Trends in List Prices, Net Prices, and Discounts for Originator Biologics Facing Biosimilar Competition

Changes In Net Prices And Spending For Pharmaceuticals After The Introduction Of New Therapeutic Competition, 2011-19

Previous research has demonstrated that the introduction of a new brand-name pharmaceutical competitor does not lower list prices for existing competitive therapies. However, no study has systematically evaluated the impact of new therapeutic competition on net prices of pharmaceutical products. We identified new therapies approved during the period 2013-17 that were competitors for existing treatments. We used a novel peer-reviewed algorithm to estimate the net prices of existing therapies. We implemented regression models to estimate changes in these net prices after the approval of the new therapeutic competition during the period 2011-19. Across twelve therapeutic classes with new drug entrants in 2013-17, the introduction of new therapeutic competition was associated with a 4.2 percent decrease in annual net price growth. The introduction of new brand-name therapies in twelve therapeutic classes reduced net commercial spending on existing therapies by $10.4 billion-an 18.5 percent reduction in projected spending absent therapeutic competition. Our findings demonstrate that new therapeutic competition allows pharmacy benefit managers to use formulary management to decrease net prices and reduce drug spending, contrary to observed trends in list price increases.

Factors Associated with Biosimilar Exclusions and Step Therapy Restrictions Among US Commercial Health Plans

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).

METHODS AND DATA

We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex^® RED BOOK^® for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.

RESULTS

Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).

CONCLUSION

Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.

Impact of Introducing Infliximab Biosimilars on Total Infliximab Consumption and Originator Infliximab Prices in Eight Regions: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether the introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was associated with changes in overall infliximab consumption (originator and biosimilars) and price changes to the originator infliximab.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis using infliximab sales data from 2010 to 2020 from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System for eight selected regions: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, India, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Quarterly measures of infliximab consumption and list prices were respectively defined as the number of standard units (SU)/1000 inhabitants and as 2020 USA dollars (USD)/SU.

RESULTS

Following the introduction of infliximab biosimilars, overall infliximab consumption increased in Australia [immediate change: 0.145 SU/1000 inhabitants (P = 0.014); long-term change: 0.022 SU/1000 inhabitants per quarter (P < 0.001)], Canada [immediate change 0.415 (P = 0.008)], the UK [long-term change 0.024 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [immediate change: 0.042 (P < 0.001)]. The list price of originator infliximab also decreased following biosimilar introduction in Australia [immediate change: - 187.84 USD/SU (P < 0.001); long-term change - 6.46 USD/SU per quarter (P = 0.043)], Canada [immediate change: - 145.58 (P < 0.001)], the UK [immediate change: - 34.95 (P = 0.010); long-term change: - 4.77 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [long-term change: - 4.065 (P = 0.046)]. Consumption and price changes were inconsistent in India, Japan, Korea, and the USA.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was not consistently associated with increased consumption across regions. Additional policy and healthcare system interventions to support biosimilar infliximab adoption are needed.

Recent Advances in Small Molecule Inhibitors for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis refers to a degenerative disease with joint pain as the main symptom, and it is caused by various factors, including fibrosis, chapping, ulcers, and loss of articular cartilage. Traditional treatments can only delay the progression of osteoarthritis, and patients may need joint replacement eventually. As a class of organic compound molecules weighing less than 1000 daltons, small molecule inhibitors can target proteins as the main components of most drugs clinically. Small molecule inhibitors for osteoarthritis are under constant research. In this regard, by reviewing relevant manuscripts, small molecule inhibitors targeting MMPs, ADAMTS, IL-1, TNF, WNT, NF-κB, and other proteins were reviewed. We summarized these small molecule inhibitors with different targets and discussed disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs based on them. These small molecule inhibitors have good inhibitory effects on osteoarthritis, and this review will provide a reference for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

The Influence of US Drug Price Dynamics on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Biologics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses.

METHODS

We evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis.

RESULTS

Tezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%.

CONCLUSION

Two biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices.

Systematic Literature Review of Real-World Evidence on Dose Escalation and Treatment Switching in Ulcerative Colitis

Background

Currently approved biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis have well-established efficacy. However, many patients fail to respond or lose response, leading to dose escalation or treatment switching.

Objective

We sought to identify real-world evidence on dose escalation and treatment switching and associated clinical and economic outcomes among adults with ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or tofacitinib.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE (up to 26 August 2020), and conference proceedings (2017-2020) for studies in adults with ulcerative colitis to assess clinical response and remission, colectomy, adverse events, and economic outcomes related to dose escalation and treatment switching.

Results

In 56 studies, dose escalation and treatment switching involving infliximab and/or adalimumab were most frequently investigated. Rates of clinical response after dose escalation were 20-95% (1.8-36 months), clinical remission rates were 10-94% (1.8-36 months), colectomy rates were 0-33% (12-38 months), and adverse event rates were 0-18%. Treatment switching rates in 21 studies were 4-70% over 3-62 months, with switch due to loss of response rates of 4-35% over 12-62 months (7 studies). Up to 35% of patients underwent colectomy 12-120 weeks after switching, and 13-38% experienced adverse events. Data relating to economic outcomes were limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, but demonstrated increased direct costs associated with both dose escalation and treatment switching.

Conclusion

Dose escalation and treatment switching are common with existing therapies. However, clinical response and remission rates vary, and a proportion of patients fail to achieve optimal clinical and economic outcomes. This highlights the need for more efficacious and durable treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. RESULTS: The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.

Impact of list price changes on out-of-pocket costs and adherence in four high-rebate specialty drugs

BACKGROUND

Insurers manage the cost of specialty medicines via rebates, however it is unclear if the savings are passed on to patients, and whether reducing rebates may lead to changes in patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and medication adherence. This study examined two drug classes to understand the impact of reducing list prices to net prices, via lower-priced national drug codes (NDCs) or authorized generics, on patient OOP costs and adherence.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis assessed IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus adjudicated medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients. Patient OOP costs per prescription and payer drug costs were assessed for evolocumab or alirocumab (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9is]) or velpatasvir/sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] medications). For PCSK9is and HCV medications, the original and lower-priced versions were compared. Adherence was estimated based on proportion of days covered (PDC) (PCSK9is) and receipt of full treatment regimen (HCV medications).

RESULTS

In total, 10,640 patients were included (evolocumab, 5,042; alirocumab, 1,438; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, 2,952; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir,1,208). After list price reductions, mean payer drug costs decreased by over 60%, while patient OOP cost reductions ranged from 14% to 55% (evolocumab: 55%, p < 0.01; alirocumab: 51%, p < 0.01; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir: 30%, p < 0.01; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: 14%, p = 0.03). Patients with coinsurance as the largest contributor to their OOP costs had the largest reductions in OOP costs, ranging from adjusted, mean values of US$135 to US$379 (>60% reductions). Six-month PDC for PCSK9is and proportion receiving full HCV treatment regimen were high with the original versions and did not substantially differ with the new, lower-priced versions.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing list prices to approximate net prices (as a proxy for reducing rebates) resulted in lower patient OOP costs, particularly for those with coinsurance. Our findings suggest that future reduction of rebates may assist in patient affordability, although additional transparency is needed.

Biosimilar Competition and Payments in Medicare: The Case of Trastuzumab

PURPOSE

Numerous biologic drugs will soon be facing biosimilar competition. We study the case of trastuzumab, a revolutionary drug approved in 1998 to treat human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer, to understand how trends in the price and treatment cost of the originator brand and biosimilar forms of trastuzumab evolved following biosimilar entry.

METHODS

We use average sales price data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, adjusted for inflation to real 2020 dollars using the consumer price index, to describe price changes for the originator biologic and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab between 2019, when the first biosimilar was covered by Medicare, and 2022, when a total of five biosimilar competitors were on the market. We also estimate total treatment costs of biologic and biosimilar forms of trastuzumab from 2005 to 2022 and describe changes in their market share.

RESULTS

We find that the first biosimilar entrant's price was 15% lower than the originator brand in 2019, and the fifth biosimilar entrant's price in 2022 was 58% lower than the originator brand in 2019. Contrary to expectations from prior research, the originator biologic price in 2022 decreased 29% from its 2019 average sales price. Average treatment cost for the biologic and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab combined was $45,659 US dollars lower in 2022 compared with the year before biosimilar entry, 2018. Finally, biosimilar market share grew from only 7% in the first year of entry to 32% in the second year, when three biosimilars were on the market.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar entry may be an effective means of decreasing the cost of biologic cancer treatments. Our findings suggest that policies that support biosimilar entry and encourage use may expand access to necessary treatment and reduce health care costs.

The Contribution of Price Growth to Pharmaceutical Revenue Growth in the United States: Evidence from Medicines Sold in Retail Pharmacies

CONTEXT

To what extent does pharmaceutical revenue growth depend on new medicines versus increasing prices for existing medicines? Moreover, does using list prices, as is commonly done, instead of prices net of confidential rebates offered by manufacturers, which are harder to observe, change the relative importance of the sources of revenue growth?

METHODS

This study uses data from SSR Health LLC to address these research questions using decomposition methods that analyze list prices, prices net of rebates, and sales for branded pharmaceutical products sold primarily through retail pharmacies.

FINDINGS

From 2009 to 2019, retail pharmaceutical revenue growth was primarily driven by new products rather than by price increases on existing products. Failing to account for confidential rebates creates a more prominent role for price increases in explaining revenue growth, because list price inflation during this period was 10.9%, whereas net price inflation was 3.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies that restrict price growth on existing medicines likely need to be coupled with policies that reduce launch prices to have a meaningful long-term impact on pharmaceutical revenue growth. Using pharmaceutical list prices is often an inadequate approximation for net prices because the role of rebates has increased and varies by drug class.

Effectiveness, safety and treatment adherence of biosimilar follow-on insulin in diabetes management

AIM

To assess the change in HbA1c after initiation of biosimilar follow-on insulin (Basaglar) or reference insulin (Lantus) among patients with type 2 diabetes. We also compared treatment adherence, safety events and costs at 1 year after initiation of insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using claims data from a large US health plan during 2016-2020, we identified adults with type 2 diabetes who initiated either Basaglar or Lantus. Generalized linear regression modelling assessed the differences in outcomes between the two groups. A 0.4% margin was used to determine non-inferiority for HbA1c.

RESULTS

The study included 1136 Basaglar users and 6304 Lantus users. Both Lantus and Basaglar groups showed more than 1% reduction in HbA1c over 6 months and over 12 months. Reduction in HbA1c with Basaglar was similar (non-inferior) to that with Lantus, with an adjusted difference of Basaglar to Lantus of 0.14% (95% CI -0.02 to 0.30) over 6 months and 0.17% (95% CI 0.02 to 0.32) over 12 months. Rates of adverse events were similar for both hypoglycaemia and vascular events. The Basaglar group showed higher adherence in terms of proportion of days covered (adjusted difference 0.06, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08). Medical costs were similar, but the cost of Basaglar was lower (adjusted mean cost difference -$462, 95% CI -$556 to -$363) after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes, Basaglar provided similar glycaemic control compared with Lantus, had a similar safety profile and lower drug costs, and showed more favourable adherence.

Patient out-of-pocket and payer costs for pegfilgrastim originator vs biosimilars as primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in the first cycle among a commercially insured population

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether using pegfilgrastim biosimilars is cost saving in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs including pegfilgrastim drug costs and febrile neutropenia (FN) treatment and management costs between pegfilgrastim biosimilars (pegfilgrastim-jmdb, pegfilgrastim-cbqv) and originator users for primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using 2019 IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases was conducted in adult patients with cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy courses. At least 2 diagnoses of the same cancer (at least 7 days apart) were required within 30 days of the chemotherapy initiation date. Pegfilgrastim (excluding on-body injector) costs included drug costs only (excluding administration fees). FN-related costs included all FN-related health care utilizations that were defined as having neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Per-patient per-cycle (PPPC) out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, health plan costs, and total costs were compared between originator (excluding on-body injector) and biosimilars users in the first cycle. A generalized linear model and a 2-part model were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,930 patients were included, of whom 884 (45.8%) used pegfilgrastim originator, 427 (22.1%) used pegfilgrastim-jmdb, and 619 (32.1%) used pegfilgrastim-cbqv. Adjusted PPPC OOP pegfilgrastim costs in the first cycle were significantly lower for the biosimilars vs the originator ($182 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $159 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $299 for originator, P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). However, there was no difference in health plan costs ($5,783 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb and $5,845 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv vs $5,618 for originator) and total costs. In addition, no difference was observed for adjusted PPPC FN treatment and management OOP costs, health plan costs, and total costs in the first cycle. FN treatment OOP costs were $192 for originator, $197 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.958), and $240 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.680). FN treatment health plan costs were $2,804 for originator, $2,970 for pegfilgrastim-jmdb (P = 0.692), and $2,745 for pegfilgrastim-cbqv (P = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: In a commercially insured population, using pegfilgrastim biosimilars in the first cycle for primary prophylaxis of FN led to cost savings for patients but not payers. No difference in FN-related costs was observed.

Biosimilar competition: Early learning

Biologics accounted for roughly $145 billion in spending in 2018. They are also the fastest growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry. The Biological Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) of 2010 created an abbreviated pathway for biosimilar products to promote price competition in the market for biological drugs. There was great anticipation that the BPCIA would lead to a moderation in drug prices driven by market competition. The observed levels of competition and the accompanying savings have not reached those expected levels. We investigate the early impacts of biosimilar competition on the use and pricing of biological products. We focus especially on the ways in which altered market structures stemming from the implementation of the BPCIA have affected the prices for biological products subject to biosimilar competition. We do so by studying seven products that have recently faced biosimilar competition. We estimate fixed effects and Instrumental Variables models to estimate the impact of market competition on prices. Our results indicate that in the range of one to three entrants each additional marketed product results in a reduction in weighted average market prices of between 5.4% and 7% points. These are the result of a combination of reductions in originator prices and shifting in demand to biosimilar products.

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers).

METHODS

US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records.

RESULTS

In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

Estimating Potential for Drug Budget Reallocation Following Expiration of Exclusivity of Pharmaceutical Products

Background: The prioritization of public funds in an equitable and ethically sound manner along with efficient budget allocation are key challenges for governments and budget holders. Following the introduction of generics/biosimilars, the potential total budget made available for reallocation resulting from the loss of exclusivity (LOE) in a given market has not been estimated. Objectives: This study investigated the impact of generic/biosimilar entry on drug budget in 4 countries. Methods: Pharmaceutical sales data, drug costs and LOE dates were modeled and forecast using an analytical framework (Affordability by ReallocaTing Funds model [ART]) to estimate future incremental budget availability using scenario analyses in Greece (GR), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO) and Sweden (SW). Results: During 2020-2022, 166 (GR), 222 (NL), 145 (NO) and 93 (SW) products facing LOE were identified. This equated to release of an estimated cumulative budget during 2020-2024 of €218 million (GR), €1319 million (NL), €340 million (NO) and €876 million (SW). The estimated average budget released per year during 2020-2024 was 1.8% (GR), 4.6% (NL), 3.4% (NO) and 3.9% (SW) of each country's total annual drug budget. Discussion: These analyses showed that LOE for pharmaceutical products between 2020 and 2022 can result in significant increase in budget availability. LOE in the retail channel was the main driver of budget availability in GR and SW, compared to LOE in the hospital channel in the NL and NO. Conclusion: Estimation of future release of budget capacity using the Affordability by ReallocaTing Funds model supports discussion on resource allocation to fund innovation and may help inform policy changes.

Changes Associated With the Entry of a Biosimilar in the Insulin Glargine Market

This study explores the shifts in total US sales and net prices for all 3 insulin glargine products from quarter 1 of 2010 through quarter 2 of 2020.

Pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P17 to high-concentration (100 mg/ml) reference adalimumab: A randomized phase I study in healthy subjects

This study aimed to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence of a single dose of the proposed adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 to United States-licensed adalimumab (US-adalimumab) and European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab). This double-blind, parallel-group, phase I trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03970824) was conducted at 10 hospitals (Republic of Korea), in which healthy subjects (1:1:1) were randomized to receive a single 40 mg (100 mg/ml) subcutaneous injection of CT-P17, US-adalimumab, or EU-adalimumab. Primary end points were PK equivalence in terms of: area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ); AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last ); and maximum serum concentration (Cmax ). PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) for pairwise comparisons were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%. Additional PK end points, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated. Of the 312 subjects who were randomized (103 CT-P17; 103 US-adalimumab; 106 EU-adalimumab), 308 subjects received study drug. AUC0-inf , AUC0-last , and Cmax were equivalent among CT-P17, US-adalimumab, and EU-adalimumab, because 90% CIs for the ratios of GLSMs were within the 80-125% equivalence margin for each pairwise comparison. Secondary PK end points, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, PK equivalence for single-dose administration of CT-P17, EU-adalimumab, and US-adalimumab was demonstrated in healthy adults. Safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable between treatment groups and consistent with previous reports for adalimumab biosimilars.

Diabetes Drugs: List Price Increases Were Not Always Reflected In Net Price; Impact Of Brand Competition Unclear

List prices for brand-name drugs have risen steeply, often despite the introduction of competition from other brand-name drugs in the same therapeutic class. List prices, however, do not reflect any rebates that manufacturers provide payers. To understand how net prices (after rebates and other discounts) respond to competition, we compared changes in inflation-adjusted, revenue-weighted mean list and net prices of a one-month supply of three classes of diabetes drugs: glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. These drug classes each had several brand-name products enter the market between 2005 and 2017. The annualized change in list price over this period was $75 (15 percent) for GLP1 agonists, $22 (8 percent) for DPP4 inhibitors, and $41 (11 percent) for SGLT2 inhibitors. In contrast, the annualized change in net price was $38 (10 percent) for GLP1 agonists, -$3 (-2 percent) for DPP4 inhibitors, and -$17 (-9 percent) for SGLT2 inhibitors, suggesting a variable impact of brand-name competition on net prices.

Association of Drug Rebates and Competition With Out-of-Pocket Coinsurance in Medicare Part D, 2014 to 2018

IMPORTANCE

Prior research has documented the increase in prescription drug rebates and the coincident increase in out-of-pocket burden for patients paying coinsurance tied to list prices.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the out-of-pocket burden on patients with coinsurance and assess its association with pharmaceutical competition, which increases payers' leverage to seek higher rebates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used branded prescription drugs with US sales reported by publicly traded companies. The study included drugs with nonmissing, nonnegative rebates between 2014 and 2018 from SSR Health. Data analysis was conducted from June to December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Level of branded and generic competition and calendar year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Retail price markup (ie, the ratio of rebate to net price) paid by patients at the point of sale and effective out-of-pocket share (ie, coinsurance multiplied by list price divided by net price) of a standard Part D plan. Trends in these outcomes were examined and then stratified by degree of competition.

RESULTS

There were 3322 unique National Drug Codes in the analysis, representing 232 distinct molecules from 138 therapeutic classes in 34 disease areas. The ratio of rebate to net prices was higher and increased faster for drugs with branded and generic competitors (from 83% to 172%) than for drugs with only branded competitors (from 61% to 115%) and those without generic equivalents (from 33% to 49%). Hypothetical patients paying standard Part D coinsurance on drug list prices would have experienced an effective out-of-pocket share increase from 48% to 64% in the initial coverage phase, and from 10% to 13% in the catastrophic coverage phase between 2014 and 2018. In the coverage gap, the share increased from 92% in 2014 to 98% in 2016 and then decreased to 90% in 2018. Compared with drugs with no competition, effective out-of-pocket share paid by patients grew 50% faster for drugs with branded competitors and 100% faster for those with branded and generic competitors.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found substantial increases in cost-sharing burden for patients paying coinsurance on drug list prices between 2014 and 2018, especially in markets with more pharmaceutical competition. Payers passing rebates through to patients at the point of sale could restore the benefits of competition and rebates.

Real-life drug persistence in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with CT-P13: a prospective observational cohort study (PERSIST)

Objective

The aim was to report results from PERSIST, a real-life, observational, prospective cohort study of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, for treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA who were biologic naïve or switched from an IFX reference product (IFX-RP; Remicade).

Methods

Adult patients were recruited during usual care at 38 sites in Europe and Canada and enrolled by their physicians after meeting eligibility criteria according to the country-approved label for CT-P13. Primary outcomes were to determine drug utilization and treatment persistence and to assess safety. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Data were analysed and reported descriptively.

Results

Of 351 patients enrolled, 334 were included in the analysis (RA, 40.4%; AS, 34.7%; PsA, 24.9%). The safety analysis set comprised all 328 patients treated with CT-P13. The majority (58.2%) of patients received CT-P13 monotherapy, most (72.6%) by dosing every 6 or 8 weeks. The mean treatment persistence was 449.2 days; 62.3% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. In all, 214 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.4% of patients. Most TEAEs were of mild or moderate intensity; 13 were severe. The most commonly reported TEAEs were drug ineffective (9.5%) and infusion-related reactions (5.2%). The most frequently reported infection-related TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infections (3.0%), nasopharyngitis (2.1%) and bronchitis (1.5%). No patients experienced tuberculosis.

Conclusion

Drug utilization and treatment persistence with CT-P13 were consistent with historical reports of IFX-RP in this patient population. Safety findings did not identify new concerns for CT-P13 in the treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605642.

Innovative approaches to biologic development on the trail of CT-P13: biosimilars, value-added medicines, and biobetters

The biosimilar concept is now well established. Clinical data accumulated pre- and post-approval have supported biosimilar uptake, in turn stimulating competition in the biologics market and increasing patient access to biologics. Following technological advances, other innovative biologics, such as “biobetters” or “value-added medicines,” are now reaching the market. These innovative biologics differ from the reference product by offering additional clinical or non-clinical benefits. We discuss these innovative biologics with reference to CT-P13, initially available as an intravenous (IV) biosimilar of reference infliximab. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation, CT-P13 SC, has now been developed. Relative to CT-P13 IV, CT-P13 SC offers clinical benefits in terms of pharmacokinetics, with comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, as well as increased convenience for patients and reduced demands on healthcare system resources. As was once the case for biosimilars, nomenclature and regulatory pathways for innovative biologics require clarification to support their uptake and ultimately benefit patients.

Trends in list prices, net prices, and discounts of self-administered injectable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

BACKGROUND: List prices of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors drastically increased during the last decade, but previous research has shown that half of these increases were offset by rising manufacturer discounts. It remains unclear to what extent manufacturers' discounts have offset increases in list prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor. Evaluating trends in net prices and discounts at the product level will be paramount in understanding the role of competition in the biologic market. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe product-level changes in net prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor available in 2007-2019 and (b) quantify to what extent manufacturer discounts have offset increases in list prices. METHODS: We obtained 2007-2019 pricing data for etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab from the investment firm SSR Health, which uses company-reported sales to estimate net prices and discounts for brand products manufactured by publicly traded companies. For each drug and year, we calculated annual costs of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis based on list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, list prices of etanercept and adalimumab increased by 293% and 295%, respectively; however, discounts offset 47% and 45% of these increases, leading to net price increases of 171% and 203%. List prices of golimumab and certolizumab increased by 183% and 182%, respectively, but with discounts offsetting 58% and 59% of these increases, net prices increased by 103% and 109%. Net prices of golimumab started to decrease after 2016, while net prices of adalimumab and certolizumab experienced their first drop in 2019. Across the study period, discounts in Medicaid and in other payers increased, respectively, from 21% to 85% and 6% to 32% for etanercept; from 26% to 88% and 19% to 35% for adalimumab; from 28% to 63% and 22% to 46% for golimumab; and from 29% to 83% and 27% to 47% for certolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing manufacturer discounts, net prices of self-administered injectable TNF inhibitors still increased at a mean annual rate of 9.6% in 2007-2019. This led to net prices tripling for adalimumab and more than doubling for etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Funding sources had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Hernandez has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Association Between Filgrastim Biosimilar Availability and Changes in Claim Payments and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Filgrastim Products

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.

Changes in List Prices, Net Prices, and Discounts for Branded Drugs in the US, 2007-2018

IMPORTANCE

Most studies that have examined drug prices have focused on list prices, without accounting for manufacturer rebates and other discounts, which have substantially increased in the last decade.

OBJECTIVE

To describe changes in list prices, net prices, and discounts for branded pharmaceutical products for which US sales are reported by publicly traded companies, and to determine the extent to which list price increases were offset by increases in discounts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective descriptive study using 2007-2018 pricing data from the investment firm SSR Health for branded products available before January 2007 with US sales reported by publicly traded companies (n = 602 drugs). Net prices were estimated by compiling company-reported sales for each product and number of units sold in the US.

EXPOSURES

Calendar year.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes included list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. List prices represent manufacturers' price to wholesalers or direct purchasers but do not account for discounts. Net prices represent revenue per unit of the product after all manufacturer concessions are accounted for (including rebates, coupon cards, and any other discount). Means of outcomes were calculated each year for the overall sample and 6 therapeutic classes, weighting each product by utilization and adjusting for inflation.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2018, list prices increased by 159% (95% CI, 137%-181%), or 9.1% per year, while net prices increased by 60% (95% CI, 36%-84%), or 4.5% per year, with stable net prices between 2015 and 2018. Discounts increased from 40% to 76% in Medicaid and from 23% to 51% for other payers. Increases in discounts offset 62% of list price increases. There was large variability across classes. Multiple sclerosis treatments (n = 4) had the greatest increases in list (439%) and net (157%) prices. List prices of lipid-lowering agents (n = 11) increased by 278% and net prices by 95%. List prices of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (n = 3) increased by 166% and net prices by 73%. List prices of insulins (n = 7) increased by 262%, and net prices by 51%. List prices of noninsulin antidiabetic agents (n = 10) increased by 165%, and net prices decreased by 1%. List price increases were lowest (59%) for antineoplastic agents (n = 44), but discounts only offset 41% of list price increases, leading to 35% increase in net prices.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this analysis of branded drugs in the US from 2007 to 2018, mean increases in list and net prices were substantial, although discounts offset an estimated 62% of list price increases with substantial variation across classes.