Potential cost savings from chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with biosimilar filgrastim and expanded access to targeted antineoplastic treatment across the European Union G5 countries: a simulation study

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

Cost-efficiency analysis of conversion to biosimilar filgrastim for supportive cancer care and resultant expanded access analysis to supportive care and early-stage HER2+ breast cancer treatment in Saudi Arabia: simulation study

AIMS

This study estimated, for Saudi Arabia, the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference Neupogen and Neulastim to one of two filgrastim biosimilars (Nivestim, Zarzio); the budget-neutral expanded access to supportive care with biosimilar filgrastim and therapeutic care to ado-trastuzumab emtansine thus afforded; and the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide supportive or therapeutic treatment to one patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Replicating prior studies, we modeled the cost-efficiencies gained from converting varying proportions of a hypothetical panel of 4,000 patients undergoing six cycles of cancer treatment from Neupogen or Neulastim to one of the two biosimilar G-CSF formulations, using national cost inputs. Cost-savings in USD were used to estimate the additional doses of biosimilar G-CSF and expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine on a budget-neutral basis, and NNC to purchase one additional dose of supportive or therapeutic treatment.

RESULTS

Savings from conversion from reference to a biosimilar filgrastim were $3,086,400 (Nivestim) and $3,460,800 (Zarzio). With reference pegfilgrastim, savings from conversion were $11,712,240 (Nivestim) and $12,086,640 (Zarzio). Biosimilar conversion from reference to biosimilar filgrastim enabled expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine ranging from 61 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 191 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For supportive care, biosimilar conversion enabled expanded access ranging from 8,244 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 25,882 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For biosimilar conversion from daily filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine decreased as days of injections increased [5 days: 395 (Nivestim), 352 (Zarzio); 14 days: 141(Nivestim), 126 (Zarzio)]. Alternately, for biosimilar conversion from single-injection pegfilgrastim to daily biosimilar filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine rose as days of injections increased, being highest under the 14-day scenario (146, Nivestim; 130, Zarzio).

CONCLUSION

This simulation study demonstrated significant potential cost-savings from biosimilar conversion. These savings provide budget-neutral increased access to supportive and therapeutic cancer care.

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.

Expanded access to anticancer treatments from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv in US breast cancer patients

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2-positive (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgrastim and Its Biosimilars to Prevent Febrile Neutropenia in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Febrile neutropenia is the serious side-effect associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Filgrastim, the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of neutropenia. Subsequently, pegfilgrastim (long-acting G-CSF) and filgrastim biosimilars were developed to have comparable efficacy to filgrastim. Therefore, it is necessary to produce a systematic review and meta-analysis that provides evidence that filgrastim is more efficacious than placebo/no-treatment, as it provides evidence on the comparable efficacy of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to identify, assess, meta-analyze and summarize the comparative effectiveness and safety of filgrastim in head-to-head trials with placebo/no treatment, pegfilgrastim (and biosimilar filgrastim to update advances in the field. Methods: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses PRISMA statement were applied, and a random-effect model was used. Primary endpoints were the rate and duration of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and an incidence rate of febrile neutropenia. Secondary endpoints were time to absolute neutrophil count ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir (lowest ANC), neutropenia-related hospitalization and other neutropenia-related complications. For filgrastim versus biosimilar filgrastim comparison, the primary efficacy endpoint was the mean difference in duration of severe neutropenia DSN. Results: A total of 56 studies were considered that included data from 13,058 cancer patients. The risk of febrile neutropenia in filgrastim versus placebo/no treatment was not statistically different. The risk ratio for febrile neutropenia was 0.58, a 42% reduction in favor of filgrastim. The most reported adverse event with FIL was bone pain. For pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim, no statistically significant difference was noted. The risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The overall difference in duration of severe neutropenia between filgrastim and biosimilar filgrastim was not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). Conclusions: Filgrastim was effective and safe in reducing febrile neutropenia and related complications, compared to placebo/no treatment. No notable differences were found between pegfilgrastim and filgrastim in terms of efficacy and safety. However, a similar efficacy profile was observed with FIL and its biosimilars.

Conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Can biosimilar products be interchangeable? Pharmaceutical perspective in the implementation of biosimilars in oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out using the descriptors "Biosimilar", "Oncology Therapy", "Interchangeable drugs" and "Biological Products", in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.

Economic Analysis on Adoption of Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors in Patients With Nonmyeloid Cancer at Risk of Febrile Neutropenia Within the Oncology Care Model Framework

Value-based programs, such as the Oncology Care Model (OCM), seek to improve care for patients undergoing chemotherapy, while reducing total costs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of adopting biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for febrile neutropenia (FN) primary prophylaxis (PP) from a US practice perspective.

Conversion to supportive care with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv enables budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP treatment in non-Hodgkin lymphoma

This pharmacoeconomic simulation (1) assessed the cost-efficiency of converting a panel of 20,000 patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv; (2) estimated how savings can be used to provide budget-neutral expanded access to R-CHOP therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients; and 3) determined the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of R-CHOP (US payer perspective). Model inputs included biosimilar conversion from pre-filled syringe [PFS] or on-body injector [OBI] reference pegfilgrastim; age-proportional blended costs for reference pegfilgrastim PFS and OBI, pegfilgrastim-cbqv and R-CHOP; medication administration costs; biosimilar conversion rates of 10-100 %; and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate the number of doses of R-CHOP that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose. Converting a panel of 20,000 patients requiring CIN/FN prophylaxis to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv from a low of 1 cycle and 10 % conversion to a high of 6 cycles and 100 % conversion yielded savings from $1,567,195 to $96,668,126. The budget-neutral acquisition of R-CHOP doses afforded by these savings ranged from 227 to 13,999 doses, the latter enabling 2333 patients to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP treatment with no additional cost to the payer. These results are achieved if all 20,000 panel patients requiring GCSF support are prophylacted with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for 6 cycles, yielding an NNC of 1.43 patients per additional R-CHOP dose. This simulation underscores the clinic-economic benefit of prophylaxis with biosimilar growth factor and pegfilgrastim-cbqv specifically.

Technological Advancements in Monoclonal Antibodies

Biopharmaceuticals are innovative solutions that have revolutionized the treatment of important chronic diseases and malignancies. The approval of biosimilar products has become a complex and balanced process, and there are versions of drugs with established biosimilarity that can offer a more accessible treatment option to patients. The objective of this work was to identify the advancement of these technologies by means of patent and article analysis based on technological and scientific prospection. In patent document recovery, Derwent Innovation Index (DWPI) and PatentInspiration databases were used. The research was based on the search of the selected terms in the title, summary, and claims of the documents through a search strategy containing IPC code and keywords. In articles recovery, the Web of Science tool was used in the search of scientific publications dated from the last 5 years. The search resulted in a total of 2295 individual patent documents and 467 families using DWPI database, 769 individual patents and 205 families using PatentInspiration, and 2602 articles using Web of Science database. Additionally, this work describes the number of organizations that contribute to this area, where they are, how much development they have undergone, and the inventors/authors involved. Based on the number of publications registered, there is an important prominence for scientific research in mAbs. In terms of innovation, it is expected that several therapeutic drugs are already under regulatory review, which will allow drugs to be approved over the next few years and will thus generate a continuous flow of new products based on immunotherapies, mAbs, and biosimilar drugs. These drugs have become essential weapons for the treatment of significant diseases, and the increasing trend in the number of related scientific and technological publications contributes to making these therapies available to the greatest number of people.

Identifying Key Benefits in European Off-Patent Biologics and Biosimilar Markets: It is Not Only About Price!

Biosimilar medicines have shown similarity with the originator biologic and offer a similar clinical outcome generally at a lower cost. This paper identifies benefits of off-patent biologics and biosimilars, and illustrates these benefits with empirical data from Europe. We provide a narrative review of published literature on values and benefits of biosimilars in Europe. The results describe cost savings as the key driver stemming from the lower price of biosimilars, than that of originator products, and from price competition between biosimilar(s), originator, and next-generation products. Cost savings may then translate into a number of other associated benefits. The lower price of biosimilars and similar effectiveness to the originator biologics improve cost effectiveness, implying that reimbursement can be granted or extended to other patient groups, or that the biologic therapy can be moved to an earlier line of treatment. Cost savings from biosimilars can be used to increase patient access to therapy or to increase the number of healthcare professionals. Finally, competition between off-patent biologics and biosimilars may stimulate an innovation in the formulation and development of next-generation biologics. Our paper illustrates that the benefit of off-patent biologics and biosimilars is not restricted to cost savings, but that these medicines may contribute to an expansion of medical treatment options for patients, hence concomitantly contributing to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system. This review provides a broader view for clinical and economic decision makers and healthcare professionals on the added benefits of off-patent biologics and their use in clinical practice.

Conversion from pegfilgrastim with on-body injector to pegfilgrastim-jmdb: cost-efficiency analysis and budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis and treatment

AIMS

Therapeutic guidelines recommend prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb (Fulphila), and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector (OBI; Neulasta Onpro) are options for CIN/FN prophylaxis. We aimed to simulate the cost-savings and budget-neutral expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis or anticancer treatment achieved through conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb and to evaluate the economic impact of FN-related hospitalization costs due to pegfilgrastim-OBI failure.

METHODS

Cost-savings from conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-jmdb were simulated in a panel of 15,000 patients with cancer from the US payer perspective. The primary analyses included conversion rates of 10% to 100%. Adjusted analyses also considered OBI device failure rates of 1% to 7% and associated costs of FN-related hospitalization. Simulations of budget-neutral expanded access to prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-jmdb or to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were also performed.

RESULTS

In a 15,000-patient panel, conversion from pegfilgrastim-OBI to pegfilgrastim-jmdb resulted in cost-savings ranging from $481,259 (10% conversion) to $4,812,585 (100% conversion) in a single cycle. Over 6 cycles at 100% conversion, savings were $28,857,510 and could provide 9,191 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,463 cycles of R-CHOP to patients with DLBCL. Adjusted for OBI failure, cost-savings over 6 cycles ranged from $2,935,565 (10% conversion; pegfilgrastim-OBI failure rate of 1%) to $32,236,499 (100% conversion; 7% failure). These cost-savings could provide 943 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 454 doses of R-CHOP (10% conversion; 1% pegfilgrastim-OBI failure) or provide 10,261 doses of pegfilgrastim-jmdb or 4,982 cycles of R-CHOP (100% conversion; 7% failure).

CONCLUSION

Conversion from pegfilgrastim to pegfilgrastim-jmdb is associated with significant cost-savings which increase markedly when also accounting for pegfilgrastim-OBI failure and associated FN-related hospitalizations. These general and failure-related cost-savings could be allocated on a budget-neutral basis to provide more patients with additional CIN/FN prophylaxis or antineoplastic treatment.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access modeling of conversion to biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst with or without pertuzumab in metastatic breast cancer

AIMS

To investigate the cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab-dkst versus reference intravenous (trastuzumab-IV) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (trastuzumab-SC) (with/without pertuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

Economic simulation modeling in a panel of 1,000 MBC patients to estimate: 1) cost-savings by conversion from trastuzumab-IV or trastuzumab-SC to trastuzumab-dkst at 10-100% conversion rates in 3 weight groups: first quartile (Q₁:62.2 kg), median (73.1 kg), third quartile (Q₃:88.6 kg), and 2) budget-neutral expanded access to trastuzumab-dkst from cost-savings.

RESULTS

In monotherapy, conversion (%) from trastuzumab-IV generates one-year cost-savings from $2,272,189 (Q₁;10%) to $31,506,804 (Q₃;100%) and from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy savings range from $2,071,277 (Q₃;10%) to $35,775,475 (Q₁;100%). In combination with pertuzumab, trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient in all patient weights with one-year savings over trastuzumab-IV up to $32,662,714 (Q₃;100%) and over trastuzumab-SC up to $35,322,461 (Q₁;100%). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-IV monotherapy could provide between 3,087 (Q₁;10%) and 30,911 (Q₃;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses-enough to treat 58 to 583 patients for one year. Conversion from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy could provide between 1,559 (Q₃;10%) and 48,598 (Q₁;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses or 38 to 918 additional one-year treatments with trastuzumab-dkst. In combination with pertuzumab, conversion from trastuzumab-IV could provide from 311 (Q₁;10%) to 3,939 (Q₃;100%) maintenance doses (pertuzumab + trastuzumab-dkst) or 17 to 210 additional one-year regimens (all agents). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-SC could expand access to 226 (Q₃;10%) to 4,782 (Q₁;100%) additional maintenance doses or 12 to 254 one-year regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

This first cost-efficiency and expanded access study of biosimilar therapeutic cancer agents shows that trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient over trastuzumab-IV and trastuzumab-SC across all patient weights in both monotherapy and combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel. These cost savings could provide more patients with trastuzumab-dkst treatment on a budget-neutral basis.

Cost-efficiency and expanded access of prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia: economic simulation analysis for the US of conversion from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv

AIMS

In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

METHODS

In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose.

RESULTS

Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles).

CONCLUSIONS

Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

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.

Introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim in France: Economic analysis of switching from originator

Objectives

To assess the economic impact of introducing biosimilar pegfilgrastim compared to the current standard granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) practice in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to investigate the impact of introducing pegfilgrastim biosimilar over 5 years. The model analysed drug acquisition costs, ambulatory costs, as well as costs associated with poor outcomes, and compared the current standard practice of long-acting and short-acting G-CSF to a revised practice including pegfilgrastim biosimilar in addition to standard practice treatments. The cost of switching to pegfilgrastim biosimilar, within a pharmacy setting, was analysed within the model using data from a survey of French pharmacists.

Results

The budget impact model calculated a cost saving of €51,007,531 over 5 years switching from the current standard practice to pegfilgrastim biosimilar. A sensitivity analysis accounting for variation in pegfilgrastim biosimilar uptake of 1) 15% in year 1 and 1% in years 2–5 and 2) 15% in years 1–5, estimated savings ranging between €29,377,784 and €79,847,194, respectively. A further analysis predicted cost savings of €287,344,835 over 5 years with the extension of pegfilgrastim biosimilar, at an uptake of 15% in year 1 and 7% in years 2–4, to both long-acting and short-acting G-CSF groups compared to unchanged current practice.

Conclusions

The introduction of pegfilgrastim biosimilar will help to reduce cost and alleviate some of the financial pressure on the French healthcare system.

Economic modeling for the US of the cost-efficiency and associated expanded treatment access of conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez from reference pegfilgrastim

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis.Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis.Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%).Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.

Economic Impact of Non-Medical Switching from Originator Biologics to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

A systematic literature review was conducted to review and summarize the economic impact of non-medical switching (NMS) from biologic originators to their biosimilars (i.e., switching a patient's medication for reasons irrelevant to the patient's health).

METHODS

English publications reporting healthcare resource utilization (HRU) or costs associated with biosimilar NMS were searched in PubMed and EMBASE over the past 10 years and from selected scientific conferences over the past 3 years, along with gray literature for all biologics with an approved biosimilar (e.g., tumor-necrosis factor inhibitors, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, insulin and hormone therapies).

RESULTS

A total of 1311 publications were retrieved, where 54 studies met the selection criteria. Seventeen studies reported increased real-world HRU or costs related to biosimilar NMS, e.g., higher rates of surgery (11%), steroid use (13%) and biosimilar dose escalating (6-35.4%). Among the studies that the estimated cost impact associated with NMS, 33 reported drug costs reduction, 12 reported healthcare costs post-NMS without a detailed breakdown, and 5 reported NMS setup and managing costs. Cost estimation/simulation studies demonstrated the cost reduction associated with NMS. However, variation across studies was substantial because of heterogeneity in study designs and assumptions (e.g., disease areas, scenarios of drug price discount rates, cost components, population size, study period, etc.).

CONCLUSION

Real-world studies reporting the economic impact of biosimilar NMS separately from drug costs are emerging, and those that reported such results found increased HRU in patients with biosimilar NMS. Studies of cost estimation have been largely limited to drug prices. Comprehensive evaluation of the economic impact of NMS should incorporate all important elements of healthcare service needs such as drug price, biologic rebates, HRU, NMS program setup, administration and monitoring costs.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Safety and efficacy of alternating treatment with EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, and reference filgrastim: a phase III, randomised, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Background

In 2015, the biosimilar filgrastim EP2006 became the first biosimilar approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for commercial use in the United States, marketed as Zarxio® (Sandoz). This phase III randomised, double-blind registration study in patients with breast cancer receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC; docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide) compares reference filgrastim, Neupogen® (Amgen), with two groups receiving alternating treatment with reference and biosimilar every other cycle.

Patients and methods

A total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomised 1: 1: 1: 1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product, biosimilar or reference (unswitched), and two arms (switched) received alternating treatments every other cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa over six cycles). Since the switch occurred from cycle 2 onwards, this analysis compared pooled switched groups to the unswitched reference group for efficacy during cycles 2-6. Safety was also assessed. Non-inferiority in febrile neutropenia (FN) rates between groups for cycles 2-6 was shown if 95% were within a pre-defined margin of - 15%.

Results

A total of 109 patients switched treatment, and 52 patients received reference in all cycles. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The incidence of FN was 0% (reference) versus 3.4% (n = 3, switched) across cycles 2-6, with a difference of - 3.4% (95% confidence interval: -9.65% to 4.96%), showing non-inferiority. Infections occurred in 9.3% (switched) versus 9.9% (reference). Hospitalisation due to FN was low (one patient in cycle 6; switched). Adverse events related to filgrastim were reported in 42.1% (switched) versus 39.2% (reference) (all cycles). Musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders related to filgrastim occurred in 35.5% (switched) versus 39.2% (reference) (all cycles), including bone pain (30.8% versus 33.3%). No neutralising antibodies were detected.

Conclusions

There were no clinically meaningful results regarding efficacy, safety or immunogenicity when switching from reference to biosimilar filgrastim/EP2006, or vice versa.

Use and costs of originator and biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia: real-world evidence from an Italian hospital

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate adherence, switch and costs a year after the start of treatment with different erythropoietin-stimulating agents. There were 277 patients, 200 were originators (72.20%) and 77 (27.80%) were biosimilars. Adherence to treatment for originators is 0.84 ± 0.22 versus 0.76 ± 0.27 for biosimilars (p = 0.3241). Medication adherence was calculated as ratio between received daily dose to prescribed daily dose. The optimum value is 1, values less than 1 indicate loss of adherence.  The cost of treatment per year is €7365 per patient for the use of the originator drug versus €2587 for biosimilars, with a difference of €4777 per patient.

The role of biosimilars in value-based oncology care

Biopharmaceuticals (biologics) represent one of the fastest growing sectors of cancer treatment. They are recommended for treating underlying cancer and as supportive care for management of treatment side effects. Given the high costs of cancer care and the need to balance health care provision and associated budgets, patient access and value are the subject of discussion and debate in the USA and globally. As the costs of biologics are high, biosimilars offer the potential of greater choice and value, increased patient access to treatment, and the potential for improved outcomes. Value-based care aims to improve the quality of care, while containing costs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has developed value-based care programs as alternatives to fee-for-service reimbursement, including in oncology, that reward health care providers with incentive payments for improving the quality of care they provide. It is anticipated that CMS payments in oncology care will be increasingly tied to measured performance. This review provides an overview of value-based care models in oncology with a focus on CMS programs and discusses the contribution of biosimilars to CMS value-based care objectives. Biosimilars may provide an important tool for providers participating in value-based care initiatives, resulting in cost savings and efficiencies in the delivery of high-value care through expanded use of biologic treatment and supportive care agents during episodes of cancer care.

Long-term treatment with biosimilar epoetin-α (HX575) in hemodialysis patients with renal anemia: real-world effectiveness and safety in the MONITOR-CKD5 study

Aims: To assess real-world effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) HX575, a biosimilar epoetin-α, in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Materials and methods: This prospective, observational, pharmacoepidemiological study of adult HD patients treated with IV HX575 for renal anemia for up to 24 months was conducted in 114 centers in 10 European countries. Of 2,086 enrolled subjects (safety sample), 2,023 had ≥ 1 follow-up visit (effectiveness sample). Results: Most (59.3%) patients were male, median age was 68 years. At enrollment, most (82.5%) had been treated with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, and 73.0% had adequate iron stores. At baseline, mean (± standard deviation) baseline hemoglobin (Hb) was 11.09 (± 1.14) g/dL and HX575 dose 106.5 (± 78.7) international units (IU)/kg/week; at month 24, Hb was 11.25 (± 1.19) g/dL and HX575 dose 113.0 (± 102.5) IU/kg/week. Variations in mean HX575 dose and Hb over the study were not statistically significant. As to safety, 140 patients (6.7%) experienced ≥ 1 adverse event; of these, 19 events (16 patients; 0.8%) were related to HX575 treatment, 148 (108 patients; 5.2%) were reported as serious, including 12 events in 11 patients (0.5%) stated to be related. No cases of anti-epoetin antibodies or pure red cell aplasia were reported. Conclusions: MONITOR-CKD5 confirmed the real-world effectiveness and safety profile of IV biosimilar HX575. HD patients treated for up to 24 months showed stable dosing patterns and Hb outcomes. The safety profile of HX575 is likewise comparable to reference epoetin-α.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population.

RESULTS

A total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

Home administration of filgrastim (Nivestim™) in primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

The granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™) reduces the duration and severity of neutropenia and the frequency of occurrence of febrile neutropenia (FN). Administration of this biosimilar filgrastim and the patient population receiving it at home have not been sufficiently documented in day-to-day medical practice. Insight into home administration may help optimize the management of FN in this setting, potentially at a reduced cost and patient burden vs hospital administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, non-interventional, non-comparative, multisite study involving 171 patients across 29 sites treated with at least one dose of filgrastim. Mean age was 59.3 years, and most patients were female and G-CSF-naïve. The data collected originated from paper-based patient questionnaires and routine documentation by the treating physicians. The primary endpoint was the characterization of patients treated with filgrastim. Secondary endpoints were satisfaction with filgrastim, effectiveness, safety and tolerability, and compliance with prescription.

RESULTS

Most patients had solid tumors (95.9%), mainly located in the breast, while 4.7% had malignant hematological disease. Solid tumors were recorded as grade 1 (7.9%), grade 2 (28.0%), grade 3 (45.7%), and grade 4 (3.0%), and the majority of patients classified at TNM Stages I and II. Many patients (71.0%) could self-inject filgrastim and 72.2% found the handling instructions "extremely straightforward and easy to understand" at least once. Nearly all (99.4%) patients found the syringes "easy to use" at least once and 91.7% were willing to continue home administration. The mean patient satisfaction score for home administration was 1.9±0.9, ranging from 1 (very satisfied) to 6 (absolutely dissatisfied). No cases of neutropenia were observed and only one event of FN occurred.

CONCLUSION

Home-based prophylaxis for FN with filgrastim was found to be effective, well tolerated, and well received by patients (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02956967).

Conversion from Filgrastim to Tbo-filgrastim: Experience of a Large Health Care System

BACKGROUND

In 2008, tbo-filgrastim was approved as a biosimilar in Europe and then approved in the United States by the FDA in 2012 as a biologic product with 1 similar indication to filgrastim. Because tbo-filgrastim was less expensive than filgrastim, and clinical information and expert opinion supported similarity, the Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee of a large health care system approved tbo-filgrastim as the preferred granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) product in March 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) assess the use of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim products by comparing baseline characteristics, setting of care, indication for use, and payer type and (b) understand potential barriers of conversion to tbo-filgrastim.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim use was conducted on all patients (N = 204) who received the drugs between July 2015 and December 2015 at the 2 largest hospitals in the health system. Baseline characteristics, indication requiring use of filgrastim or tbo-filgrastim, setting of care, and payer information were collected from electronic medical records, and descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, G-CSFs were administered to 204 patients for 261 episodes of care (filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were used in 65 and 196 episodes of care, respectively). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 59 patients who received filgrastim and the 174 patients who received tbo-filgrastim. G-CSF was primarily used in the inpatient setting (163 episodes of care, 63%) with 90% of patients using tbo-filgrastim. In the outpatient setting (98 episodes of care, 38%), filgrastim and tbo-filgrastim were each used by 50% of patients. Tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF by clinical providers for all indications, except for stem cell mobilization, where filgrastim use was higher (55% vs. 45% of 71 episodes of care). In the outpatient setting, analysis by payers showed that the majority of patients on commercial plans were using filgrastim (58%), while half of Medicare patients were using filgrastim (50%, n = 12). Twelve patients were self-paid, and all were using tbo-filgrastim. Subgroup analysis by hospital showed differences in utilization patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tbo-filgrastim was the preferred G-CSF in our formulary, 29% of patients continued to receive filgrastim. Conversion to tbo-filgrastim has been largely successful, but extra steps may be needed to achieve full conversion to biosimilars.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Agboola was employed by Partners Healthcare at the time of the study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed equally by Agboola and Reddy. Agboola collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by both authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Agboola, with assistance from Reddy. Both authors revised the manuscript.

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

AIMS

Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

METHODS

A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

RESULTS

Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Expanded access to cancer treatments from conversion to neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis. Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns. Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz). Conclusion: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

Can biosimilars help achieve the goals of US health care reform?

The US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) aims to expand health care coverage, contain costs, and improve health care quality. Accessibility and affordability of innovative biopharmaceuticals are important to the success of the ACA. As it is substantially more difficult to manufacture them compared with small-molecule drugs, many of which have generic alternatives, biologics may increase drug costs. However, biologics offer demonstrated improvements in patient care that can reduce expensive interventions, thus lowering net health care costs. Biosimilars, which are highly similar to their reference biologics, cost less than the originators, potentially increasing access through reduced prescription drug costs while providing equivalent therapeutic results. This review evaluates 1) the progress made toward enacting health care reform since the passage of the ACA and 2) the role of biosimilars, including the potential impact of expanded biosimilar use on access, health care costs, patient management, and outcomes. Barriers to biosimilar adoption in the USA are noted, including low awareness and financial disincentives relating to reimbursement. The evaluated evidence suggests that the ACA has partly achieved some of its aims; however, the opportunity remains to transform health care to fully achieve reform. Although the future is uncertain, increased use of biosimilars in the US health care system could help achieve expanded access, control costs, and improve the quality of care.

Impact of Guidance on the Prescription Patterns of G-CSFs for the Prevention of Febrile Neutropenia Following Anticancer Chemotherapy: A Population-Based Utilization Study in the Lazio Region

Background

Current guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for patients with cancer who are at greater risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) while receiving chemotherapy. G-CSF biosimilars are available and represent a savings opportunity; however, their uptake has thus far been low.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate prescribing patterns for G-CSFs in the prevention of chemotherapy-related FN and to evaluate the impact of regional guidance on G-CSF prescription.

Methods

We conducted an observational drug-utilization study in the Lazio region of Italy using the Electronic Therapeutic Plan Registry, which collects information on G-CSF prescriptions reimbursed by the regional health service. This registry includes information on demographics, tumour, indication for G-CSF use and previous G-CSF exposure. All therapeutic plans (TPs) registered from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 were selected. A pharmaceutical policy intervention was implemented in November 2015. We evaluated temporal trends regarding G-CSF substances and compared the frequency of TPs for each G-CSF substance during the pre- and post-intervention periods.

Results

A total of 7082 TPs were eligible for the analysis, corresponding to 6592 patients. The frequency of TPs prescribed after the intervention indicated a significant increase in the use of a filgrastim biosimilar (% difference: 14.4; p < 0.001) and significant decreases in the use of lenograstim (% difference: –6.0; p < 0.001) and pegfilgrastim (% difference: –7.8; p < 0.001). The temporal trends analysis showed an increase in TPs using a filgrastim biosimilar (from 34.4% in July 2015 to 49.8% in June 2016; p < 0.0001) and a decrease in TPs using lenograstim and pegfilgrastim.

Conclusions

This study shows it is possible to change attitudes towards the prescription of less expensive G-CSFs in the FN setting when the prescriber’s decision-making processes are supported by evidence that includes both regulatory and clinical information and the analysis of clinical practice data.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0214-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 in Rheumatology and Cancer: A Budget Impact Analysis in 28 European Countries

Introduction

New biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies are anticipated to bring significant cost savings and increase access to treatment. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 has recently been approved in Europe in all indications held by reference rituximab (RTX), including rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We analyzed the budgetary impact of the introduction of CT-P10 into the European Union (EU) for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer diagnoses, using a budget impact analysis model.

Methods

The model used a base case scenario in which the 1-year uptake of CT-P10 was estimated at 30%, and the cost of CT-P10 was assumed to be 70% of the cost of RTX. A second 1-year scenario was also modeled, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 50% (scenario 2). Finally, 3-year time horizon outcomes were calculated, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 30%, 40%, and 50% in the first, second, and third years, respectively.

Results

In the base case scenario, the introduction of CT-P10 was associated with projected savings of €90.04 million in the first year, which would allow 7531 additional patients to access rituximab treatment. This was equivalent to a 6.4% increase in the number of rituximab-treated patients. In scenario 2, budget savings were €150.10 million, with a total of 12,551 additional patients able to access rituximab, equivalent to a 10.7% increase. Over a 3-year time horizon, projected budget savings were approximately €570 million, equating to 47,695 additional patients able to access rituximab.

Conclusions

The model predicted that the introduction of CT-P10 in the EU will be associated with significant budget savings, the reallocation of which will enable many more patients to access rituximab treatment. This is likely to have a significant impact on health gains at patient and societal levels.

Funding: CELLTRION Healthcare Co., Ltd. sponsored the development and analysis of the budget impact analysis model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers to the Access of Bevacizumab in Patients with Solid Tumors and the Potential Impact of Biosimilars: A Physician Survey

Access to bevacizumab, an important component of oncology treatment regimens, may be limited. This survey of oncologists in the US (n = 150), Europe (n = 230), and emerging markets (EM: Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey; n = 130) examined use of and barriers to accessing bevacizumab as treatment of advanced solid tumors. We also assessed the likelihood that physicians would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Bevacizumab was frequently used as early-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and metastatic ovarian cancer (all markets), and as a second-line therapy in glioblastoma multiforme (US, EM). A greater percentage of EM-based physicians cited access-related issues as a barrier to prescribing bevacizumab versus US and EU physicians. Lack of reimbursement and high out-of-pocket costs were cited as predominant barriers to prescribing and common reasons for reducing the number of planned cycles. Overall, ~50% of physicians reported they "definitely" or "probably" would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Efficacy and safety data in specific tumor types and lower cost were factors cited that would increase likelihood to prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower cost bevacizumab biosimilar could address the unmet needs of patients and physicians worldwide, and may have the greatest impact on patient outcomes in EM.

Healthy donor hematopoietic stem cell mobilization with biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor: safety, efficacy, and graft performance

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been available in the European Union since 2008, and Sandoz' biosimilar filgrastim was approved in the United States in March 2015 for all of the reference product's indications except acute radiation syndrome. Biosimilar G-CSFs have been largely embraced by the medical community, except for some reservations about healthy-donor stem cell mobilization, for which use outside of clinical studies was cautioned against by some members of the scientific community.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In a two-center safety surveillance study (National Clinical Trial NCT01766934), 245 healthy volunteer stem cell donors were enrolled. Of 244 donors who began mobilization with twice-daily Sandoz biosimilar filgrastim, 242 received a full (n = 241) or partial (n = 1) course of G-CSF and underwent apheresis. Efficacy and safety were assessed and are reported here.

RESULTS

Biosimilar filgrastim was accompanied by the typical G-CSF class-related adverse effects of expected frequency and severity. Median mobilization for CD34-positive stem cells was 97/µL (range, 20-347/µL); after one apheresis (91%) or two aphereses (9%) from all but three donors (1.2%), cell doses in excess of the typical 4 × 10⁶ CD34-positive cells/kg of the recipient had been collected (range, 3-52 × 10⁶ /kg). Biochemical and hematologic alterations were consistent with previous reports; all had normalized by the first follow-up 1 month after mobilization. Stem cell products engrafted with typical probability and kinetics for G-CSF-mobilized stem cell products.

CONCLUSION

These data support the use of biosimilar filgrastim for healthy-donor stem cell mobilization as safe and effective.

Mobilization of autologous and allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells for transplantation in haematological malignancies using biosimilar G-CSF

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars of the granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for registered indications of the originator G-CSF, including prevention and treatment of neutropenia, as well as mobilization of peripheral blood stem cells in 2008. Nevertheless, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilar G-CSF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article is a meta-analysis of clinical studies on the use of biosimilar G-CSF for mobilization and transplantation of haematopoietic stem cells as available in public databases. All data sets were weighted for the number of patients and parameters and then subjected to statistical meta-analysis employing the Mann-Whitney U-test followed by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator to assess differences between biosimilar and originator G-SCF.

RESULTS

A total of 1892 individuals, mostly with haematological malignancies but also including 351 healthy donors have been successfully mobilized for autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation using biosimilar G-CSF (Zarzio(TM) : 1239 individuals; Ratiograstim(TM) /Tevagrastim(TM) : 653 individuals). A total of 740 patients with multiple myeloma, 491 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), 150 with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) and other diseases are included in this meta-analysis, as well as 161 siblings and 190 volunteer unrelated donors. For biosimilar and originator G-CSF, bioequivalence was observed for the yield of CD34+ stem cells as well as for the engraftment of the transplants.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar G-CSF has equivalent effects and safety as originator G-CSF.

G-CSF and GM-CSF in Neutropenia

G-CSF and GM-CSF are used widely to promote the production of granulocytes or APCs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved G-CSF (filgrastim) for the treatment of congenital and acquired neutropenias and for mobilization of peripheral hematopoietic progenitor cells for stem cell transplantation. A polyethylene glycol-modified form of G-CSF is approved for the treatment of neutropenias. Clinically significant neutropenia, rendering an individual immunocompromised, occurs when their number is <1500/μl. Current guidelines recommend their use when the risk for febrile neutropenia is >20%. GM-CSF (sargramostim) is approved for neutropenia associated with stem cell transplantation. Because of its promotion of APC function, GM-CSF is being evaluated as an immunostimulatory adjuvant in a number of clinical trials. More than 20 million persons have benefited worldwide, and >$5 billion in sales occur annually in the United States.

Biosimilars: Hope and concern

As patents of the first introduced biologic therapeutics in oncology have begun to expire, competing pharmaceutical companies are allowed to produce and market the same protein as the original agent. These products are called biosimilars. Upon patent expiration, biosimilars would hopefully be a cheaper alternative to the original agent and that is the main reason for their existence. Although the financial aspect is similar to generics, the complex nature of these products generates the need for a distinct regulatory environment. Biosimilars are produced by DNA technology in bacteria, plant cells, or animal cells, while generics are produced by chemical synthesis. Details in the process of synthesis, selection of the microorganism, protein extraction, purification and manufacturing, affect the precise nature of the end product. Monoclonal antibodies are large proteins with four polypeptide chains and interact variably with each other and with the environment. It is important for payors to realize that biosimilars are different from generics; therefore, they need to develop different set of rules for approving, registering, and dispensing biosimilars. Regulators ought to respect the physicians’ request for non-interchangeability and facilitate in any possible way of traceability. Such regulations along with a rigorous pharmacovigilance program will satisfy the concerns for true equivalence in activity and long-term safety. This is the only way to accumulate over time reliable safety information for new biosimilars. In conclusion, the wish born by the medical community and the society for a more affordable health system triggers the emergence of biosimilars, which could meet that goal if properly regulated.