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.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: Joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety. RESULTS: Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL. CONCLUSIONS: In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<-2.0 or with a T-score of <-1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>-1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

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.

September 2007 update on EORTC guidelines and anemia management with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Anemia is frequently experienced by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and can negatively impact the patient's prognosis. Blood transfusions, iron supplementation (in absolute or functionally iron-deficient anemias), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are among the treatment options for anemia. Treatment options for anemia management should be selected based on the best benefit-to-risk ratio for each individual patient. In September 2007, the working party of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) updated their guidelines on the use of ESAs, which are summarized in this paper. ESAs reduce the number of transfusions required and significantly improve quality of life in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. A sustained hemoglobin level of about 12 g/dl should be the target for treatment with ESAs. ESAs should be used according to the EORTC guidelines and within label with carefully considered exceptions.

Cancer-related anemia: pathogenesis, prevalence and treatment.

Cancer-related anemia is a cytokine-mediated disorder resulting from complex interactions between tumor cells and the immune system. Overexpression of certain inflammatory cytokines results in shortened survival of red blood cells, suppression of erythroid progenitor cells, impaired iron utilization, and inadequate erythropoietin production. Numerous other factors may also contribute to the development of anemia in cancer patients. The European Cancer Anaemia Survey (ECAS) has provided the most current, comprehensive, prospectively collected data on the incidence and prevalence of anemia among cancer patients, as well as important perspectives on anemia treatment and relationship of hemoglobin and performance status. ECAS enrolled over 15,000 treated and untreated patients with various malignancies from cancer centers in 24 European countries and followed them for up to 6 months. The initial analysis of the ECAS data revealed that 39% of the total cancer patient population was anemic (hemoglobin <12.0 g/dl) at enrollment, although the rate varied according to tumor type, disease status, and cancer treatment status. Of the patients who were not anemic at enrollment and started cancer treatment during the survey, those undergoing chemotherapy--either alone or in combination with radiotherapy--had the highest incidence of anemia (63 and 42%, respectively). Low hemoglobin levels correlated with poor performance status and only 40% of patients who were anemic at some time during the survey received treatment for their anemia. These findings are noteworthy, since a growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the treatment of anemia can significantly improve patients' quality of life and may also improve the clinical outcome.

Anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Anticipatory nausea and vomiting (ANV) is not only a learned response but can occur without prior exposure to chemotherapy depending on patient emotional distress and expectations. The best method to avoid development or reinforcement of ANV is to avoid both vomiting and nausea from the first exposure to chemotherapy. If ANV develops, benzodiazepines have been documented to help in adult patients, and several psychological techniques are also of help, including systematic desensitization. The evidence on which these conclusions are based is reviewed in this article.

Long-term implications of bone loss in breast cancer.

Cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is an emerging problem during long-term adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors or ovarian-ablative therapy. CTIBL increases the risk of skeletal complications. Patients receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer should receive periodic bone mineral density (BMD) assessments, and those with clinically significant bone loss should be treated with bisphosphonates. Intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonates (e.g., zoledronic acid) appear to be a very effective treatment for CTIBL. Recently, the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 012 trial reported that i.v. zoledronic acid (4 mg every 6 months) maintained BMD in premenopausal women receiving goserelin with either tamoxifen or anastrozole. The Z-FAST and ZO-FAST trials are comparing i.v. zoledronic acid (4 mg every 6 months) up front with letrozole versus initiation when patients exhibit lumbar-spine BMD T-scores > or =2 standard deviations below normal (i.e., T-score < or =-2.0). These studies will provide important insight into the management of CTIBL.