RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Entrevistas como AsuntoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Ahorro de Costo/estadística & datos numéricos , Filgrastim/uso terapéutico , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Polietilenglicoles/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Neoplasias de la Mama/economía , Simulación por Computador , Costos de los Medicamentos , Sustitución de Medicamentos/economía , Sustitución de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Filgrastim/economía , Humanos , Medicare/economía , Medicare/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Polietilenglicoles/economía , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastuzumab/administración & dosificación , Administración Intravenosa/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Neoplasias de la Mama/genética , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Subcutáneas/economía , Receptor ErbB-2/genética , Trastuzumab/economía , Resultado del TratamientoAsunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos , Industria Farmacéutica , Medicamentos Genéricos , Competencia Económica , Patentes como Asunto , Humanos , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Costos de los Medicamentos , Medicamentos Genéricos/economía , Medicamentos Genéricos/uso terapéutico , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Patentes como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Competencia Económica/economía , Competencia Económica/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
Over the past 2 decades, biological therapy with monoclonal antibodies targeting tumor necrosis factor-α has become a cornerstone of treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Although clinically effective, the biological therapies remain expensive, and their availability and utilization have been at times limited due to their high costs. Biosimilars are biological products similar to but not identical to the original biological agent or "reference biologic," also called "originator biologic." It is hoped that the use of biosimilars might enable these agents to become more available and, thus, decrease further expenditures related to the use of the original reference agents such as infliximab and adalimumab. In this study, we review the currently available evidence and shortcomings of these data supporting the use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including their efficacy and safety as related to initiating therapy with biosimilar agents or switching between reference and biosimilar biologic agents.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/uso terapéutico , Adalimumab/economía , Adalimumab/uso terapéutico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Costos de los Medicamentos , Sustitución de Medicamentos , Gastos en Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Infliximab/economía , Infliximab/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Healthcare systems worldwide are struggling to find ways to fund the cost of innovative treatments such as gene therapies, regenerative medicine, and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). As the world's best known mAbs are close to facing patent expirations, the biosimilars market is poised to grow with the hope of bringing prices down for cancer treatment and autoimmune disorders, however, this has yet to be realized. The development costs of biosimilars are significantly higher than their generic equivalents due to therapeutic equivalence trials and higher manufacturing costs. It is imperative that academics and relevant companies understand the costs and stages associated with biologics processing. This article brings these costs to the forefront with a focus on biosimilars being developed for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). mAbs have remarkably changed the treatment landscape, establishing their superior efficacy over traditional small chemicals. Five blockbuster TNFα mAbs, considered as first line biologics against RA, are either at the end of their patent life or have already expired and manufacturers are seeking to capture a significant portion of that market. Although in principle, market-share should be available, withstanding that the challenges regarding the compliance and regulations are being resolved, particularly with regards to variation in the glycosylation patterns and challenges associated with manufacturing. Glycan variants can significantly affect the quality attributes requiring characterization throughout production. Successful penetration of biologics can drive down prices and this will be a welcome change for patients and the healthcare providers. Herein we review the biologic TNFα inhibitors, which are on the market, in development, and the challenges being faced by biosimilar manufacturers.
Asunto(s)
Artritis Reumatoide , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos , Industria Farmacéutica , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/provisión & distribución , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Aprobación de Drogas , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/tendencias , Humanos , Patentes como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether non-medical switching of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from originator infliximab to a biosimilar (CT-P13, Inflectra) is safe and clinically non-inferior to continued treatment with originator infliximab. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, multicentre, parallel cohort, non-inferiority study in seven Australian hospitals over 48 weeks, May 2017 - October 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18 years or older) with IBD receiving maintenance originator infliximab (Remicade) who had been in steroid-free clinical remission for at least 12 weeks. INTERVENTION: Managed program for switching patients in four hospitals from originator to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13); patients in three other hospitals continued to receive originator infliximab (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical disease worsening requiring infliximab dose escalation or change in therapy. RESULTS: The switch group included 204 patients, the control group 141 patients with IBD. Ten patients in the control group (7%) and 16 patients switched to CT-P13 (8%) experienced clinical deterioration; the adjusted risk difference (control v switch group) was -1.1 percentage points (95% CI, -6.1 to 8.2 percentage points), within our pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points. Serious adverse events leading to infliximab discontinuation were infrequent in both the switch (six, 3%) and control (six, 4%) groups. CONCLUSION: Switching patients with IBD from originator to biosimilar infliximab is safe and non-inferior to continuing treatment with originator infliximab. Moreover, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab, by increasing market competition, has resulted in substantial cost savings for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Australia , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/efectos adversos , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Costos de los Medicamentos , Sustitución de Medicamentos , Femenino , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/efectos adversos , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/economía , Humanos , Infliximab/efectos adversos , Infliximab/economía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Prospectivos , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Filgrastim/economía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Polietilenglicoles/economía , Anciano , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Simulación por Computador , Ahorro de Costo/estadística & datos numéricos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Costos de los Medicamentos , Filgrastim/uso terapéutico , Fluorouracilo/economía , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Irinotecán/economía , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Leucovorina/economía , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Modelos Económicos , Oxaliplatino/economía , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/economía , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/patología , Polietilenglicoles/uso terapéutico , Programa de VERF/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
The prescription drug market in the United States relies on competition to keep prices reasonable. Although many policies have been implemented to spur competition and decrease costs for patients, these policies may be outdated and should be redesigned and updated to achieve success in the current prescription drug market. In this paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) proposes that new policies should be implemented to prevent market manipulation, help lower-cost alternatives make it to the market faster, and ensure a robust and competitive market for generic and biosimilar drugs. The ACP believes these changes will have a meaningful effect on patients without shifting costs to other areas of the health care system.
Asunto(s)
Competencia Económica , Política de Salud , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Política de Salud/economía , Humanos , Política Organizacional , Producción de Medicamentos sin Interés Comercial/economía , Producción de Medicamentos sin Interés Comercial/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medicamentos bajo Prescripción/uso terapéutico , Sociedades Médicas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos/economía , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/uso terapéutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Reumatoide/economía , Etanercept/economía , Etanercept/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Infliximab/economía , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , República de Corea , Resultado del Tratamiento , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/economíaRESUMEN
Biosimilars are the biological drugs that are granted after the expiry of the patent of an affirmed innovator. Asia Pacific countries are characterized by significant demand as they account for majority of the world population and poor affordability due to low per capita income in most regions. Some of these countries offer potential to emerge as global suppliers of affordable, safe and efficacious biosimilars. This article highlights the prospects of biosimilars in the Asia Pacific market. Regulatory framework in the various countries is also discussed.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/provisión & distribución , Aprobación de Drogas/economía , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/economía , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Asia Sudoriental , Asia Occidental , Asia Oriental , Humanos , Mercadotecnía/economía , Mercadotecnía/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
Management of febrile neutropenia (FN) is an integral part of supportive care for patients undergoing cancer treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide suggestions for appropriate evaluation, risk determination, prophylaxis, and management of FN. These NCCN Guidelines are intended to guide clinicians in the appropriate use of growth factors for select patients undergoing treatment of nonmyeloid malignancies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight important updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding the incorporation of newly FDA-approved granulocyte-colony stimulating factor biosimilars for the prevention and treatment of FN.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/tratamiento farmacológico , Factores de Crecimiento de Célula Hematopoyética/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/normas , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/etiología , Aprobación de Drogas , Costos de los Medicamentos , Educación Médica Continua , Factores de Crecimiento de Célula Hematopoyética/economía , Factores de Crecimiento de Célula Hematopoyética/normas , Humanos , Oncología Médica/educación , Oncología Médica/normas , Neoplasias/sangre , Oncólogos/educación , Organizaciones sin Fines de Lucro/normas , Factores de Riesgo , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislación & jurisprudenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of filgrastim-sndz market entry on patient out-of-pocket costs and claim payments for filgrastim products. METHODS: This study used a single interrupted time series design with longitudinal, nationally representative, individual-level claims data from IBM MarketScan. Analyses included all outpatient and prescription claims for branded filgrastim (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim) and biosimilar filgrastim (filgrastim-sndz) from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. Outcomes of interest included changes in monthly claim payments and monthly patient out-of-pocket costs for filgrastim products. RESULTS: In the baseline period (January 2014 to February 2016), insurers paid an average of $472.21 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 465.38-479.03) for 480 mcg of branded filgrastim, whereas patients paid an average of $49.26 (CI: 34.25-64.27). Filgrastim-sndz market entry was associated with a statistically significant and immediate 1-month decrease in insurer payment of $30.77 (95% CI: -40.59 to -20.94) and a significant decrease in monthly insurer payment trend of $3.10 per month (95% CI: -3.90 to -2.31) relative to baseline. Long-term changes in patient out-of-pocket costs were modest and restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim availability led to significant immediate and long-term decreases in claims payments for filgrastim products, supporting efforts to facilitate biosimilar adoption in the United States. Nevertheless, there were only slight changes in patient out-of-pocket costs, restricted to beneficiaries enrolled in high cost sharing plans, suggesting the importance of further work assessing the relationship between biosimilar availability and patient out-of-pocket costs.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Filgrastim/economía , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/provisión & distribución , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Ahorro de Costo/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos de los Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Filgrastim/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Revisión de Utilización de Seguros , Seguro de Salud/economía , Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are prescribed sequentially in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Healthcare decision makers continue to debate their use, mainly because of their high costs. Our aim was to perform an economic evaluation for France of bDMARD sequences for treatment of moderate-to-severe RA after inadequate response or intolerance to conventional DMARDs (eg, methotrexate). METHODS: A discretely integrated condition event simulation was developed to track the course of patients from first bDMARD through switches to further lines in a sequence. The model included 11 events, 91 conditions, and 21 controlling equations. Inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of clinical trials, a French registry, national drug lists, and databases. Survival, time with minimal activity, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were output. Structural and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Sequences starting with etanercept biosimilars (ETB) cost less, with ETB-abatacept-infliximab the least expensive: the mean lifetime discounted total cost was 116 912 per patient, with a mean of 11.166 QALYs. Most other strategies were dominated or led to small QALY gains (0.0008-0.0329). Only ETB-tocilizumab-abatacept made it onto the efficiency frontier, but at 955 778 per QALY gained. These results were confirmed in several scenarios and uncertainty analyses. CONCLUSION: Given minor differences in QALYs gained between bDMARD sequences with large cost differences, starting with biosimilars was more efficient than starting with branded products. Our model and findings should provide French and other decision makers with useful tools to address the challenges of comparing sequences of treatments for RA.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos/administración & dosificación , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Metotrexato/administración & dosificación , Modelos Económicos , Antirreumáticos/economía , Artritis Reumatoide/economía , Artritis Reumatoide/fisiopatología , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/administración & dosificación , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Francia , Humanos , Metotrexato/efectos adversos , Metotrexato/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To examine the uptake of filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio), the first biosimilar to launch in the United States, in the Medicare Part B fee-for-service program from its launch in September 2015 to December 2017 and compare characteristics of patients and facilities that used filgrastim-sndz or originator filgrastim (Neupogen). METHODS: The 20% sample of Medicare Part B fee-for-service administrative claims data was used to extract information on claims for any filgrastim product between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: The utilization of filgrastim-sndz in Medicare Part B increased sharply between January and August 2016, surpassing filgrastim by November 2017, contributing to a 30% decrease in overall spending on this drug since 2015. Uptake was faster and larger in physician practices compared with hospital outpatient departments. About 77% of patients receiving filgrastim-sndz were new users. Utilization patterns indicated that product selection occurred at the facility level, rather than being at the discretion of the prescribing physician or driven by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Uptake of biosimilar filgrastim in the Medicare Part B program occurred despite multiple challenges to the adoption of biosimilars in the US market, suggesting that substantial potential savings could be generated by improving biosimilar uptake. Our findings indicated that physician practices and hospital outpatient departments have distinctive biosimilar uptake patterns. Thus policy makers aiming to contain Medicare Part B spending might consider focusing on incentivizing biosimilar uptake among hospital outpatient departments.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/administración & dosificación , Filgrastim/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Hematológicos/administración & dosificación , Medicare Part B/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Ahorro de Costo , Planes de Aranceles por Servicios/economía , Filgrastim/economía , Fármacos Hematológicos/economía , Humanos , Medicare Part B/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicio Ambulatorio en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: A rapidly increasing use of biological drugs has led to substantial costs. Shift to biosimilars enables considerable reduction of these costs without jeopardizing the treatment of patients, but most countries have extensive possibilities of untapped cost-savings. The aim of this study was to describe the Danish quick and near-complete implementation of the two first TNF inhibitor biosimilars (infliximab and etanercept). METHODS: We shed light on the considerations and experiences made during the implementation, and present key figures from the implementation. RESULTS: The infliximab biosimilar constituted 90.6% of the total amount of infliximab four months following patent expiration of the biooriginator. Similar results were seen for etanercept biosimilar. Substantial cost reductions were experienced in the way that e.g. the infliximab-shift reduced cost by two thirds. CONCLUSION: We believe that a thorough preparation and an organizational setting supporting the implementation is crucial for the successful implementation. This same implementation model will be used for future biosimilars.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/economía , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/uso terapéutico , Ahorro de Costo , Dinamarca , Costos de los Medicamentos , Etanercept/economía , Etanercept/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Infliximab/economía , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , MasculinoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). METHODS: EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. RESULTS: The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Aprobación de Drogas , Regulación Gubernamental , Mercadotecnía/legislación & jurisprudencia , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Bases de Datos Factuales , Aprobación de Drogas/economía , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Biological medicines have significantly altered treatment for many patients with chronic diseases such as cancers, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes. However, the high cost of biological medicines has limited patients' access to them. Iraq is one of the countries that have decided to increase access to these medicines through biosimilars, which are copies of originator biological medicines. Prior to 2019, the Iraqi National Regulatory Authority (NRA) had no clear guidelines in place for biosimilars uptake. Therefore, approvals of many biosimilars were delayed. As a response to that, a new pivotal committee was found within this authority, and the first version of Iraqi basis and guidelines for the approval of biosimilars was enacted. With the implementation of the Iraqi biosimilars guidelines and escalating the cooperation within the Iraqi NRA, many benefits have been attained in a short time including the approval of many essential biosimilar products which has resulted in a total cost savings estimated to exceed 50 million USD in just the year 2020. However, there are still some barriers towards making the utmost benefit from biosimilars in Iraq, such as lack of familiarity of these products among the Iraqi health care providers which requires appropriate biosimilars-awareness enhancement strategies.
Asunto(s)
Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/normas , Ahorro de Costo/legislación & jurisprudencia , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Farmacovigilancia , Animales , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Ahorro de Costo/métodos , Aprobación de Drogas/métodos , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies are a key component of modern medicine, especially in the treatment of chronic conditions and in particular immune-mediated diseases. Biosimilars are molecularly highly similar variants of biologic therapies approved after patent expiration of the original product. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the emerging role of biosimilars and present data with respect to efficacy and safety. CURRENT DATA: Since the approval of human insulin as the first biologic therapy, over 150 biologic therapeutics have been approved in the European Union (EU). Due to the high cost of development and production, biologic therapies place a heavy burden on healthcare systems and, at costs totaling 13.8 billion Euros annually, comprise one third of the annual drug expenditure in Germany. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already approved biologic therapies that do not have clinically relevant differences with respect to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity, as far as can currently be ascertained. Through competition with the original product, biosimilars have been able to drive down prices and relieve the healthcare system without changing overall efficacy. The potential savings through biosimilars are estimated to be 500 million Euros in Germany alone. Currently, over 50 biosimilars of 16 different biologic therapies are approved in the EU. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilars are safe and economical alternatives to biooriginal drugs that can boost access to modern, high-cost therapies and relieve healthcare systems.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/uso terapéutico , Aprobación de Drogas , Costos de los Medicamentos , Productos Biológicos/economía , Biosimilares Farmacéuticos/economía , Alemania , HumanosRESUMEN
Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim.