Association of Generic Competition With Price Decreases in Physician-Administered Drugs and Estimated Price Decreases for Biosimilar Competition

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions.

METHODS

We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market.

RESULTS

Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

Non-TNF biologics and their biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease that affects both the articular and extra-articular structures, leading to significant joint damage, disability and excess mortality. The treatment algorithm of RA has changed tremendously in the past 1-2 decades because of the emergence of novel biological therapies that target different mechanisms of action in addition to TNFα.

AREAS COVERED

This article summarizes the evidence and safety of the non-TNF biological DMARDs in the treatment of RA, including those that target B cells, T-cell co-stimulation, interleukin (IL)-6 and granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). The targeted synthetic DMARDs such as the Janus kinase inhibitors are not included. The availability of the less costly biosimilars has enabled more patients to receive biological therapy earlier in the course of the disease. The evidence for the non-TNF biosimilar compounds in RA is also reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

There are unmet needs of developing novel therapeutic agents to enhance the response rate and provide more options for difficult-to-treat RA. These include the newer generation biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs. A personalized treatment strategy in RA requires evaluation of the cellular, cytokine, genomic and transcriptomic profile that would predict treatment response to biologic or targeted DMARDs of different mechanisms of action.

Challenges of Incorporating Life Cycle Drug Pricing in Cost-Effectiveness Models: A Review of Methods and Modeling Suggestions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a review of existing methods used to incorporate life cycle drug pricing (LCDP) in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), identify common methodological challenges, and suggest modeling approaches for prospectively implementing LCDP in CEA.

METHODS

Two complementary searches were conducted in PubMed, combined with hand searching and reference mining, to identify English language full-text articles that explored (1) how drug prices change over time and (2) methods used to apply dynamic pricing in cost-effectiveness models (CEMs). Relevant articles were reviewed, and authors discussed the common methodological practices used in the literature and their associated challenges on prospectively implementing LCDP in CEMs. For each key challenge identified, we provide modeling suggestions to address the issue.

RESULTS

We screened 1200 studies based on title and abstract; 117 were reviewed for eligibility, and 47 individual studies were included across both searches. Variations in prices over a product's life cycle are complex and multifactorial, and models applying LCDP in CEA varied in their methodology. We identified 4 key challenges to modeling LCDP in CEA, including how to model price trends before and after loss of exclusivity, how to capture the effect of price changes on future patient cohorts, and how to report results.

CONCLUSION

Accurately quantifying the impact of LCDP requires careful consideration of multiple aspects pertaining to both the evolution of drug prices and how to reflect these in CEA. Although uncertainties remain, our findings can aid implementation and evaluation of LCDP in economic evaluations.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition

Importance

Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients.

Objective

To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included.

Exposure

Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry.

Results

Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Inhaler Adherence Technologies in Difficult-to-Treat Asthma

BACKGROUND

Digital inhalers can monitor inhaler usage, support difficult-to-treat asthma management, and inform step-up treatment decisions yet their economic value is unknown, hampering wide-scale implementation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of digital inhaler-based medication adherence management in difficult-to-treat asthma.

METHODS

A model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. The Markov model structure was determined by biological and clinical understanding of asthma and was further informed by guideline-based assessment of model development. Internal and external validation was performed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic (AdViSHE) tool. The INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment) Sun randomized clinical trial data were incorporated into the model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital inhalers. Several long-term clinical case scenarios were assessed (reduced number of exacerbations, increased asthma control, introduction of biosimilars [25% price-cut on biologics]).

RESULTS

The long-term modelled cost-effectiveness based on a societal perspective indicated 1-year per-patient costs for digital inhalers and usual care (ie, regular inhalers) of €7,546 ($7,946) and €10,752 ($11,322), respectively, reflecting cost savings of €3,207 ($3,377) for digital inhalers. Using a 10-year intervention duration and time horizon resulted in cost savings of €26,309 ($27,703) for digital inhalers. In the first year, add-on biologic therapies accounted for 69% of the total costs in the usual care group and for 49% in the digital inhaler group. Scenario analyses indicated consistent cost savings ranging from €2,287 ($2,408) (introduction biosimilars) to €4,581 ($4,824) (increased control, decreased exacerbations).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, digital inhaler-based interventions can be cost-saving in the long-term by optimizing medication adherence and inhaler technique and reducing add-on biologic prescriptions.

Estimated Changes in Insulin Prices and Discounts After Entry of New Insulin Products, 2012-2019

Importance

Despite the political salience of insulin prices, no study to date has quantified trends in insulin prices that account for manufacturer discounts (net prices).

Objective

To describe trends in insulin list prices and net prices faced by payers from 2012 to 2019 and estimate changes in net prices after the 2015 to 2017 entry of new insulin products.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This longitudinal study included an analysis of Medicare, Medicaid, and SSR Health drug pricing data from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Data analyses were performed from June 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022.

Exposures

US sales of insulin products.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Net prices faced by payers were estimated for insulin products as list prices minus manufacturer discounts negotiated in commercial and Medicare Part D markets (ie, commercial discounts). Trends in net prices were evaluated before and after the entry of new insulin products.

Results

Net prices of long-acting insulin products increased at an annual rate of 23.6% from 2012 to 2014 but decreased at an annual rate of 8.3% after the introduction of insulin glargine (Toujeo and Basaglar) and degludec (Tresiba) in 2015. Net prices of short-acting insulin increased at an annual rate of 5.6% from 2012 to 2017 but then decreased from 2018 to 2019 after the introduction of insulin aspart (Fiasp) and lispro (Admelog). For human insulin products, which did not experience entry of new products, net prices increased at an annual rate of 9.2% from 2012 to 2019. From 2012 to 2019, commercial discounts increased from 22.7% to 64.8% for long-acting insulin products, from 37.9% to 66.1% for short-acting insulin products, and from 54.9% to 63.1% for human insulin products.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this longitudinal study of US insulin products, results suggest that insulin prices substantially increased from 2012 to 2015, even after accounting for discounts. The introduction of new insulin products was followed by substantial discounting practices that lowered net prices faced by payers.

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.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs Following the Availability of Biosimilar Versions of Infliximab

After market exclusivity ends for biologic drugs, biosimilars-follow-on versions made by other manufacturers-can compete with lower prices. Biosimilars have modestly reduced prescription drug spending for US payers, but it is unclear whether patients have directly experienced any savings. In this study we assessed whether availability of biosimilar infliximab was associated with lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, using claims from a national data set of commercially insured patients from 2014 to 2018. We used two-part models, adjusting for patient demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance plan type, and calendar month. Compared with the reference biologic, there was no difference in the percentage of biosimilar claims with OOP costs (30.1% vs. 30.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.15, P = 0.84) or the average nonzero OOP cost (median $378 vs. $538, adjusted mean ratio (aMR) 0.97, 95% CI, 0.80-1.18, P = 0.77). The percentage of claims with OOP costs was lower after biosimilar competition (30.7% vs. 35.0%, aOR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.94-0.99, P = 0.003), but average nonzero costs increased (median $534 vs. $520, aMR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.07, P = 0.004). Thus, early biosimilar infliximab competition did not improve affordability for patients. Policymakers need to better assure that competition in the biosimilar market translates to lower costs for patients using these medications.

A review of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis

Biologics are effective, though costly, medications for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars are medications that have no clinically meaningful differences when compared with their corresponding reference biologics but cost significantly less. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medication Agency have approved biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab for the treatment of RA. Streamlined approval processes are expected to expedite biosimilar development while maintaining strict safety and efficacy standards. Encouragingly, many analyses have demonstrated the potential for massive healthcare savings if biosimilars are used over biologics. Challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient and provider hesitancy, can likely be overcome with the education of all stakeholders within healthcare systems.