Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries

Cost minimization analysis of subcutaneous trastuzumab versus intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab: policy recommendations for breast cancer treatment in Malaysia

PURPOSE

Current clinical practice recommends switching innovator intravenous trastuzumab (IV-TZMi) to subcutaneous trastuzumab (SC-TZM) to save healthcare resources. However, with the availability of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab (IV-TZMb), there is a need to re-evaluate the recommendation. Hence, this study aims to compare the cost and resource use of SC-TZM and IV-TZMb in a Malaysian public healthcare facility.

METHODS

This activity-based costing study consists of (1) a retrospective medical record abstraction to determine patient details to estimate drug costs and (2) a time-motion study to quantify personnel time, patient time, and consumables used. The total cost of both SC-TZM and IV-TZMb were then compared using a cost-minimization approach, while differences were explored using an independent t-test. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to determine the impact of uncertainties in the analysis.

RESULTS

The mean total cost of SC-TZM and IV-TZMb was USD 13,693 and USD 5,624 per patient respectively. The cost difference was primarily contributed by savings in drug cost of IV-TZMb, a reduction of USD 8,546 (SD = 134), p < 0.001 compared to SC-TZM. Interestingly, SC-TZM had a significantly lower cost than IV-TZMb for both the consumable and personnel cost, a reduction by USD 300 (SD = 17.6); p < 0.001 and USD 176 (SD = 7.3); p < 0.001 respectively. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the total cost difference between the formulation was mainly driven by drug costs.

CONCLUSION

The study evidenced that IV-TZMb was a more economically viable option in Malaysian public healthcare currently compared to SC-TZM.

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.

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) in routine clinical practice in the Republic of Korea: a real-world post-marketing surveillance study

BACKGROUND

The trastuzumab biosimilar CT-P6 is approved for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer (EBC), metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and metastatic gastric cancer (MGC). The objective of this post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study was to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of CT-P6 in patients with HER2-positive cancers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This open-label, observational, prospective, PMS study collected data via investigator surveys from 35 centers in the Republic of Korea (5 October 2018-4 October 2022). Eligible patients with HER2-positive EBC, MBC, or MGC started CT-P6 treatment during routine clinical practice, followed by 1-year observation. Evaluations included adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and effectiveness.

RESULTS

Safety was analyzed in 642 patients (494 EBC, 94 MBC, 54 MGC). Overall, 325 (50.6%) patients experienced 1316 AEs, and 550 ADRs occurred in 199 (31.0%) patients. Unexpected ADRs occurred in 62 (9.7%) patients. Unexpected ADRs and ADRs of special interest did not raise any new safety signals. Among trastuzumab-naïve patients, 34/106 (32.1%) with EBC achieved pathological complete response; 30/74 (40.5%) MBC and 24/49 (49.0%) MGC patients achieved complete or partial response.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world setting, CT-P6 demonstrated safety and efficacy findings consistent with previous CT-P6 studies.

Cost effectiveness of using trastuzumab biosimilars compared to trastuzumab original drugs to treat breast cancer in a hospital setting

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous (SC) drug administration, such as the Herceptin® in an oncology day hospital reduces the administration time of trastuzumab. In the context of combination therapy administration, this time-saving may be called into question. The challenge posed by the deployment of much less expensive IV biosimilar forms raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of SC administration.

METHODS

Using data from a french Diagnostic Related Groups regarding prescriptions of intravenous Herceptin® (HIV), Herceptin® biosimilar IV (BSIV), and Herceptin® subcutaneous (HSC), we conducted two simulations. This simulation involved replacing all HSC with BSIV in combination therapy administration (Simulation 1) and subsequently substituting IV forms with SC forms only when prescribed as monotherapy (Simulation 2). A cost-benefit analysis was conducted based on these two simulations, from the hospital's perspective, for Normandy's population over a 1-year timeframe.

RESULTS

In Simulation 1, there was an average cost-saving of €12 per patient per year, but it resulted in a loss of 10140 min, equivalent to 10 min per patient per year when compared to the current situation. Simulation 2 yielded average cost-savings for the hospital amounting to €51 per patient per year, along with a time-saving of 67 min per patient per year compared to the current situation.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of a program aimed at optimizing the prescription of Trastuzumab holds the potential to deliver significant cost-savings to hospitals while enhancing the quality of service provided to the patients. This optimization involves using H SC in monotherapy and BS IV in combination therapy administration.

Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care

INTRODUCTION

The exponential rise in cancer costs has led many centers to utilize dose rounding to the nearest vial size when the difference in dose is ≤10% to decrease costs. The recent approval of several biosimilar products has presented another opportunity to mitigate the rising costs of oncology care. Scarce information exists about the expected cost savings of combining dose rounding strategies (DRS) with biosimilar use (BU). We therefore assessed the cost savings of combining DRS and BU.

METHODS

Electronic health record data for two health systems in Rhode Island were used to identify patients who received ≥1 of trastuzumab, trastuzumab-anns, bevacizumab, or bevacizumab-awwb from October 1, 2015 to September 1, 2020. Costs were estimated using Medicare drug pricing. Multivariable generalized estimating equations adjusting for age, gender, presence of metastases, dosing weight, and dose administered were used to compare costs per dose between the four exposure groups: DRS + BU, DRS only, BU only, and neither DRS or BU.

RESULTS

A total of 1156 patients were administered 15,145 doses of drug. After covariate adjustment, average savings per dose was greatest in the DRS + BU group (vs. the neither DRS nor BU group); $331 for trastuzumab and $497 for bevacizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining dose rounding with biosimilar substitution for trastuzumab and bevacizumab resulted in significant cost savings per dose and should be implemented by healthcare systems.

Six-Year Survival Outcomes for Patients with HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer Treated with CT-P6 or Reference Trastuzumab: Observational Follow-Up Study of a Phase 3 Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The Phase 3 CT-P6 3.2 study demonstrated equivalent efficacy and comparable safety between CT-P6 and reference trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer after up to 3 years' follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate long-term survival with CT-P6 and reference trastuzumab.

METHODS

In the CT-P6 3.2 study, patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomised to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CT-P6 or reference trastuzumab, surgery, and adjuvant CT-P6 or reference trastuzumab before a 3-year post-treatment follow-up. Patients who completed the study could enter a 3-year extension (CT-P6 4.2 study). Data were collected every 6 months to assess overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

Of 549 patients enrolled in the CT-P6 3.2 study, 216 (39.3%) patients continued in the CT-P6 4.2 study (CT-P6, 107; reference trastuzumab, 109) (intention-to-treat extension set). Median follow-up was 76.4 months for both groups. Medians were not reached for time-to-event parameters; estimated hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for CT-P6 versus reference trastuzumab were 0.59 (0.17-2.02) for OS, 1.07 (0.50-2.32) for DFS, and 1.08 (0.50-2.34) for PFS. Corresponding 6-year survival rates in the CT-P6 and reference trastuzumab groups, respectively, were 0.96 (0.90-0.99) and 0.94 (0.87-0.97), 0.87 (0.78-0.92) and 0.89 (0.81-0.94), and 0.87 (0.78-0.92) and 0.89 (0.82-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this extended follow-up of the CT-P6 3.2 study demonstrate the comparable long-term efficacy of CT-P6 and reference trastuzumab up to 6 years.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2019-003518-15 (retrospectively registered 10 March 2020).

The Global Landscape on the Access to Cancer Medicines for Breast Cancer: The ONCOLLEGE Experience

There is a growing global debate over barriers affecting the timely access to innovative anticancer therapies. Access to medicines is often traced back to the issue of costs: however, more commonly, the distance between valuable innovative treatments and the actual treatment of patients is far beyond the mere problem of financial barriers. A comprehensive approach to understand, assess to medicines should be pursued, to dissect the determinants and formulate solutions for all patients. In this chapter, we discuss drivers of access to innovation for patients with breast cancer, based on a case study of access to HER2-diagnositcs and therapeutics yielding a global landscape analysis, based on the efforts and expertise of the global collaborative group "ONCOLLEGE".

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer globally among women, with 2,261,419 new cases in 2020; systemic treatment may be neo-adjuvant, adjuvant, or both. BC subtype guides the standard systemic therapy administered, which consists of endocrine therapy for all HR + tumors, trastuzumab-based HER2-directed antibody therapy plus chemotherapy for all HER2 + tumors (with endocrine therapy given in addition, if concurrent HR positivity), and chemotherapy alone for the triple-negative subtype. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and systematically review all budget impact analyses (BIAs) of BC medications worldwide.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were thoroughly searched up to 26th March 2022 to identify original published studies which evaluate BIA of BC medications. ISPOR Task Force guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 17 BIAs were included in the study. About half of the studies were conducted in Europe. The results of the BIAs showed that most of the included BIAs are conducted from the payer's perspective; they have different methodological frameworks for recommended chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy agents to treat BC. For the same medications, the results of budgetary effects are not consistent in diverse countries. Nine out of the 17 studies were focused on trastuzumab, in which the biosimilar form reduced costs, but the brand form increased costs, especially in a 52-week treatment period.

CONCLUSION

Researchers should conduct the budget impact analysis of high-value medications such as anti-tumor drugs more objectively, and the accuracy of parameters needs to be more strictly guaranteed. Furthermore, it is worthy of declaring that the budgetary impact of the same drug is not always consistent over time, so the researchers should measure access to medication in the long run.

Trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02 versus reference trastuzumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China

BACKGROUND

HLX02 is a newly marketed trastuzumab biosimilar in China, but whether its price reflects a potential benefit in terms of its value remains unclear. In addition, the development of biosimilars in China is just beginning, and the state encourages health economic evaluation of newly marketed biosimilars.

METHODS

Based on the previously published randomized controlled trial data, a Markov model was used to perform health economic evaluation of HLX02 and trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and evaluate the robustness of the model with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The model results showed that the 5-year mortality rate was 84.4% in the HLX02 group, while the mortality rate was 91.2% in the trastuzumab group. When without accounting for the cost of second-line treatment, patients treated with HLX02 had an increased life expectancy of 0.138 QALYs and a $421.11 lower cost compared with patients in the trastuzumab group, with an ICER value of -$3,051.52/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY in China, HLX02 is more cost-effective than trastuzumab. However, the relevant systems for the regulation of biosimilars still need to be improved.

Systematic Review on the Use of Biosimilars of Trastuzumab in HER2+ Breast Cancer

Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of breast cancer in cases where the tumor overexpresses the HER2 receptor, a cell membrane receptor activated by the epidermal growth factor. Intravenous and subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab have comparable clinical and pharmacological characteristics, but trastuzumab biosimilars are currently only available in intravenous form. Trastuzumab biosimilars are ultimately preferred by a proportion of patients, especially in cases where co-administration of other chemotherapeutic agents, such as trastuzumab and tucatinib, a small molecule of tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is required in patients with HER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Oncologists should be well-aware of the advantages of intravenously administered trastuzumab biosimilars over subcutaneous administration, certainly also taking into account the patient’s preferences. Further cost-effectiveness analyses will be very important, along with expectations regarding successful concomitant subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab with other anticancer drugs, such as pertuzumab. This systematic review describes and analyzes the so-far published studies concerning the use of the available trastuzumab biosimilars in HER-positive early and metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost–benefit ratio. An attempt was also made to draw some conclusions and to comment on future needs and perspectives.

A Review of Trastuzumab Biosimilars in Early Breast Cancer and Real World Outcomes of Neoadjuvant MYL-1401O versus Reference Trastuzumab

The reduced cost of trastuzumab biosimilars has led to increased adoption for HER2-positive breast cancer. This review of trastuzumab biosimilars encompasses this development and real world clinical data in early breast cancer. In addition, we present a retrospective study evaluating the total pathological complete response (tpCR) rates (lack of residual invasive cancer in resected breast tissue and axillary nodes), of MYL-1401O to reference trastuzumab (TRZ) in the neoadjuvant setting for HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) in Alberta, Canada. Neoadjuvant patients with HER2+ EBC treated with TRZ from November 2018–October 2019 and MYL-1401O from December 2019–September 2020 were identified. Logistic regression was used to control for variables potentially associated with tpCR: trastuzumab product, age, pre-operative T- and N-stage, grade, hormone receptor (HR)-status, HER2-status, chemotherapy regimen, and chemotherapy completion. tpCR was 35.6% in the MYL-1401O group (n = 59) and 40.3% in the TRZ (n = 77) group, p = 0.598. After controlling for clinically relevant variables, there was no significant difference in the odds of achieving tpCR in patients treated with TRZ versus MYL-1401O (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5–2.4, p = 0.850). tpCR rates were similar for patients treated with MYL-1401O compared to trastuzumab in our real world study of HER2+ neoadjuvant EBC and comparable to pivotal phase 3 trials.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Trastuzumab in breast cancer treatment: the Era of biosimilars

BACKGROUND

The discovery of trastuzumab as anti-HER2 therapy markedly improved disease control and the survival rates of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. However, as trastuzumab is considered a complex molecule, the cost of production is usually elevated, which significantly affects health budgets and limits the treatment access for patients who live in underdeveloped countries. Recently, trastuzumab production became more accessible and sustainable due to the patents' expiration, allowing biosimilar versions of trastuzumab to be developed.

OBJECTIVE

Our main goal was to shed more light on the uses of biosimilars in breast cancer treatment, emphasizing trastuzumab.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the PubMed, Scielo, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using the terms "biosimilar," "breast cancer," "monoclonal antibody," and "trastuzumab." The time range included scientific articles published from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The bibliographic survey showed the complexities in biological medicine manufacturing and how the monoclonal antibody's therapy with trastuzumab improved the patients' life expectancy, revolutionizing HER2+ breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, despite its benefits, trastuzumab generates certain restrictions, especially from the economic perspective. Trastuzumab biosimilars have high selectivity and rarely cause adverse effects compared to conventional chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that trastuzumab biosimilars improve patients' accessibility to breast cancer treatment through a safe and effective therapy compared to the drug reference.

The Economic Burden Associated with the Management of Different Stages of Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cost of Illness Analysis in Saudi Arabia

Globally, breast cancer management is associated with a heavy economic burden, but its impact in Saudi Arabia has not been fully quantified. The aim of this study was to estimate the economic burden of breast cancer management at various disease stages, in Saudi Arabia, from a payer perspective. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cost of illness study in two governmental healthcare centers from January to December 2018, using the data of 300 patients at different breast cancer stages. A micro-costing, bottom-up method was used, and descriptive and inferential statistics were analyzed. The total estimated cost for treating breast cancer during the study period was $13.345 million USD, with the average cost per patient ranging from $14,249 USD in stage I to $81,489 USD in stage IV (p < 0.001). Medication cost was the main driver of total healthcare spending, followed by hospitalization and diagnostic tests. The cost of targeted therapy drugs represented 67% of the total medication costs, mostly driven by trastuzumab-based regimens. The economic burden of breast cancer management in Saudi Arabia is substantial and increases significantly with disease advancement. Early detection screening programs, evaluating the value of highly expensive interventions, and considering biosimilars, may contribute toward cost savings.

Does Biosimilar Bevacizumab Offer Affordable Treatment Options for Cancer Patients in the USA? A Budget Impact Analysis from US Commercial and Medicare Payer Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab remains the most widely used and most thoroughly characterized angiogenesis inhibitor for a range of advanced cancers. Bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev®), a biosimilar of bevacizumab, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which provides a less costly option. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing bevacizumab-bvzr from US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was developed over a 5-year time horizon. Target population was patients to be treated with bevacizumab for FDA-approved indications. Drug costs (2020 US$) were based on average sales price and wholesale acquisition cost, accounting for payer-specific reimbursement models and provider settings. Drug dosing and duration were based on prescribing information and pivotal trial publications.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical 10-million-member health plan, 503 and 723 patients were estimated to be treated with bevacizumab in year 1 and year 5, respectively. Assuming an annual market shift of 1.7%, 3.6%, 6.7%, 9.4%, and 11.9% to bevacizumab-bvzr, an annual cost saving of $313,363 ($0.003 per member per month [PMPM]) was estimated for a commercial payer and $92,880 ($0.001 PMPM) for Medicare in year 1. Cumulative 5-year cost savings were $7,030,924 ($0.012 PMPM) for a commercial payer and $4,059,257 ($0.007 PMPM) for Medicare. More than half of the cost savings was attributed to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr was estimated to provide substantial cost savings for US payers, which would allow additional patients access to bevacizumab treatment.

Biosimilars in an era of rising oncology treatment options

New diagnostic technologies, including molecular profiling, have enabled advances in treatments of various cancers; this has significantly improved clinical outcomes, including overall survival. However, the high cost of biologic drugs may prevent patients from having access to optimal treatment. Introduction of lower priced biosimilar agents into the therapeutic armamentarium brings the potential to ease the burden on healthcare expenditure and facilitate better access to effective cancer treatments. Oncology biosimilars have shown comparable efficacy and safety based on clinical evidence and physicochemical quality data as well as in real-world settings. This paper aims to review changes in the management of oncology treatment and their implication with respect to biosimilars.

Long-term efficacy and safety of CT-P6 versus trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: final results from a randomized phase III trial

PURPOSE

Equivalent efficacy was demonstrated for the biosimilar CT-P6 and trastuzumab following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. Following adjuvant treatment, efficacy and safety were comparable between treatments. We report updated safety and efficacy data after up to 3 years' follow-up.

METHODS

Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CT-P6/trastuzumab, patients underwent surgery and continued receiving adjuvant CT-P6/trastuzumab. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was pathological complete response. Time-to-event analyses (disease-free survival [DFS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]), study drug-related and cardiac adverse events, and immunogenicity were assessed during post-treatment follow-up.

RESULTS

Most patients entered the follow-up period (CT-P6: 259 [95.6%]; trastuzumab: 269 [96.8%]). After a median follow-up of 38.7 (CT-P6) and 39.6 (trastuzumab) months, medians were not reached for time-to-event parameters; estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 3-year survival rates were similar between groups. Estimated HRs (95% confidence intervals) for CT-P6 versus trastuzumab were 1.23 (0.78-1.93) for DFS, 1.31 (0.86-2.01) for PFS, and 1.10 (0.57-2.13) for OS (intention-to-treat population). Safety findings were comparable between groups for the overall study and follow-up period, including study drug-related cardiac disorders (CT-P6: 22 [8.1%] patients; trastuzumab: 24 [8.6%] patients [overall]) and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction. Immunogenicity was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The similarity of the time-to-event analyses between CT-P6 and trastuzumab supports the equivalence in terms of efficacy established for the primary endpoint. CT-P6 was well tolerated, with comparable safety and immunogenicity to trastuzumab. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02162667 (registered June 13, 2014).

Intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab, and trastuzumab biosimilars: implications for clinical practice

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.

Anti-ErbB2 immunotherapeutics: struggling to make better antibodies for cancer therapy

Over the past 3 decades, monoclonal antibodies and their related derivatives, including recently approved antibody-drug conjugates, conquered a central role in cancer therapy because of their contribution to improve survival, time to progression and quality of life of patients compared to chemotherapy protocols. This review summarizes information on approved original and biosimilar products, as well as investigational antibody-based therapeutics, targeting ErbB2. This target has been selected as a paradigmatic example because of its relevant role in sustaining the malignancy of major cancer diseases including, breast, gastric and other chemotherapy-resistant solid tumors. This work analyzes the drivers affecting research and development of next-generation anti-ErbB2 immunotherapeutics, taking into account unmet medical needs and pharmacoeconomic issues related to sustainability. The analysis may help with the design of future research and development strategies.

Budget Impact Analysis of the Introduction of Rituximab and Trastuzumab Intravenous Biosimilars to EU-5 Markets

Background

Biologic treatments impose a large financial burden on healthcare payers. Subcutaneous formulations of trastuzumab and rituximab offer administration cost savings relative to the intravenous products through reduced preparation and infusion times. However, intravenous biosimilars have the potential to offset administration costs through lower drug costs.

Objective

The objective was to develop a budget impact model (BIM) from a payer’s perspective for the EU-5 countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) to demonstrate the economic impact of using intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab biosimilars.

Methods

An incidence-based BIM was developed to estimate the net budget impact utilising epidemiology data from the literature, market research data on the use of relevant treatments in all approved indications, and corresponding costs. The budget impact was estimated for 5 years following introduction of the biosimilars.

Results

Analysis using the base-case results indicated that adoption of the biosimilars trastuzumab and rituximab would result in net cost savings. At year 5, the net budget saving ranged from €4.05 million to 303.86 million for rituximab and from €19 million to 172 million for trastuzumab. The cost saving could potentially extend treatment to 291–15,671 more patients with rituximab and 622–3688 more patients with trastuzumab.

Conclusion

This budget impact analysis emphasised that increased use of intravenous rituximab and trastuzumab biosimilars may result in cost savings from the payer’s perspective across the EU-5 countries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-020-00461-8.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist. Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion. Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.

Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are chronic conditions that create a significant disease burden on millions of patients while adding a major financial burden to societies and healthcare systems.

The introduction of biologic medicines has contributed majorly to improving the clinical outcomes of IMIDs and as such these modalities have gained first- or second-line positions in a wide range of treatment guidelines from different international clinical societies. However, the high cost of these biologics traditionally limited their accessibility and delayed their initiation, leaving millions of patients with unmet medical needs for a more affordable and sustainable solution.

The introduction of cost-efficient biosimilar anti-TNFs within Europe since 2013 has allowed more patients with IMIDs to access biologic therapies earlier and for longer, potentially altering the course of the disease into a milder phenotype and reducing the long-term disease burden. This review provides the latest evidence for the impact of biosimilars on patient outcomes and demonstrates their clinical value beyond a reduction in price.

Are Biosimilars the Future of Oncology and Haematology?

Biological drugs are vital but often high-cost components of cancer treatment. Several biosimilar versions of these drugs have been approved in Europe and/or the USA, with many more in development. However, there is some disconnect between the biosimilars that are approved for use and those accessible in clinical practice, with availability impacted by factors including patent litigation and complex healthcare insurance policies, particularly in the USA. Provided the barriers to widespread uptake can be overcome, biosimilars offer potential benefits including cost savings and improved patient access versus the reference product (RP). This article provides an up-to-date and focused perspective on the development and use of biosimilars in the haemato-oncology setting. European and US regulatory pathways governing biosimilar licensing demand that there are no clinically meaningful differences between a biosimilar and its RP. Pathways are rigorously enforced and involve comprehensive non-clinical evaluations and clinical trials in selected indications to establish the equivalence or non-inferiority of efficacy, and the comparability of safety, of the biosimilar versus its RP. 'Indication extrapolation' is only permitted if scientifically justifiable considering mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and safety in relevant patient populations. Switching treatment from RP to biosimilar is supported by most available data, predominantly from indications other than cancer, and post-marketing pharmacovigilance programmes are warranted. Notably, the potential benefits of biosimilar cancer treatment may extend beyond direct cost savings: for example, the availability of biosimilars of common regimen components may help incentivise the evaluation and/or clinical use of new treatment approaches and novel drugs.