DSL-005 Comparative Study of the Cost of Erythropoietic Factors, Original Medicines and Biosimilars in French Care Facilities

Competition Between Biosimilars and Patented Biologics: Learning from European and Japanese Experience

BACKGROUND

The expiry of patents for costly biologics is creating new momentum on the pharmaceutical market for biosimilars (copies of off-patent biologics) and paving the way for their development. However, little is known about the competitiveness of biosimilars versus their originators and other biologics belonging to the same therapeutic class.

OBJECTIVE

The main goal of this study was to analyse the type of competition generated by the first biosimilars commercialised on key global biologic markets and to grasp their economic model. The secondary goal was to distinguish the main factors likely to influence the uptake of biosimilars on national markets.

METHODS

To be included in this study, countries had to meet three conditions: the regulatory framework for the development of biosimilars closely resembled that in Europe, biosimilars were marketed in 2014, and the value of the biologics market was >US$3 billion. We analysed granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (GCSFs) and erythropoietins (EPOs) over the period 2007-2014 because these are the two main therapeutic classes that have been 'biosimilarised' and thus have many years of experience available. We assessed market sizes, retail/hospital distribution mixes, incentives for using biosimilars and price discounts for originators versus biosimilars. We conducted a linear regression analysis to assess the relationship between uptakes of biosimilars and the market shares of other biologics.

RESULTS

The EU-5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) and Japanese GCSF and EPO markets are highly-country-specific. Uptake of biosimilars seems to depend on retail/hospital distribution mixes and on medical practice. Depending on the therapeutic class and the market sector (retail or hospital), biosimilars may compete with first-generation or second-generation products or both. Some incentives implemented to encourage the use of biosimilars had mixed results. Overall, discounts for biosimilars versus originators are not factors that determine global uptake of biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

Unlike generics, there appears to be no unique economic model for biosimilars. Moreover, a new phenomenon occurs with biosimilars: sometimes, they are able to take market shares from subsequent generations of biologics.

Biosimilar versus patented erythropoietins: learning from 5 years of European and Japanese experience

BACKGROUND

Patent expiries on leading biologics are creating new momentum in the market for biosimilars (copies of off-patent biologics), paving the way for their development. However, little is known about the factors influencing the competition between biosimilars and their reference products (REF).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyse key global erythropoietin (EPO) markets and factors affecting biosimilar EPO (BIOSIM-EPO) uptakes, and to identify countries where BIOSIM-EPOs have gained significant market shares.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for countries in the study were a biosimilar regulatory framework similar to the EU framework, and biological market value higher than US$2.5 billion. Factors evaluated included EPO market size, EPO retail/hospital distribution mix, national incentives to use biosimilars and BIOSIM-EPO/REF price differences. IMS Health provided EPO consumption in volumes, values, and EPO ex-manufacturer prices from 2007 to 2012.

RESULTS

Japan: large-sized market, mixed retail/hospital distribution, no incentives, low BIOSIM-EPO uptake (6.8 % in 2012). France: large-sized market, dominant retail distribution, no incentives, low BIOSIM-EPO uptake (5.8 %). Spain and Italy: medium-sized market, dominant hospital distribution, no incentives, moderate BIOSIM-EPO uptakes (11.5 and 8.6 %). Germany: small-sized market, dominant retail distribution, presence of incentives, high BIOSIM-EPO uptake (30.4 %). UK: small-sized market, mixed retail/hospital distribution, no incentives, low BIOSIM-EPO uptake (2.0 %). BIOSIM-EPO/REF price differences play no role at a global level (-10.8 % in Germany and -26.9 % in Japan).

CONCLUSIONS

EPO markets have proven to be highly country-specific. EPO market sizes, EPO retail/hospital distribution mixes and BIOSIM-EPO/REF price differences may not be determining factors of BIOSIM-EPO uptakes. Prescription and substitution incentives to use BIOSIM-EPO appear to be determining factors in Germany. The heterogeneity of national EPO markets makes it impossible to outline country profile types with significant BIOSIM-EPO penetrations.