Milestones over the development of SB3, a trastuzumab biosimilar.

The development of a biosimilar requires large extensive preclinical and clinical comparability exercises to demonstrate equivalence to the reference medical product. The holistic results from this large assessment should be taken into account to appreciate the validity of the development and the interpretations. SB3 is the first trastuzumab biosimilar approved for routine use in Europe. The present manuscript reviews the development and the results of SB3, including clinical assessment and the clinical Phase I, as well as the large randomized Phase III comparing efficacy between SB3 versus Herceptin® containing regimen in neoadjuvant setting. Key points of the design and interpretations of the findings are extensively discussed in this review of SB3 development.

Unintended Consequences in Cancer Care Delivery Created by the Medicare Part B Proposal: Is the Clinical Rationale for the Experiment Flawed?

PURPOSE: Medicare currently enrolls ≥ 45 million adults, and by 2030 this is projected to increase to ≥ 80 million beneficiaries. With this growth, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposal, the Medicare Part B Drug Payment Model, to shrink drug expenditures, a major contributor to overall health care costs. For this to not adversely affect patient outcomes, lower-cost alternative medications with equivalent efficacy and no increased toxicity must be available. This is often not true in the treatment of cancer. Herein, we examine the flaws in the rationale of the CMS and the potential unintended consequences of this experiment. METHODS: We identified the top three oncology expenditures (rituximab, bevacizumab, and trastuzumab) and their vetted alternatives (per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines) to ascertain whether lower-cost equivalent alternatives are available. Drug cost was based on April 2016 average sale price. We explored both efficacy of the agents and, when applicable, toxicity to compare alternatives to these high-dollar medications. RESULTS: For the largest Medicare oncology drug expenditures, there is not a lower-cost option with equal efficacy for their primary indications. Without lower-cost alternatives, the unintended consequence of this CMS experiment may include curtailing access to care or an increase in patient/program costs. CONCLUSION: The CMS proposal, by simply lowering reimbursement for drugs, does not acknowledge the value of these agents and could unintentionally reduce quality of care. Alternative approaches to value-based care, such as the Oncology Care Model and similar frameworks, should be explored.