Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States.

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

Low-molecular-weight heparins for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A systematic literature review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Importantly, patients with cancer, who have metastatic disease, renal insufficiency, or are receiving anticancer therapy, have an even higher risk of a recurrent event. Similarly, the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism is higher than the risk of an initial event. To reduce the risk, extended duration of prophylaxis for up to six months with low-molecular-weight heparins such as dalteparin, enoxaparin, nadroparin, and tinzaparin is recommended by international guidelines. In this paper, the clinical and economic literature is reviewed to provide evidenced based recommendations based on clinical benefit and economic value. METHODS: A systematic review of major databases was conducted from January 1996 to October 2016 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the four distinct low-molecular-weight heparins against a vitamin K antagonists control group for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer. This was then followed by the application of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidance to assess the quality of all trials that met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the cost-effectiveness literature supporting the value proposition of each product was reviewed. RESULTS: Six randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. There were one, two, and three trials that compared dalteparin, tinzaparin, and enoxaparin to a vitamin K antagonists control group. However, there were no trials for nadroparin in the setting of secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. In addition, only the dalteparin and one of the tinzaparin trials were of high quality and adequately powered. Of the two studies, only the dalteparin trial reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of venous thromboembolism absolute risk reduction when compared to a vitamin K antagonists control group (HR = 0.48; p = 0.002). In addition, there was robust pharmacoeconomic data from Canada, the Netherlands, France, and Austria supporting the cost-effectiveness of dalteparin for this indication. There were no such studies for any of the other agents. CONCLUSIONS: The totality of high-quality clinical and cost-effectiveness data supports the use of dalteparin over other low-molecular-weight heparins for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Drug tendering: drug supply and shortage implications for the uptake of biosimilars.

Due to the continued increase in global spending on health care, payers have introduced a number of programs, policies, and agreements on pharmaceutical pricing in order to control costs. While incentives to increase generic drug use have achieved significant savings, other cost-containment measures are required. Tendering is a formal procedure to purchase medications using competitive bidding for a particular contract. Although useful for cost containment, tendering can lead to decreased competition in a given market. Consequently, drug shortages can occur, resulting in changes to treatment plans to products that may have lower efficacy and/or an increased risk of adverse effects. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that tendering does not negatively impact patient care or the health care system. A large and expanding portion of total pharmaceutical expenditure is for biologic therapies. These agents have revolutionized the treatment of many diseases, including cancer and inflammatory conditions; however, patient access to biologic drugs can be limited due to availability, insurance coverage, and cost. As branded biologic therapies reach the end of patent- and data-protection periods, biosimilars are being approved as lower-cost alternatives. Biosimilars are products that are highly similar to the originator product with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, or potency. As more biosimilars receive regulatory approval and adoption increases, these therapies are expected to have an impact on global health care spending and should result in overall savings. However, the use of tendering to maximize the potential benefits of biosimilars has varied across the world. Therefore, the objectives of this review are to examine the drug-tendering process and its implications on drug supply and drug shortages, as well as to describe biosimilars and how tendering may influence their uptake.

Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis.

Biosimilar drugs are highly similar to an originator (reference) biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety or efficacy. As biosimilars offer the potential for lower acquisition costs versus the originator biologic, evaluating the economic implications of the introduction of biosimilars is of interest. Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a commonly used methodology. This review of published BIAs of biosimilar fusion proteins and/or monoclonal antibodies identified 12 unique publications (three full papers and nine congress posters). When evaluated alongside professional guidance on conducting BIA, the majority of BIAs identified were generally in line with international recommendations. However, a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles and considerable shortcomings in the publications were identified. Deficiencies included a limited range of cost parameters, a reliance on assumptions for parameters such as uptake and drug pricing, a lack of expert validation, and a limited range of sensitivity analyses that were based on arbitrary ranges. The rationale for the methods employed, limitations of the BIA approach, and instructions for local adaptation often were inadequately discussed. To understand fully the potential economic impact and value of biosimilars, the impact of biosimilar supply, manufacturer-provided supporting services, and price competition should be included in BIAs. Alternative approaches, such as cost minimization, which requires evidence demonstrating similarity to the originator biologic, and those that integrate a range of economic assessment methods, are needed to assess the value of biosimilars.

Dalteparin versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer and renal impairment: a Canadian pharmacoeconomic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the risk is further elevated after a primary VTE. To reduce the risk of recurrent events, extended prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is available for use. However, in a large randomized trial (Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]; Lee et al), extended duration dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrent VTE by 52% compared to VKA (p=0.002). A recent subgroup analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs. 17%; p=0.011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin as an alternative to VKA, a patient-level cost utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian perspective. METHODS: Resource use data captured during the CLOT trial were extracted and linked to 2015 Canadian unit cost estimates. Health state utilities were then measured using the Time-Trade-Off technique in 24 randomly selected members of the general Canadian public to estimate the gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: For the entire CLOT trial population (n=676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher mean costs compared to the VKA group ($Can5,771 vs. $Can2,569; p<0.001). However, the utility assessment revealed that 21 of 24 respondents (88%) selected dalteparin over VKA, with an associated gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.18) QALYs. When the incremental cost of dalteparin was combined with the QALY gain, dalteparin had a cost of $Can23,100 (95% CI: $Can19,200-$Can25,800) per QALY gained. The analysis in patients with renal impairment suggested even better economic value with the cost per QALY gained being <$14,000. CONCLUSION: Extended duration dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer, especially in those with renal impairment.

Dalteparin or vitamin K antagonists to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a patient-level economic analysis for France and Austria.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend extended duration secondary prophylaxis in cancer patients who develop primary venous thromboembolism (VTE). Agent selection is guided in part by one large randomized trial (i.e., CLOT; Lee et al., N Engl J Med 349:146-53, 2003) which demonstrated that dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrence by 52% compared with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKA; HR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77). In a subgroup analysis from that same trial, patients with renal impairment also derived benefit with dalteparin (VTE rates = 3% vs. 17%; p = 0.011). To measure the economic value of secondary VTE prophylaxis with dalteparin, a patient-level pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted from the Austrian and French healthcare system perspectives. METHODS: Chapter 1 Healthcare resource use collected during the CLOT trial was extracted and converted into direct cost estimates. Incremental cost differences between the dalteparin and VKA groups were then combined with health state utilities to measure the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The dalteparin group had significantly higher costs than the VKA group in both countries (Austria: dalteparin = €2687 vs. VKA = €2012; France: dalteparin = €2053 vs. VKA = €1352: p < 0.001). However, when the incremental costs were combined with the utility gain, dalteparin had a cost of €6600 and €4900 per QALY gained in Austria and France, respectively. The analyses in patients with renal impairment suggested an even better economic profile, with the cost per QALY gained being less than €4000 in both countries. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary prophylaxis with dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.

Biosimilars: Practical Considerations for Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific and regulatory aspects of biosimilar development and practical considerations for the use of biosimilars that are relevant to pharmacists. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches of PubMed and congress abstracts for publications pertaining to biosimilars were conducted from January 2016 to January 2017. Individual drug company web pages and governmental, regulatory, and other agency websites were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION: Published articles, regulatory guidelines, and other sources covering biologic/biosimilar development and approval, reporting results of biosimilar studies or survey research, and/or identifying biosimilars in development or approved for use in Europe or the United States were reviewed and included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of serious diseases, including hematological or autoimmune disorders and cancers. A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biologic (ie, reference or originator) and has no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. Unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics are large, complex proteins that cannot be exactly replicated, so the concept of a generic equivalent cannot be applied to biologics. Regulatory agencies have provided a framework for biosimilar approval, but there are many practical considerations for pharmacists, including interchangeability, substitution, naming, indication extrapolation, product labeling, therapeutic drug monitoring, manufacturer attributes, logistics of product use, and reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists will play a key role in managing the introduction of biosimilars into health care systems. Understanding the principles of biosimilar development and evolving regulatory guidelines relevant to their use will allow pharmacists to make informed decisions regarding formulary inclusion and educate patients and other health care providers about biosimilars.

Monoclonal Antibody and Fusion Protein Biosimilars Across Therapeutic Areas: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Despite regulatory efforts to formalize guidance policies on biosimilars, there remains a need to educate healthcare stakeholders on the acknowledged definition of biosimilarity and the data that underpin it. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to systematically collate published data for monoclonal antibodies and fusion protein biosimilars indicated for cancer, chronic inflammatory diseases, and other indications, and to explore differences in the type and weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science were searched to September 2015. Conference proceedings (n = 17) were searched 2012 to July 2015. Included studies were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. To assess data strength and validity, risk of bias assessments were undertaken. RESULTS: Across therapeutic areas, 43 named (marketed or proposed) biosimilars were identified for adalimumab, abciximab, bevacizumab, etanercept, infliximab, omalizumab, ranibizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab originators. Infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 biosimilars have the greatest amount of published evidence of similarity with their originators, based on results of clinical studies involving larger numbers of patients or healthy subjects (N = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively). Published data were also retrieved for marketed intended copies of etanercept and rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: This unbiased synthesis of the literature exposed significant differences in the extent of published evidence between molecules at preclinical, clinical, and post-marketing stages of development, providing clinicians and payers with a consolidated view of the available data and remaining gaps.

Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the levels of awareness, usage, and knowledge of biosimilars among patients, caregivers, and the general population in the US and the European Union; perceptions of biosimilars compared to originator biologics; perceived benefits and drawbacks of clinical trials; and whether advocacy groups impact patients' willingness to try a biosimilar. METHODS: An international survey was conducted which contained up to 56 closed-ended (requiring yes/no or ranking answers) and open-ended questions, depending on the population assigned. The survey was divided into distinct sections, including medication-class awareness, usage, and knowledge about biologic and biosimilar therapies; perceptions of clinical trials; and involvement in advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted in adults categorized as: 1) diagnosed: patients with inflammatory bowel disease including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; 2) diagnosed advocacy: individuals with these diseases who participated in patient support groups; 3) caregiver: has a loved one with these conditions and is involved in medical decisions; 4) general population: aged 18-64 years, without these conditions. Statistical analyses among groups within a region (US or EU) used column proportions test with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: In all, 3,198 individuals responded. Awareness about biologic therapies was significantly higher in diagnosed, diagnosed advocacy, and caregiver groups (45%-78%) versus general population (27%; P<0.05). Across all groups, awareness of biosimilars was low; only 6% of the general population reported at least a general impression of biosimilars. Awareness was significantly higher in the diagnosed advocacy group (20%-30%; P<0.05). Gaps in knowledge about biosimilars included safety, efficacy, and access to these agents. Respondents had generally positive perceptions of clinical trials, although barriers to participation were identified. CONCLUSION: An immediate need exists for patient education about biosimilars and clinical trials to ensure educated and informed decisions are made about biosimilar use.