An evaluation of the utilisation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody drugs in Ireland and barriers to their usage.

BACKGROUND: While biologic drugs have demonstrated efficacy across a range of indications, patient access to these drugs is constrained due to their high cost. Biosimilars provide a means to increase patient access while reducing the financial burden. AIMS: The primary objective was to determine the current usage of biosimilar and reference trastuzumab and rituximab in four Irish hospitals. A secondary objective involved determining barriers to biosimilar usage. METHODS: This project involved a retrospective chart review to analyse the usage of reference and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab. Additionally, a prospective cross-sectional study identified barriers to the usage of biosimilars via the distribution of a novel questionnaire to patients, pharmacists, doctors and students. RESULTS: The utilisation of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab ranged from 39 to 100%, and 0 to 89%, respectively. A total of n = 479 questionnaire responses were included. Biosimilar awareness was significantly lower among 'Doctors and Medical Students' (45.3%; 95% [CI, 33.8-57.3%]) compared to 'Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students' (97.1%; 95% [CI, 94-98.8%; comparison p < 0.001]). A significant majority of healthcare professionals agreed biosimilars should have consistent nomenclature (p < 0.001). A significant majority of patients (87.3%, 95% [CI, 81.3-92%; p < 0.001]) indicated that they would agree to commence using a biosimilar medicine. CONCLUSION: Biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab were in use to a variable extent. There remains a considerable opportunity to further increase the usage to maximise their potential benefits. A series of challenges were identified including reduced awareness among the medical profession and lack of clear nomenclature.

The impact of expanded access programs for systemic anticancer therapy in an Irish cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Expanded access programs (EAPs) allow cancer patients with unmet clinical need to obtain access to pre-authorisation treatments. There is no standardised process for implementing these programs nationally, and real-world data on their impact is lacking. AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of such EAPs and their impact in a cancer centre. METHODS: Data relating to adult cancer patients treated via EAPs from 2011 to 2021 in three Cork university hospitals was collated. Descriptive statistics were employed to get an overview of the impact these programs currently have on cancer care provision. RESULTS: We identified 193 patients who accessed EAPs during the study period, availing of 33 separate drugs for a total of 50 different cancer indications. The prevalence of EAP usage was shown to have been trending upwards in recent years with a total of 189 programs being accessed throughout the period. Drugs provided were from a number of different anti-cancer drug classes, particularly targeted therapies (n = 18) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (n = 17). Cancers from a wide range of both solid and liquid tumour types were treated with EAP drugs, and patients treated were from across a broad spectrum of ages (26-82, SD 11.99). CONCLUSIONS: EAPs have an increasing role in accessing novel cancer therapies in our community and by extension nationally. Equity of EAP access would be facilitated by a national registry of available agents which we have established. Assessment of their benefits and toxicities would be enhanced by the requirement for a real-world database as a condition of EAP approval.

Cost and public reimbursement of cancer medicines in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: There are disparities in the availability of systemic anticancer therapies (SACTs) globally. We set out to investigate the cost and reimbursement of SACTs in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) in conjunction with efficacy and licensing authority decisions in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). METHODS: We sought data pertaining to licensing in the EU, reimbursement in ROI/UK and cost/efficacy of SACTs licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2015 and May 2021. Independent samples t tests, chi-square test and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We identified that the majority of FDA-approved regimens are licensed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (n = 91, 67.9%). However, only a minority of these are currently reimbursed in the UK (n = 60, 45%) or the ROI (n = 28, 21%) as of the 1st of May 2021. In addition, only a minority of regimens have demonstrated a statistically significant OS benefit (n = 54, 40%). There was no association between cost of regimens and either the presence (t = 0.846, p = 0.40) or duration of OS benefit (t = - 0.84, p = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights that many licensed systemic anticancer treatments are not currently reimbursed in ROI/UK. The high cost of these medicines is independent of the presence of an OS benefit. Collaboration between regulatory agencies, governments and industry partners is needed to ensure health expenditure is directed towards the most effective treatments.