Budget Impact Analysis of Implementing Tenders Between The Branded Infliximab And Its Biosimilars In The Public Hospitals of Paris

Biosimilars for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Economic Considerations

Biological drugs revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, not all clinically eligible patients have access to biologicals due to significant costs and budget impact. Biosimilars are highly comparable to their originator product in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. Biosimilars are priced 15-75% lower than their reference product, which makes them a less costly alternative and is expected to offer better patients access to biologicals. The total projected cost savings are significant. If the achieved budget savings were used to cover more biological therapy, several additional IBD patients could be treated. Currently, the main barriers to the increasing uptake of biosimilars are the few incentives of the key stakeholders, while physicians' and patients' skepticism towards biosimilars seems to be changing. Over the coming years, biosimilars are expected to gain a growing importance in the treatment of IBD, contributing to a better access to treatment, improving population-level health gain and sustainability of health systems. This review summarizes the results of the literature on the economic considerations of biosimilars in IBD and the role of biosimilar infliximab in the treatment of IBD.

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

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