or applied. Interchangeability and switching will become increasingly relevant issues. It is important that the positive results from some countries serve as an example for the future of these medicines in the European market. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/, Identifier INPLASY2023120032.

Cost-effectiveness of one-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in treatment for early-stage breast cancer patients with HER2+ in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: In Vietnam, trastuzumab is included in social health insurance's benefits package with a reimbursement rate of 60%, but policymakers have been concerned about its cost-effectiveness. The research aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early-stage breast cancer patients with human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2+) from a societal perspective. METHOD: A Markov model was developed and validated to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness (using life year and quality-adjusted life year) of one-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy compared to chemotherapy (using paclitaxel) alone. Treatment efficacy and transition probabilities were estimated based on published trials (i.e., N9831, NSABP B-31, HERA, and BCIRG 006). Local cost and utility data were employed to capture the Vietnam context. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, threshold, and scenario analysis were also performed. RESULTS: One-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone yielded an additional cost of 888,453,971VND (39,062 US$) with an additional 3.09 LYs and 1.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of 287,390,682 VND (12,635 US$) per LY gained, or 519,616,972 VND (22,845 US$) per QALY gained. The ICER exceeds the cost-effective threshold of 1- and 3-time GDP per capita by 6.3 and 2.1 times. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows similar results. According to one-way sensitivity analysis, ICERs were driven mainly by transition probabilities and trastuzumab price. One-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy would be cost-effective at the 3-time GDP per capita threshold if the cost of Herceptin 150mg and 450mg vials were reduced by 56% and 54%, correspondingly. CONCLUSION: In Vietnam, one-year adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early-stage breast cancer with HER2+ is not cost-effective. The research provided reliable and updated evidence to support policymakers in revising the health insurance benefit package. The policymakers should consider the options to reduce the cost of trastuzumab (e.g., regarding the use of trastuzumab biosimilars, price negotiation options, and options of optimizing the use of Herceptin vials among concurrent hospitalized breast cancer patients).

Estimated Sustainable Cost-Based Prices for Diabetes Medicines.

Importance: The burden of diabetes is growing worldwide. The costs associated with diabetes put substantial pressure on patients and health budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The prices of diabetes medicines are a key determinant for access, yet little is known about the association between manufacturing costs and current market prices. Objectives: To estimate the cost of manufacturing insulins, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is), and glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists (GLP1As), derive sustainable cost-based prices (CBPs), and compare these with current market prices. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, the cost of manufacturing insulins, SGLT2Is, and GLP1As was modeled. Active pharmaceutical ingredient cost per unit (weighted least-squares regression model using data from a commercial database of trade shipments, data from January 1, 2016, to March 31, 2023) was combined with costs of formulation and other operating expenses, plus a profit margin with an allowance for tax, to estimate CBPs. Cost-based prices were compared with current prices in 13 countries, collected in January 2023 from public databases. Countries were selected to provide representation of different income levels and geographic regions based on the availability of public databases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated CBPs; lowest current market prices (2023 US dollars). Results: In this economic evaluation of manufacturing costs, estimated CBPs for treatment with insulin in a reusable pen device could be as low as $96 (human insulin) or $111 (insulin analogues) per year for a basal-bolus regimen, $61 per year using twice-daily injections of mixed human insulin, and $50 (human insulin) or $72 (insulin analogues) per year for a once-daily basal insulin injection (for type 2 diabetes), including the cost of injection devices and needles. Cost-based prices ranged from $1.30 to $3.45 per month for SGLT2Is (except canagliflozin: $25.00-$46.79) and from $0.75 to $72.49 per month for GLP1As. These CBPs were substantially lower than current prices in the 13 countries surveyed. Conclusions and Relevance: High prices limit access to newer diabetes medicines in many countries. The findings of this study suggest that robust generic and biosimilar competition could reduce prices to more affordable levels and enable expansion of diabetes treatment globally.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition.

Importance: Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients. Objective: To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included. Exposure: Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry. Results: Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

Ranibizumab Biosimilars in Treating Retinal Disorders: A Cost-Effective Revolution?

Ranibizumab, is a humanized, monoclonal antibody fragment that binds and inactivates vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) and VEGF-B. One of the main indications for an intravitreal treatment with ranibizumab is age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is a retinal disease with a high worldwide socioeconomic impact. Biosimilars constitute biological products that demonstrate similar pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics with a reference product, as well as comparable clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Since the approval of the first biosimilar Razumab, there has been a variety of new biosimilars available on the market. They offer the advantage of the same good clinical and safety results at a better price. All Ranibizumab biosimilars that have gained approval were tested in double masked Phase 3 clinical studies. The use of Ranibizumab biosimilars in neovascular AMD is well reported in the bibliography. Nevertheless, over the last few years, there is a tendency of using biosimilars in other retinal diseases like retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), diabetic macular edema (DME) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). In conclusion, ranibizumab biosimilars offer a promising avenue for the management of retinal diseases, especially in countries with lower socioeconomic status, where there is lack of availability of innovator ranibizumab. However, further research is required to fully explore their efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes in a plethora of retinal diseases.

Clinical outcomes and cost savings of a nonmedical switch to a biosimilar in children/young adults with inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVES: The safety, efficacy, and cost savings associated with biosimilar medications are well established. However, a lack of pediatric data exists surrounding clinical outcomes when switching from an originator to a biosimilar. Our primary aim is to evaluate clinical outcomes following a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our secondary aim is to estimate cost savings associated with this switch. METHODS: A quality improvement project was implemented to establish safe switching protocols, then those patients who underwent a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to the biosimilar were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, physician global assessments (PGAs), and laboratory values were recorded 1 year pre- and post-switch. Continuation rates on the biosimilar were reported at 6 and 12 months. Cost savings were estimated using two different pricing models. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent a nonmedical switch. Laboratory values including inflammatory markers, infliximab levels, and PGA scores remained similar when assessed pre- and post-switch. No infusion reactions or antidrug antibody development occurred. Two patients reported psoriasis-like rashes. Five patients switched back to the originator during the study period. There were 379 biosimilar infusions completed with an estimated total cost savings of $11,260 (average sales price) and $566,223 (wholesale acquisition cost). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical remission rates, inflammatory laboratory markers, serious adverse events, infliximab levels, and antidrug antibodies remained similar after a one-time nonmedical switch to an infliximab biosimilar. Nonmedical switching to biosimilars resulted in significant cost savings.

A primer on formulary structures and strategies.

Formularies are a tool for managing costs, optimizing patient access, and improving overall health outcomes. The general goal of formularies is to provide access to appropriate therapy while promoting effective resource utilization, which allows the managed care pharmacy organization to operate sustainably. Traditional formulary strategies have included open and closed formularies as well as tiered formularies. However, other formulary structures have emerged in support of the focus on product value. The formulary development process is primarily driven by the pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committee and value committee within an organization. Key considerations such as member population, regional differences, regulatory/compliance implications, and benefit design strategies may influence payers to create a customized formulary to provide additional value to their members while managing costs. With the rise of high-cost and specialty products, formularies continue to serve as an important tool for managed care pharmacy organizations. Ongoing trends, such as biosimilars, prescription digital therapeutics, and addressing health equity, will shape future strategy and management of formularies.

Prescription Drug Prices: An AAN Position Statement.

This position statement serves to establish the AAN's stance on the methods to address the cost of prescription drugs being considered by state and federal policymakers so that the AAN can continue to advocate effectively for its members. Neurologists seek to provide high-value care for patients with neurologic diseases at the lowest cost possible. However, many therapies for neurologic diseases are among the most expensive in the United States. The 3 major cost challenges include (1) unjustified increases in the pricing for drugs used to treat neurologic disorders, (2) the high cost of medications used to treat rare diseases where there are limited or no therapeutic options available, and (3) the high cost of noninnovative (already FDA-approved) therapies that used accelerated FDA approval pathways or Orphan Drug Act designated to expedite approvals in neurologic disorders. In each of these cases, AAN is concerned that the high cost does not deliver sufficient value to patients or society. The AAN's position is that action must be taken to ensure that effective prescription medications are accessible for patients with complex, chronic neurologic conditions. Potential solutions should be affordable, simple, and transparent. Cost-containment efforts must also address the burden on the entire healthcare system because high prescription drug prices may be shifted and absorbed in ways that negatively affect patient and prescriber access to important medications. AAN supports price negotiations, the cost saving potential of generics and biosimilars, development of novel therapeutics, price transparency, and importation.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy (CT) and drug wastage in treating platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) was assessed. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes in the treatment of patients with PRrOC from a Taiwan healthcare prospective, extrapolated to two years based on data obtained from the JGOG3023 clinical trial. The primary outcomes of the model were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, using vials of bevacizumab biosimilar (Bevbiol) plus chemotherapy, the ICER was (new Taiwan dollar) NT$ 4,555,878 per QALY gained. The incremental cost savings of an incremental 2.02 QALYs were NT$ 1,605,828 if weight-based Bevbiol plus chemotherapy were used, but the ICER remained high at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. If the cost of Bevbiol were reduced to 50% per vial, adding it to CT would be cost-effective at an acceptable WTP threshold of NTD 2,994,200, with an ICER of NT$ 2,975,484. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab biosimilars in mg/kg dosage form with chemotherapy are still not cost-effective in Taiwan, but using weight-based dosing will reduce drug waste and save treatment costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of add-on pertuzumab to trastuzumab biosimilar and chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment for human epidermal growth receptor 2-positive early breast cancer patients in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: The Asian PEONY trial showed that add-on pertuzumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response in the neoadjuvant treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (EBC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pertuzumab as an add-on therapy to trastuzumab and chemotherapy for neoadjuvant treatment of patients with HER2+ EBC in Singapore. METHODS: A six-state Markov model was developed from the Singapore healthcare system perspective, with a lifetime time horizon. Model outputs were: costs; life-years (LYs); quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses explored model uncertainties. RESULTS: The base case projected the addition of pertuzumab to be associated with improved outcomes by 0.277 LYs and 0.271 QALYs, increased costs by S$1,387, and an ICER of S$5,121/QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the pCR rate, and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on pertuzumab had an 81.3% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$45,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that the long-term clinical impact of early pertuzumab use, particularly the avoidance of metastatic disease and thus avoidance of higher costs and mortality rates, make neoadjuvant pertuzumab a cost-effective option in the management of patients with HER2+ breast cancer in Singapore.

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 analysis of upadacitinib as a treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

AIM: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of upadacitinib (targeted synthetic-disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug [ts-DMARD]) as first-line (1 L) treatment versus current treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), who had an inadequate response to prior conventional-synthetic (csDMARDs) and/or biologic-DMARDs (bDMARDs). METHODS: This Excel-based model included patients with moderate (Disease Activity Score [DAS28]: >3.2 to ≤5.1) or severe RA (DAS28 > 5.1). Cost-effectiveness of current treatment (1 L: adalimumab-originator/biosimilar; second-line (2 L): other bDMARDs/tofacitinib) was compared against a new treatment involving two scenarios (1 L: upadacitinib, 2 L: adalimumab-biosimilar [scenario-1]/adalimumab-originator [scenario-2]) for a 10-year time-horizon from societal perspective. Model outcomes included direct and indirect costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), hospitalization days, number of orthopedic surgeries, and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) per QALY. RESULTS: With the current pathway, estimated total societal costs for 100 RA patients over 10-year period were Saudi Riyal (SAR) 50,450,354 (United States dollars [USD] 13,453,428) (moderate RA) and SAR50,013,945 (USD13,337,052) (severe RA). New pathway (scenario-1) showed that in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, upadacitinib led to higher QALY gain (+8.99 and +15.63) at lower societal cost (cost difference: -SAR2,023,522 [-USD539,606] and -SAR3,373,029 [-USD899,474], respectively). Thus, as 1 L, upadacitinib projects "dominant" ICUR per QALY over current pathway. Moreover, in alternate pathway (scenario-2), upadacitinib also projects "dominant" ICUR per QALY for patient with severe RA (QALY gain: +15.63; cost difference: -SAR 164,536 [-USD43,876]). However, moderate RA was associated with additional cost of SAR1,255,696 (USD334,852) for improved QALY (+8.99) over current pathway (ICUR per QALY: SAR139,742 [USD37,264]). Both scenarios resulted in reduced hospitalization days (scenario-1: -14.83 days; scenario-2: -11.41 days) and number of orthopedic surgeries (scenario-1: -8.36; scenario-2: -6.54) for moderate-to-severe RA over the current treatment pathway. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib as 1 L treatment in moderate-to-severe RA can considerably reduce healthcare resource burden in KSA, majorly due to reduced drug administration/monitoring/hospitalization/surgical and indirect costs.

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.

Reviewing the process intensification landscape through the introduction of a novel, multitiered classification for downstream processing.

A demand for process intensification in biomanufacturing has increased over the past decade due to the ever-expanding market for biopharmaceuticals. This is largely driven by factors such as a surge in biosimilars as patents expire, an aging population, and a rise in chronic diseases. With these market demands, pressure upon biomanufacturers to produce quality products with rapid turnaround escalates proportionally. Process intensification in biomanufacturing has been well received and accepted across industry based on the demonstration of its benefits of improved productivity and efficiency, while also reducing the cost of goods. However, while these benefits have been shown empirically, the challenges of adopting process intensification into industry remain, from smaller independent start-up to big pharma. Traditionally, moving from batch to a process intensification scheme has been viewed as an "all or nothing" approach involving continuous bioprocessing, in which the factors of complexity and significant capital costs hinder its adoption. In addition, the literature is crowded with a variety of terms used to describe process intensification (continuous, periodic counter-current, connected, intensified, steady-state, etc.). Often, these terms are used inappropriately or as synonyms, which generates confusion in the field. Through a detailed review of current state-of-the-art systems, consumables, and process intensification case studies, we herein propose a defined approach in the implementation of downstream process intensification through a standardized nomenclature and viewing it as distinct independent levels. These can function separately as intensified single-unit operations or be built upon by integration with other process steps allowing for simple, incremental, cost-effective implementation of process intensification in the manufacturing of biopharmaceuticals.

[90Y]Yttria Alumino Silicate Glass Microspheres: A Biosimilar Formulation to "TheraSphere" for Cost-Effective Treatment of Liver Cancer.

Background: Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using a suitable ß--emitting radionuclide is a promising treatment modality for unresectable liver carcinoma. Yttrium-90 (90Y) [T1/2 = 64.2 h, Eß(max) = 2.28 MeV, no detectable γ-photon] is the most preferred radioisotope for SIRT owing to its favorable decay characteristics. Objective: The present study describes indigenous development and evaluation of intrinsically radiolabeled [90Y]yttria alumino silicate ([90Y]YAS) glass microsphere, a formulation biosimilar to "TheraSphere" (commercially available, U.S. FDA-approved formulation), for SIRT of unresectable liver carcinoma in human patients. Methods: YAS glass microspheres of composition 40Y2O3-20Al2O3-40SiO2 (w/w) and diameter ranging between 20 and 36 µm were synthesized with almost 100% conversion efficiency and >99% sphericity. Intrinsically labeled [90Y]YAS glass microspheres were produced by thermal neutron irradiation of cold YAS glass microspheres in a research reactor. Subsequent to in vitro evaluations and in vivo studies in healthy Wistar rats, customized doses of [90Y]YAS glass microspheres were administered in human patients. Results: [90Y]YAS glass microspheres were produced with 137.7 ± 8.6 MBq/mg YAS glass (∼6800 Bq per microsphere) specific activity and 99.94% ± 0.02% radionuclidic purity at the end of irradiation. The formulation exhibited excellent in vitro stability in human serum and showed >97% retention in the liver up to 7 d post-administration when biodistribution studies were carried out in healthy Wistar rats. Yttrium-90 positron emission tomography scans recorded at different time points post-administration of customized dose of [90Y]YAS glass microspheres in human patients showed near-quantitative retention of the formulation in the injected lobe. Conclusions: The study confirmed the suitability of indigenously prepared [90Y]YAS glass microspheres for clinical use in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Biosimilars: From Production to Patient.

Biologic drugs are large, complex molecules produced through biotechnology. A biosimilar is a biologic product that is highly similar to an already approved biologic (reference product), with no clinically meaningful differences in purity, safety, or efficacy; as such, a biosimilar does not need to undergo the same level of study in a clinical trial program as the original reference product. Due to the potential impact of biosimilars on patient access and health care systems, the US Food and Drug Administration introduced an abbreviated pathway for approving biosimilars (351[k]) in 2009. There is strong evidence that switching from a reference product to a biosimilar does not reduce treatment effectiveness or increase the risk of adverse events. Biosimilars may reduce costs and increase patient access to biologic therapies. Biosimilar use in the United States has increased, as have the associated biosimilar cost savings, which are expected to reach $104 billion between 2020 and 2024. Yet, a need remains for increased knowledge among health care professionals and patients. Prescriber confidence is key to patient acceptance of biosimilars and minimizing the incidence of the nocebo effect. Infusion nurses are well positioned to help educate patients and to improve clinical outcomes across a range of diseases.

The comparison of safety and cost between reference drug of rituximab and its biosimilar Riximyo in lymphoproliferative disorders and other hematological diseases. Single center experience.

Rituximab, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has broad clinical application. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and cost of the original reference rituximab (MabThera) and its biosimilar (Riximyo). This retrospective analysis of 262 patients receiving Riximyo in the Department of Hematology of Wroclaw Medical University in Poland from the period of 1 October 2020 to 21 June 2021 focused on infusion-related reactions (IRRs), which occurred in 4,96% of patients (N = 13). 109 patients (41,6%) had previously been treated with the reference drug and 2 IRRs were reported after switching therapy. During the study period, after biosimilar introduction, the cost of rituximab decreased by 41%. Rixmyo while maintaining similar safety profile is much more cost-effective.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries. METHODS: This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period. RESULTS: Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent. CONCLUSION: The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.