The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures

Biosimilar Policies and Their Impact on Market Penetration of Adalimumab, Etanercept and Infliximab: A Policy Synthesis and Descriptive Analysis in 13 OECD Countries

BACKGROUND

Different biosimilar-promoting policies have been implemented worldwide to improve biosimilar uptake and reduce expenditures on costly biologics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to review biosimilar-promoting policies in 13 countries, and examine biosimilar uptake and expenditure reduction for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, among countries with different biosimilar-promoting policies.

METHODS

Quarterly IQVIA MIDAS sales data from 2012 to 2023 for the three originators and their biosimilars in 13 countries were used. Two countries for a given setting (retail or hospital) and originator were paired if they differed only on one specific policy. Biosimilar uptake and relative expenditure reduction were compared between pairs. Biosimilar uptake was calculated by dividing the sales volume of biosimilars by the total sales volume of biosimilars and their corresponding originator. Expenditure reduction was the difference between the actual expenditure in 2023 and the but-for-biosimilar expenditure (based on the price of the originator in the year before biosimilar launch).

RESULTS

Biosimilar uptake and relative expenditure reduction have grown over time across the three originators in all country-settings. We identified ten country-setting-anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) pairs for three policies: tendering, price link, and quotas. All three policies appeared to facilitate greater biosimilar uptake, but this did not consistently translate to greater expenditure reductions. Tendering facilitated greater reductions in three out of four paired comparisons in the retail setting and zero of two comparisons in the hospital setting. Price link with low discount rates (- 20 to - 25% of originator price) and prescribing quotas facilitated greater reductions in one of three comparisons and zero of one comparison in the hospital setting, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Procurement of biosimilars through tendering could potentially reduce spending on anti-TNFs in the retail setting, whereas price links at low discounts did not appear to help. The impact of prescribing quotas needs to be further investigated.

Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians

Ten adalimumab biosimilars have been introduced in the United States (USA) since 2023, while adalimumab biosimilars have been available for several years in other countries. These experiences of biosimilar uptake outside the USA can inform US-based healthcare professionals on switching in real-life practice settings. Considerations include how healthcare professionals might meaningfully address patient concerns about outcomes to improve patient satisfaction. A search of the MEDLINE database was used to identify publications on switching to and among adalimumab biosimilars in an ex-US setting, with no restriction on publication language and using a time frame of 1 January 2017 through 12 December 2023, coinciding with the European Union approval of the first adalimumab biosimilar, adalimumab-atto, in March 2017. This narrative review aims to provide insights into the efficacy and safety of transitioning to and among adalimumab biosimilars in adult patients from clinical studies but also, more importantly, using real-world evidence (RWE) from outside the USA. Overall, RWE suggested that efficacy and outcomes were consistent in patients who underwent switching from the reference product (RP) across various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases when compared to patients who did not switch from the RP. The ex-US RWE of RP and biosimilar adalimumab switches generally reflected the experiences observed in clinical trials; however, RWE findings elucidated several challenges to biosimilar uptake, including patient education, provider training, and supportive policies.

Real-World Comparative Analysis of Trastuzumab Originator and Biosimilars: Safety, Efficacy, and Cost Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Despite the global use of trastuzumab biosimilars, concerns remain regarding their efficacy and safety. In particular, when used concurrently with pertuzumab, trastuzumab biosimilars lack extensive real-world data and safety information. Additionally, as cancer drug expenditures continue to rise worldwide, cost savings from biosimilars have become increasingly important.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of trastuzumab originators and their biosimilars in real-world clinical settings, focusing on a large patient population.

METHODS

The analysis included 31,661 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer from the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database in Japan. Additionally, adverse event reports for the trastuzumab originator and its biosimilars were obtained for 58,799 patients from the World Health Organization's VigiBase, the global adverse event reporting database.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in heart failure hospitalizations, liver dysfunction, or infusion reaction rates in both the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database and the World Health Organization's VigiBase. In the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database, the addition of pertuzumab did not significantly influence the incidence of adverse events, and the use of biosimilars significantly reduced medical costs, with no significant difference in breast cancer recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

By analyzing two large and diverse datasets from multiple perspectives, we obtained reliable results that the trastuzumab originator and its biosimilars have similar safety profiles. The concurrent use of pertuzumab was also found to be safe. The use of biosimilars can lead to cost savings. These findings provide crucial insights for the evaluation and adoption of biosimilars in clinical practice.

Unveiling Psoriasis: Delving into Pathogenesis, Treatment Breakthroughs, and Patent Trends

Over the world, millions of individuals suffer from psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin disease. It is caused by a multifaceted mixture of environmental, immunological, and genetic factors. This review explores the many aspects of psoriasis, where the introduction gives a context background, emphasizing the prevalence and difficulties that people encounter with this dermatological ailment. Further, the pathogenesis complex systems involving immunological dysregulation, genetic susceptibility, and triggers are clarified, providing insights into the disease's fundamental mechanisms. Examining drugs shows how, over time, therapy modalities have evolved, moving from traditional topical treatments to the introduction of biologics and small molecules. The continuous efforts to control symptoms, reduce inflammation, and improve patient outcomes are highlighted in this section. Furthermore, a thorough review of patents reveals the creative advancements made in the sector, highlighting encouraging advancements in treatment modalities and potential paths forward. This manuscript is a review article and is based on various research and review articles. We have summarized the salient features and findings from different articles and prepared this manuscript.

Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the French government introduced two mutually exclusive financial incentives to increase etanercept and insulin glargine biosimilar use. The general case redirects 20% of the price difference between the reference product and its biosimilars to hospitals for every biosimilar dispensed in community pharmacies from hospital prescriptions. The experimental case redirects 30% to prescribing clinical units after hospital selection. Adalimumab was added to these incentives in 2019, after its first biosimilar was launched.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective observational study aimed to compare both general and experimental incentives after 19 months to assess the impact of directly incentivizing clinical units for adalimumab biosimilars.

METHOD

The monthly number of adalimumab boxes dispensed in community pharmacies was linked to the corresponding hospital's prescription using IQVIA Xponent data from November 2017 to October 2020. The monthly mean rate of adalimumab biosimilars was compared between incentive groups and subgroups depending on hospitals' prior experience with the etanercept experimental case.

RESULTS

General case hospitals had a significantly lower mean biosimilar uptake (16.7% vs 23.2%, p = 0.029) than those included in the experimental case. Twenty-three of the 40 hospitals in the experimental case and ten out of the 91 hospitals studied in the general case had already taken part in the etanercept experiment. Biosimilar uptake was higher, but not statistically significant, for hospitals with prior experience in the adalimumab general case group (p = 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed that incentivizing close to physicians was more effective in increasing the biosimilar rate. It also suggested that previous incentive experience positively influenced biosimilar penetration.

Physicians' and patients' perception of biosimilars and factors affecting biosimilar prescribing in selected Asian countries: a survey study

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated physicians' and patients' beliefs about biosimilars in Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

An online survey administered to physicians (dermatologists, n = 119; gastroenterologists, n = 148; rheumatologists, n = 161) between 22 October 2021 and 7 January 2022, and patients (n = 90) with rheumatic or inflammatory bowel disease between 25 October 2021 and 12 April 2022.

RESULTS

Most (68%) physicians reported having a strong knowledge about biosimilars, yet 49% indicated that biosimilars are readily available to them. Physicians cited potential cost savings (81%) as the main benefit of biosimilars, and cost/coverage support (36%), patient support (25%), and increasing biosimilar awareness/education (24%) as main strategies for improving usage. Few (21%) patients reported having a strong knowledge about biosimilars. Patients cited offering alternatives in case of drug shortages (77%) as the main benefit of biosimilars, and cost/coverage support (53%), increasing awareness of product profile (22%), and providing biosimilars with a good efficacy profile/effective product (19%) as main strategies for improving usage.

CONCLUSION

Programs focused on cost/coverage support, patient support, and biosimilar awareness could improve acceptance of biosimilars for chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases in Asian countries, thereby increasing patient access to essential biologic therapies.

The impact of EU public procurement regulations on tenders in Spain: a study with adalimumab

Introduction

Pharmaceutical spending accounts for a significant portion of public healthcare budgets. To manage these costs, EU countries implement various cost-containment policies, including competitive tendering for pharmaceuticals. This study examines the impact of EU public procurement regulations on medication procurement practices.

Methods

A search for all published tenders of adalimumab in Spain from 2018 to 2024 in the Spanish Public Sector Procurement Database, a period that coincides with the implementation of European legislation and the emergence of adalimumab biosimilars. All available documentation for each tender was reviewed, including the tender offer, technical specifications, specific administrative clauses, appointments of evaluation commissions, supporting memorandum, and evaluation reports.

Results and Discussion

Our findings reveal substantial price reductions following the introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, yet highlight significant variability in tender criteria and practices across different regions. Despite adherence to EU directives, the inconsistent application of economic and non-economic factors and an erratic criteria concerning price undermine the intended balance of quality and cost, complicating procurement processes and potentially affecting the availability of a given treatment for patients.

Barriers and Enablers Affecting the Uptake of Biosimilar Medicines Viewed Through the Lens of Actor Network Theory: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars represent an opportunity to realise savings against the costs of innovative medicines. Despite efforts made by stakeholders, there are numerous barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. To realise the promise of biosimilars reducing costs, barriers must be identified, understood, and overcome, and enablers magnified. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars through the application of a classification system to organise them into healthcare professional (HCP), patient, or systemic categories.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, eConlit, and Embase. Included were primary research studies published in English between Jan 2017 through June 2023 focused on enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars. Excluded studies comprised comparisons of biosimilar efficacy and safety versus the reference biologic. One reviewer extracted data that included classification of barriers or enablers, the sub-classification, and the identification of the degree of agency associated with the actor through their role and associations as a mediator within their network, through the application of Actor Network Theory. The data were validated by a second reviewer (PV).

RESULTS

Of the 94 studies included, 59 were cross-sectional, 20 were qualitative research, 12 were cohort studies, and three were economic evaluations. Within the review, 51 of the studies included HCP populations and 35 included patients. Policies and guidelines were the most cited group of enablers, overall. Systemic enablers were addressed in 29 studies. For patients, the most frequently cited enabler was positive framing of a biosimilar, while for HCPs, cost benefit was the most frequently noted enabler. The most frequently discussed systemic barrier to biosimilar acceptance was lack of effective policies or guidelines, followed by lack of financial incentives, while the most significant barriers for HCPs and patients, respectively, were their lack of general knowledge about biosimilars and concerns about safety and efficacy. Systemic actors and HCPs most frequently acted with broad degree of agency as mediators, while patient most frequently acted with a narrow degree of agency as mediators within their networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and enablers affecting uptake of biosimilars are interconnected within networks, and can be divided into systemic, HCP, and patient categories. Understanding the agency of actors within networks may allow for more comprehensive and effective approaches. Systemic enablers in the form of policies appear to be the most effective overall levers in affecting uptake of biosimilars, with policy makers advised to give careful consideration to appropriately educating HCPs and positively framing biosimilars for patients.

Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive, retrospective analysis of ETN market competition, specifically changes in tender price based on shifts in market monopoly, including the effects on cost evolution, in the off-patent market in Poland. We included a total of 473 tenders for ETN purchase in dedicated biologic drug reimbursement programs, covering both pre-filled syringes and automatic injectors. This study covers the timeframe from November 2017 to December 2023, throughout which we evaluated a unique setting of ETN market re-monopolization from the perspective of payer, hospital and patient benefits resulting from changing cost calculations.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, Erelzi was recorded as having the largest total tender volume (59%), with a mean price [per ETN daily defined dose (DDD)] of €7.28, followed by Enbrel (31%, €8.34) and Benepali (10%, €9.45), respectively. Over the last 6 months of waning market competition, the mean price for winning bids was estimated at €5.69. After market re-monopolization by an ETN biosimilar, the mean price of winning bids increased to €8.09, and continued to increase (€9.71) in the last 6 months of available follow-up. In contrast to the competitive era, no significant relationship between tender volume and winning price was recorded after re-monopolization. In the most recent tenders, mean ETN prices increased up to €15.82, nearly tripling the lowest prices of the competitive market period. In the early re-monopolization market, mean annual treatment cost per patient is estimated at over €3800, which exceeds therapy costs in the prior competitive market years, and is expected to increase to over €6200 based on the most recent tenders. On a healthcare system level, this corresponds to over €3.42 million excess costs due to market monopoly. Higher ETN prices resulted in downstream failure of regulatory incentives to promote affordable biologics. Due to higher pricing, hospitals lost over an estimated €2.52 million, with possible risk of treatment restrictions. For the same reason, the public payer achieved comparable savings, allowing for partial coverage of higher reimbursement expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

This nation-level scenario of market re-monopolization by a biosimilar drug confirms net loss and excess costs for the healthcare payer, as can be expected from economic theory. The upwards drug repricing and restriction of treatment availability occurs much more rapidly than the decrement in a period of market competition.

Role of supply chain intermediaries in steering hospital product choice: Group Purchasing Organizations and biosimilars

Over 95% of hospitals in the United States use pooling alliances, known as Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs), to purchase medications, devices, and supplies. While GPOs create savings for hospitals through lowered prices and reduced administrative burden, critics allege that these supply chain intermediaries reduce competition, particularly if GPOs concentrate purchasing from larger, dominant manufacturers. Using a mixed-methods design, we studied whether GPOs influence hospital purchasing behavior and explored the contracting mechanisms used by GPOs. Focusing on 4 high-cost biologic molecules that face competition from generic-like biosimilars between 2015 and 2019, we found that biosimilar uptake was 16%-23% higher among Traditional Medicare patients in hospitals associated with 2 of the 3 top GPOs as compared with smaller GPOs. The increase in biosimilar use was driven by single biosimilar brands that varied by GPO. Based on qualitative interviews, these 2 GPOs used more aggressive contracting strategies to steer member hospitals to specific biosimilar brands. To date, the use of GPOs and these aggressive contracting strategies appear to have increased biosimilar use, suggesting savings for payers and patients. However, single-source GPO contracting could inhibit competition or create shortages in the long term. Transparency on GPO practices and pricing strategies is needed for further GPO evaluations.

Clinical Efficacy of Biosimilar Switch of Adalimumab for Management of Uveitis

BACKGROUND

Adalimumab has demonstrated efficacy in non-infectious uveitis. With the introduction of biosimilar agents such as Amgevita, we aimed to quantify efficacy and tolerability compared to Humira in a multi-centre UK cohort.

METHODS

Patients identified from tertiary uveitis clinics in 3 centres, after institution-mandated switching was implemented.

RESULTS

Data collected for 102 patients, aged 2-75 years, with 185 active eyes. Following switch, rates of uveitis flare were not significantly different (13 events before, 21 after, p = .132). Rates of elevated intraocular pressure were decreased (32 before, 25 afterwards, p = .006) and dosing of oral and intra-ocular steroids was stable. Twenty-four patients (24%) requested to return to Humira, commonly due to pain from injection or technical difficulty with the device.

CONCLUSION

Amgevita is safe and effective for inflammatory uveitis with non-inferiority to Humira. Significant numbers of patients requested to switch back due to side effects including injection site reactions.

Policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar uptake: a systematic review

Introduction

While biosimilar medicines can contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems, their utilization rate varies across European countries. This study aims to identify and systematize policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar market share.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Medline-PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched using inclusion criteria that required full articles published in English between January 2006 and November 2023. Reviews, letters, reports, editorials and comments or opinion articles were excluded from this study.

Results

Of the 1,137 articles, only 13 met the eligibility criteria for analysis, which covered a total of 28 European countries. Pricing regulation measures were found in 27 of these countries with tendering, price-linkage and internal reference price being the most used. Tendering was used by 27 countries to procure biosimilars in inpatient setting. Prescribing guidelines and recommendations were the widely used instrument. Some European countries adopted physician incentives, quotas, and prescription by international non-proprietary name.

Conclusion

Automatic substitution was not commonly recommended or applied. Interchangeability and switching will become increasingly relevant issues. It is important that the positive results from some countries serve as an example for the future of these medicines in the European market.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/, Identifier INPLASY2023120032.

Comparative price analysis of biological medicines: disparities generated by different pricing policies

Introduction: Biological medicines have been assuming an important role among the therapeutic options for several diseases, however, due to their complex production process, the products obtained from this technology have a high added value and do not reach the purchasing power of most patients, which overwhelms the budget of health systems. With the development of biosimilars, which have reduced production costs, it is expected that access to biological medicines will become broader. However, in Brazil, the criteria for determining the price of biosimilars, unlike the generic policy in the country, do not foresee a price reduction due to the reduction of development costs. Objective: To understand the impact of the current model of economic regulation on the availability and access of these products in the country, based on a comparative analysis in selected countries, and identify trends that can help to expand the availability and access to biological medicines. Method: Quantitative and qualitative study, to identify the variation between the entry prices of biological medicines in Brazil and in selected countries, as well as the differences in the economic regulation policies established in these countries. Results: The results demonstrate that the current pricing model in Brazil has generated distortions in the prices of biosimilars in the market, which, consequently, makes it difficult for the population to access this category of products, in addition to allowing unsustainable market practices for the systems of public and private health in Brazil. It was also found that most of the analyzed countries, unlike Brazil, seek to harmonize the prices of different brands of the same molecule marketed in the country and with the international market, in addition to establishing incentive policies for indication and replacement by biosimilars, which expands the participation of biosimilars in the market significantly. Conclusion: Based on the data presented, it is concluded that it is essential to build a broader political and regulatory debate on the market for biologicals and biosimilars in the country to guarantee the access of the Brazilian population to more cost-effective technologies, generate a more competitive market and consequently contribute to the financial sustainability of health systems.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries.

METHODS

This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period.

RESULTS

Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent.

CONCLUSION

The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.

ADA_ETA_BIO2021: real-world evaluation of adherence, persistence, and cost-effectiveness of originator and biosimilar biologic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter study in Italy

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess the adherence, persistence, and costs of bDMARDs through a multicentre study of nine Italian hospital pharmacies.

METHODS

The drugs analysed were Abatacept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab, Etanercept, Golimumab and Tocilizumab.Adult subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis were considered in the analysis.In this study, we calculated the following metrics: Adherence to treatment was evaluated as dose-intensity, which is the ratio between the amount of medication received and probably taken by the patient at home (Received Daily Dose, RDD) and the amount prescribed by the clinician (Prescribed Daily Dose, PDD). Persistence was calculated as the number of days between the first and last dispensing of the same drug. Lastly, costs were assessed based on persistence to treatment and normalized for adherence.

RESULTS

Adherence to treatment was found to be above 0.8 for all drugs studied. The median persistence for a 5-year treatment period was 1.4 years for Abatacept, 1.7 years for Adalimumab, 1.8 years for Certolizumab, 1.4 years for Etanercept, 1.3 years for Golimumab, and 1.6 years for Tocilizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentre retrospective observational study of bDMARDs used in the treatment of RA showed that, for all the drugs studied, there was no problem with adherence to treatment but rather a difficulty in maintaining treatment with the same drug over time.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Increased Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Crohn's Disease Patients in Stable Remission: The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

DESIGN

We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels.

RESULTS

We randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2545, [-€2780; -€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [-€2099; €2050], €69 [-€2908; €1965] and -€455 [-€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Prices of Orphan Drugs in Four Western European Countries Before and After Market Exclusivity Expiry: A Cross-Country Comparison of List Prices and Purchase Prices

BACKGROUND

Increasing pharmaceutical expenditure challenges the sustainability and accessibility of healthcare systems across Europe. Confidentiality restraints hinder assessment of actual prices of Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs). Hence, we assessed the real prices of brand-name OMPs around market exclusivity expiry (MEE).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore developments in published list prices (LPs) and confidential hospital purchase prices (PPs) of brand-name OMPs relative to their market exclusivity status in Western European countries with similar GDPs.

METHODS

We analyzed LPs and PPs of 13 selected OMPs purchased by university hospitals in Western European countries between 2000 and 2020. For confidentially reasons, proportions were used, with the Dutch LPs of the selected OMPs at the year of MEE serving as reference values. PPs included pre-purchase discounts. Rebates were not considered.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from hospitals in Denmark (DK) (n = 1), France (FR) (n = 1), Germany (DE) (n = 2), and the Netherlands (NL) (n = 1). Average LPs and PPs of included OMPs dropped gradually but limited over time, with no explicit price drop after MEE. LP levels differed more per country than PP levels: LP range before MEE was 164% (DE)-101% (FR) and after MEE was 135% (DE)-82% (FR); PP range before MEE was 150% (DE)-102% (FR) and after MEE was 107% (DE)-80% (FR). Overall differences between LPs and PPs were < 3% in all countries, except for Denmark.

CONCLUSION

No evident price drops of included brand-name OMPs were observed around MEE and differences in purchase prices are modest in the selected Western European countries. Results were not subject to significance testing. More robust data are needed to strengthen negotiations with suppliers.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Increasing healthcare costs in inflammatory bowel disease 2007-2020 in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease has been linked to increasing healthcare costs, but longitudinal data on other societal costs are scarce.

AIM

To assess costs, including productivity losses, in patients with prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) in Sweden between 2007 and 2020.

METHODS

We linked data from national registers on all patients with CD or UC and a matched (sex, birthyear, healthcare region and education) reference population. We assessed mean costs/year in Euros, inflation-adjusted to 2020, for hospitalisations, out-patient visits, medications, sick leave and disability pension. We defined excess costs as the mean difference between patients and matched comparators.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2020, absolute mean annual societal costs in working-age (18-64 years) individuals decreased by 17% in CD (-24% in the comparators) and by 20% in UC (-27% in comparators), due to decreasing costs from sick leave and disability, a consequence of stricter sick leave regulations. Excess costs in 2007 were dominated by productivity losses. In 2020, excess costs were mostly healthcare costs. Absolute and excess costs increased in paediatric and elderly patients. Overall, costs for TNF inhibitors/targeted therapies increased by 274% in CD and 638% in UC, and the proportion treated increased from 5% to 26% in CD, and from 1% to 10% in UC.

CONCLUSION

Between 2007 and 2020, excess costs shifted from productivity losses to direct healthcare costs; that is, the patients' compensation for sickness absence decreased, while society increased its spending on medications. Medication costs were driven both by expanding use of TNF inhibitors and by high costs for newer targeted therapies.

Adalimumab originator versus adalimumab biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease in Australia

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar adalimumabs have improved treatment access, but without any clinical advantage, distributors rely on delivery device design-enhancements, support services, and removal of painful excipients to capture market share. Prescribers, however, are often unaware of these differences. This article compares and contrasts originator versus biosimilar adalimumab agents to identify key differences that might influence adalimumab selection.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We reviewed listed adalimumab biosimilars in Australia and compared them to the originator adalimumab. Similarities and differences identified were confirmed with the manufacturers via two rounds of interviews: the first to collate a list of features and benefits of their product, and the second to consolidate and confirm the data.

RESULTS

The originator adalimumab Humira [by AbbVie, U.S.A] and four adalimumab biosimilars (Amgevita [by Amgen, U.S.A], Hadlima [by Organon, U.S.A], Hyrimoz [by Sandoz, Switzerland], and Idacio [by Fresenius Kabi, Germany]) are included in this review. Key differences identified include product formulation, dosages available, delivery devices, physician support, patient support, and the supply of other biosimilar products by the company.

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab biosimilars are different from each other with unique advantages and disadvantages likely to influence prescriber and patients. Therefore, the choice of agent should be individualized to the needs of the patient and the healthcare service.

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance

BACKGROUND

Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template.

RESULTS

26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO's position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice.

Case report: Acne vulgaris treatment with 5-Aminolaevulinic acid photodynamic therapy and adalimumab: a novel approach

Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that affects a large proportion of teenagers and young adults. Despite the availability of various treatment options, many patients experience inadequate relief or intolerable side effects. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a growing interest in the treatment of acne vulgaris, with 5-Aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) being one of the most commonly used photosensitizers. Adalimumab is a biologic medication used to treat inflammatory skin conditions such as Psoriasis and Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), which targets TNF-α. Combining different therapies, such as ALA-PDT and adalimumab, can often provide more effective and longer-lasting results. This report presents the case of a patient with severe and refractory acne vulgaris who was treated with a combination of ALA-PDT and adalimumab, resulting in significant improvement in the condition. The literature review highlights the significant comorbidity associated with acne, emphasizing the need for potential of TNF-α inhibitors for its effective treatments that address physical symptoms and ALA-PDT is known to treat scar hyperplasia, and to prevent or minimize the formation of post-acne hypertrophic scars. The combination of TNF inhibitors and ALA-PDT or adalimumab has shown promising results in treating inflammatory skin conditions, including severe and refractory acne vulgaris, as per recent studies.

Introduction of managed entry agreements in Korea: Problem, policy, and politics

Objectives: This study aimed to understand Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) in Korea through the framework of three streams of the policy window model and its practical management and impact on pricing and reimbursement scheme. Methods: An extensive literature review based on Kingdon's model was conducted. We also performed descriptive analyses of MEA implementation using data on medicines listed in Korea and compared its MEA scheme with four different countries. Results: As per problem streams, patients with rare disease or cancers have considerable difficulties in affording their medicines and this has challenged the drug benefit system and raised an issue of patient's access. Policy streams highlighted that MEAs were introduced as a benefit enhancement plan for four major diseases since January 2014. MEAs have also been strengthened as a bypass mechanism to expand the insurance coverage especially for new premium-priced medicines under Moon Care (Listing all non-listed services). In descriptive analysis of MEAs, a total of 48 medicines were contracted as MEAs from January 2014 to December 2020, accounting for 73.4% of listed medicines for cancer or rare diseases and 97.9% of the cases were finance-based contracts. Meanwhile, outcome-based contracts such as CED accounted for only 2.1%. The application of MEAs differs across countries, resulting in a kappa coefficient of 0.00-0.14 (United Kingdom 0.03, Italy 0.00, Australia 0.14), indicating a lack of consistency compared to South Korea. Conclusion: MEAs, which were introduced as a bypass mechanism, have now superseded the standard process for anticancer agents or orphan drugs. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the confidential agreements and effectiveness of new high-priced medicines with limited clinical data at launch.

Factors associated with the uptake of biosimilars for breast cancer treatment from the perspectives of physicians and patients-Evidence from China

Objective: To investigate the factors associated with the treatment of breast cancer with biosimilars from the perspectives of physicians and patients, and to generate evidence for promoting the uptake of biosimilars. Methods: This study targeted trastuzumab and its indicated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and included female HER2 positive breast cancer patients under treatment of trastuzumab at a provincial oncology medical center in southern China from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2021. The study extracted patients' demographic, socioeconomic and clinical information and the basic information of their attending physicians from the hospital information system. We performed a bivariate multiple logistic regression analysis of predictive factors of the use of trastuzumab biosimilar. Results: A total of 446 patients (aged ranging between 26 and 74, 51.4 ± 9.06) were included in the analysis, and 19.1% chose biosimilar trastuzumab. Older patients, patients enrolled in the urban and rural resident health insurance program compared with those enrolled in the urban employee health insurance program, patients who initiated treatment after January 2021 when biosimilar entered clinical use compared with those who initiated treatment before, patients with female attending physicians, younger attending physicians and with chief attending physicians compared with deputy chief attending physicians were more likely to adopt biosimilar trastuzumab for treatment (p < 05). Controlling the other factors unchanged, when the patient's attending physician was deputy chief physician, increasing 1 year age of the patient was associated with an increased probability of adopting biosimilar by .8% (dy/dx = .008, 95%CI: .002-.01, p = .01). When the patient was aged between 26 and 60, the probability of adopting biosimilar for the patient whose attending physician was a chief physician was higher than for those whose attending physician was a deputy chief physician, and the gap was the largest when the patient was at the age of 45 (dy/dx = .20, 95%CI: .13-.27, p < .01). Conclusion: The uptake rate of biosimilars is still low at its initial development stage in China. Educational policies and physicians making recommendations to the indicated patients at the initiation stage of treatment are helpful to avoid reduced willingness to switch to biosimilars due to non-clinical reasons. Patients with lower ability-to-pay will have better accessibility to biologic regimens through the uptake of biosimilars. Official guidelines and professional training are critical to enhancing physicians' willingness and confidence in adopting biosimilars.

How do hospital characteristics and ties relate to the uptake of second-generation biosimilars? A longitudinal analysis of Portuguese NHS hospitals, 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on within-country discrepancies in biosimilar uptake. This study analyzes differences in timing and diffusion of biosimilar uptake across Portuguese NHS hospitals and explores possible determinants.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed publicly accessible consumption data of originator biologic and biosimilar drugs for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, by hospital and month for the years 2015-2021 (N = 9,467). We modeled the time to biosimilar adoption using survival regression models and the share of biosimilar consumption using generalized estimated equations with random hospital effects.

RESULTS

Academic hospitals were characterized by a quicker uptake of adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars but lower shares for other drugs. A higher total consumption of biologics was related to a lower share of biosimilar uptake. A stronger participation in randomized controlled trials was linked to higher biosimilar shares and quicker uptake, except for rituximab. If all NHS hospitals had biosimilar shares equal to the highest ones, potential annual savings could reach 13.9 million euros.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest a need for capacity-building on biosimilar prescribing, including for doctors of academic hospitals and those working in settings where high biosimilar use would be expected.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars versus reference biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Background: Although with the application of etanercept biosimilars in the field of rheumatoid arthritis, the evidences of their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity are still limited. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars for treating active rheumatoid arthritis compared to reference biologics (Enbrel^®). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials of etanercept biosimilars treated in adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from their earliest records to 15 August 2022. The outcomes included ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rate at different time points from FAS or PPS, adverse events, and proportion of patients developed anti-drug antibodies. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Six RCTs with 2432 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 at 24 weeks from PPS [5 RCTs, OR = 1.22 (1.01, 1.47), p = 0.04, I ² = 49%, high certainty], ACR50 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.43 (1.10, 1.86), p < 0.01, I ² = 0%, high certainty] or FAS [2 RCTs, OR = 1.36 (1.04, 1.78), p = 0.03, I ² = 0%, high certainty], and ACR70 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.32 (1.01, 1.71), p = 0.04, I ² = 0%, high certainty]. In terms of other outcomes about efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, the results showed that there was no significant difference between etanercept biosimilars and reference biologics, and the certainty of evidences ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 response rate at 1 year than reference biologics (Enbrel^®), other outcomes for clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars were comparable with originator in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022358709.

Non-Mammalian Eukaryotic Expression Systems Yeast and Fungi in the Production of Biologics

Biologics have become an important area of medical research generating therapeutics essential for the treatment of many disease states. Biologics are defined as biologically active compounds manufactured by living cells or through biological processes termed bioprocessing. Compared to small molecules which are chemically synthesised they are relatively complex and therapeutically specific molecules. Biologics include hormones, vaccines, blood products, monoclonal antibodies, recombinant therapeutic proteins, enzymes, gene and cellular therapies amongst others. For biologic production prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (mammalian and non-mammalian) are used as expression systems. Eukaryotic expression systems offer many advantages over prokaryotic based systems. The manufacture of high-quality proteins for human clinical use via recombinant technologies has been achieved in yeast and filamentous fungal systems. Advances in bioprocessing such as genetic engineering, bioreactor design, continuous processing, and quality by design has allowed for increased productivity and higher yield in in these non-mammalian eukaryotic systems with protein translation similar to mammalian systems. The application of eukaryotic expressions systems for the manufacture of biologics of therapeutic importance are described herein.

How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium?

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Regulatory aspects of biological medicines in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The use of the biological medicines, also called "biologics," has contributed to the progress of the treatment of many chronic diseases, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis. However, biologicals are expensive for healthcare systems in several countries. Their availability has been a global issue, which has affected many patients that suffer from various diseases. A biosimilar medicine, also called "biosimilar," is a medicine with similar characteristics in terms of quality, biological activity, safety, and efficacy as the approved original biological medicine, known as "originator biologic." Biosimilars generate competition within the market because they lower the prices of biologics and thus allow for an increase in patient access. However, there are barriers when it comes to the acceptability rate of biosimilars and how interchangeable they are with the originator biologic. In this review, we present a national regulatory framework for biologics along with its limitations, a system of monitoring the safety profile of biologics, the guideline for interchangeability, and a list of approved and available biologics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Additionally, recommendations were made here in order to provide opportunities for greater acceptance of biosimilars and better access to biologics. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, strengthening the national regulatory framework for biologics, capacity building, increasing awareness among healthcare providers for reporting adverse drug events and active pharmacovigilance, and better definitions of interchangeability. Finally, awareness among healthcare providers regarding biosimilars and biologics should be raised through continuous education and workshops, and by including this important topic in the graduate and postgraduate curriculum programs in the country.

The Price and Market Share Evolution of the Original Biologics and Their Biosimilars in Finland

Background

Biological drugs are generally expensive and produce a continuously growing share of drug costs. Yet they are essential in the treatment of many chronic diseases. Biosimilars, clinically equivalent to biological originator products, are expected to restrain drug costs in the biological market.

Objective

This study aimed to examine the impact of the biosimilar market entry on the prices of the reference products in outpatient care in Finland, investigate the impact of biosimilar market entries on price competition among biological medicinal products, and examine how the prices and market shares of outpatient biosimilars have developed in Finland during 2009–2020.

Methods

This retrospective register study applied data from IQVIA covering national community pharmacy wholesale data between 1 January, 2009, and 31 August, 2020, for somatropin, epoetin, filgrastim, follitropin, insulin glargine, insulin lispro, etanercept, pegfilgrastim, adalimumab, teriparatide, and enoxaparin biosimilars and their reference products, in addition to two relevant insulin products. We determined the monthly wholesale amounts in defined daily doses and wholesale weighted average prices (excluding value-added tax) per defined daily dose for each product. We analyzed the evolution of the price and market shares. We performed a linear segmented regression analysis to examine the impact of the market entry of biosimilars on the prices of reference products.

Results

The prices of the reference products mainly decreased after the biosimilar entered the market. If the reference product price was not reduced, it was no longer reimbursable after evaluation under the Health Insurance Act, leading to marginal market shares. The changes in the prices of biosimilars were not as remarkable as the changes in the prices of reference products after the biosimilar market entry. For most active substances, biosimilar prices were stable or decreased. The utilization of biosimilars varied widely between different active substances at the end of the observation period.

Conclusions

Changes in pricing policy and the public reimbursement scheme related to the market entry of biosimilars were the main reasons for the decrease in the prices of reference products. Therefore, biosimilars did not generate genuine price competition between biological products. In many of the drug groups examined, the market shares of biosimilars have growth potential in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-022-00540-y.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilar LY01008 Combined With Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: To investigate whether LY01008, a locally developed bevacizumab biosimilar agent, is appropriate for widespread use among Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, our current study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line LY01008 combined with platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the healthcare cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse event (AE)-related discontinuation of first-line treatment, were estimated using data from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were derived from local databases, hospitals, and published literature. Our base case analysis and scenario analysis focused on the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with a clinical trial dosage (15 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) and a real-world dosage (7.5 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) of LY01008, respectively. Results: In the base case analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with an increase of 0.48 QALYs in effectiveness and an increase of CNY 189,988 (US$ 26,240) in healthcare costs compared with first-line chemotherapy, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 375,425 (US$ 54,430)/QALY. In the scenario analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with a mean healthcare cost of CNY 265,060 (US$ 38,429), resulting an ICER of CNY 221,579 (US$ 32,125/QALY) between first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. The parameters that determine the cost of LY01008 have the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, first-line LY01008 at a real-world dosage combined with chemotherapy is likely to represent a cost-effective strategy compared with first-line chemotherapy alone for Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC patients.

Embracing Change: An International Survey Study on the Beliefs and Attitudes of Pediatric Rheumatologists Towards Biosimilars

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been adopted by clinicians more slowly than anticipated in the post-marketing phase.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to reveal the perceptions and attitudes of pediatric rheumatologists towards biosimilars and the obstacles to biosimilar therapy.

METHODS

A web-based survey designed to determine the knowledge, experience, and perceptions of pediatric rheumatologists about biosimilars was electronically mailed to the participants between April and August 2021. Responses were collected anonymously and subsequently analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 114 pediatric rheumatologists including fellows (32.4%), specialists (29.8%), and seniors (37.7%) responded to the questionnaire. According to the data, 75 (65.8%) physicians had already prescribed at least one biosimilar. The vast majority of participants were aware of the potential cost savings of biosimilars (84, 73.3%). Participants who felt insufficiently informed were 41.8%, 67.6%, and 83.7% among seniors, specialists, and fellows, respectively. In pediatric rheumatology, the scarcity of clinical trials and real-life data (64%) and inadequate information about tolerance to the biosimilars and related side effects in children (49.1%) were the most common barriers expressed by prescribers. Nearly half (45%) of the pediatric rheumatologists preferred to prescribe biosimilars in the treatment of biologic-naive cases. However, most (93%) were reluctant to switch a reference molecule to a biosimilar while the patient was doing well under the originator medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provided insights into the concerns about prescribing biosimilars among pediatric rheumatologists. In the field of pediatric rheumatology, further education about biosimilars and real-life experiences is required to better inform about treatment options in children.

Impact of switching to infliximab biosimilars on treatment patterns among US veterans receiving innovator infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment patterns of United States (US) veterans stable on innovator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on innovator IFX (continuers).

METHODS

US Veterans Healthcare Administration data (01/2012-12/2019) were used to identify adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]), treated with innovator or biosimilar IFX. Index date was the first IFX biosimilar administration for switchers or a random innovator IFX administration for continuers. Patients were required to have ≥5 innovator IFX administrations during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). Patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first innovator IFX administration were analyzed as the primary population (incident population), and data were assessed from start of innovator IFX. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Treatment patterns were evaluated post-index; continuers were censored before switching to IFX biosimilar. Discontinuation was defined as switching to another biologic (including innovator IFX) or having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment records.

RESULTS

In the incident population, mean [median] duration of follow-up was 737 [796] days among switchers (N = 838) and 479 [337] days among continuers (N = 849). Compared to continuers, switchers were 2.88-times more likely to discontinue index therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.88, p < .001) and 4.99-times more likely to switch to another innovator biologic (HR = 4.99, p < .001). Of 653 switchers switching to another innovator biologic, 594 (91.0%) switched back to innovator IFX. Results were similar among the prevalent population and RA and IBD subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Patients switching from innovator to biosimilar IFX were more likely to discontinue treatment and switch to another innovator biologic (notably back to innovator IFX) than those remaining on innovator IFX; however, reasons for discontinuation and switching are unknown.

A Patients' Perspective Towards the Injection Devices for Humira® and Imraldi® in a Nationwide Switching Program

Objective

Due to a tender process in Iceland, all patients on Humira® were switched nationwide to its biosimilar Imraldi® in March 2019. The study aimed to explore the patient's perspective of the Humira® and Imraldi® injection devices.

Methods

A standard telephone interview was carried out among patients with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis, who underwent this nationwide switching program a few months earlier.

Results

The response rate was 84.5% (n = 198). The average age was 50.8 years, and 53.5% were female. The patients self-administered the drugs in 96% of the cases. The majority (90.5%) stated that they received individualized instruction on using the Humira® pen, compared to 18.2% who accepted instruction in the case of the Imraldi® pen. Almost half (46.6%) of the patients found it more difficult to use the Imraldi® pen than the Humira® pen, while only 12.5% found the Imraldi® pen easier to use. Firstly, these differences were due to more painful insertion of the needle (62.2%) and secondly, due to the experience, the injection process was different (63.0%).

Conclusion

Patients with inflammatory disorders who have been treated regularly with adalimumab preferred the Humira® injection device over the Imraldi® device, according to our results. After all, these injection devices' structure and content are not the same, although both contain the same active ingredient, i.e. adalimumab. Our results highlight the importance of thorough information, not only with an information letter but also with the possibilities for individualized introduction in planning switching to biosimilars.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

An update on the adalimumab biosimilar landscape following the approval of the first high-concentration biosimilar

Biosimilars can reduce healthcare costs and expand patient access to biologic therapies. Currently, eight adalimumab biosimilars have received regulatory approval from the EMA and/or the US FDA. Following recent EMA approval of the first high-concentration adalimumab biosimilar, CT-P17, this review provides a contemporary update on adalimumab biosimilars currently licensed in Europe and the USA. The totality of evidence from each clinical development program is summarized, and characteristics of each formulation and/or device that potentially affect the convenience of treatment for patients are discussed. Future perspectives are considered, including the potential impact of the FDA's first interchangeability designation for an adalimumab biosimilar, ahead of their entry into the US marketplace in 2023.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel.

RESULTS

Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Ongoing efforts to improve the management of patients with diabetes in Bangladesh and the implications

BACKGROUND

Prevalence rates of patients with diabetes are growing across countries, and Bangladesh is no exception. Associated costs are also increasing, driven by costs associated with the complications of diabetes including hypoglycemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycemia as well as improve patient comfort and adherence. However, they have been appreciably more expensive, reducing their affordability and use. Biosimilars offer a way forward. Consequently, there is a need to document current prescribing and dispensing rates for long-acting insulin analogues across Bangladesh, including current prices and differences, as a result of affordability and other issues.

METHODS

Mixed method approach including surveying prescribing practices in hospitals coupled with dispensing practices and prices among community pharmacies and drug stores across Bangladesh. This method was adopted since public hospitals only dispense insulins such as soluble insulins free-of-charge until funds run out and all long-acting insulin analogues have to be purchased from community stores.

RESULTS

There has been growing prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulins in Bangladesh in recent years, now accounting for over 80% of all insulins dispensed in a minority of stores. This increase has been helped by growing prescribing and dispensing of biosimilar insulin glargine at lower costs than the originator, with this trend likely to continue with envisaged growth in the number of patients. Consequently, Bangladesh can serve as an exemplar to other low- and middle-income countries struggling to fund long-acting insulin analogues for their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It was encouraging to see continued growth in the prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulin analogues in Bangladesh via the increasing availability of biosimilars. This is likely to continue benefitting all key stakeholder groups.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Availability and accessibility of monoclonal antibodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Findings and implications

Background:

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent the most numerous and significant group of biotherapeutics. While mAbs have undoubtedly improved treatment for many chronic diseases, including inflammatory diseases, they are typically expensive for health care systems and patients. Consequently, access to mAbs has been a problem for many patients especially among Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. However, biosimilars can potentially help with costs, although there are concerns with their effectiveness and safety. This includes biosimilars for long-acting insulin analogues.

Aim:

Assess the availability and use of biological medicines, including biosimilars within Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).

Methods:

Assess the availability of mAbs via the current lists of approved and accessed mAbs versus those licenced in Europe and the United States and their utilisation, as well as specifically insulin glargine and its biosimilars, within B&H.

Results:

The availability of the mAbs in B&H appears satisfactory, which is encouraging. However, current usage is limited to a few mAbs which is a concern for subsequent patient care especially with limited use of biosimilars to address issues of affordability. We also see limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine.

Conclusion

The limited use of mAbs including biosimilars needs to be addressed in B&H to improve the future care of patients within finite resources. We will monitor these developments.

The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

Off-Patent Biologicals and Biosimilars Tendering in Europe-A Proposal towards More Sustainable Practices

Background: In Europe, off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are largely procured by means of tender procedures. The organization and design of tenders may play a key role in the evolving biosimilar market, and currently, it is not fully elucidated how tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are designed and if approaches are aligned with sustaining market competition and societal savings for healthcare systems over the long term. This study aims to (i) explore the design and implementation of tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe, (ii) identify learnings for sustainable tender approaches from purchasers and suppliers, and (iii) formulate recommendations in support of competitive and sustainable tender practices in the off-patent biologicals market. Methods: A mixed methods design was applied. A quantitative web-survey was conducted with hospital pharmacists and purchasers (N = 60, of which 47 completed the survey in full), and qualitative expert-interviews with purchasers and suppliers (N = 28) were carried out. Results: The web survey results showed that the organization and design of tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, and the experience of hospital pharmacists and purchasers with this, considerably varies on several elements across European countries. From the qualitative interviews, signals emerged across the board that some of the current tender approaches might negatively affect market dynamics for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars. The focus on generating short-term savings and existence of originator favouring tender practices were identified as elements that may limit timely competition from and market opportunity for biosimilar suppliers. The need to optimize tender processes, considering a more long-term strategic and sustainable view, was expressed. In addition, challenges appear to exist with differentiating between products beyond price, showing the need and opportunity to guide stakeholders with the (appropriate) inclusion of award criteria beyond price. Due to the variety in tender organization in Europe, a ‘one size fits all’ tendering framework is not possible. However, on an overarching level, it was argued that tender procedures must aim to (i) ensure market plurality and (ii) include award criteria beyond price (warranted that criteria are objectively and transparently defined, scored and competitively rewarded). Depending on the market (maturity), additional actions may be needed. Conclusions: Findings suggest the need to adjust tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, considering a more long-term strategic and market sustainable view. Five main avenues for optimization were identified: (i) safeguarding a transparent, equal opportunity setting for all suppliers with an appropriate use of award criteria; (ii) fostering a timely opening of tender procedures, ensuring on-set competition; (iii) ensuring and stimulating adherence to laws on public procurement; (iv) securing an efficient process, improving plannability and ensuring timely product supply and (v) safeguarding long-term sustainable competition by stimulating market plurality.

Uptake of biosimilar trastuzumab in Denmark compared with other European countries: a comparative study and discussion of factors influencing implementation and uptake of biosimilars

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to describe the implementation and uptake of biosimilar trastuzumab in Denmark compared with other European countries.

METHODS

European data for usage of trastuzumab was supplied by IQVIA™, using the MIDAS® dataset. A comparison was performed based on market share estimated in sales volume. A separate comparison was undertaken between countries with a full two-fold switch between different biosimilars. Data was collected spanning the time from first registered sales of biosimilar trastuzumab until the 1st quarter of 2020.

RESULTS

Denmark had the fastest and most thorough uptake of biosimilar trastuzumab compared with other EU countries. After 3 months, the market share of biosimilar trastuzumab had increased to 90% while the second fastest country had a 50% market share after 3 months. Only two other countries had undergone a full second switch between biosimilars, Hungary and Norway. All of the three countries made near complete switches between biosimilars while only Denmark had reduced the use of biooriginator below 10%.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of biosimilar trastuzumab in Denmark was rapid and achieved high overall uptake compared with other EU countries. The switch from one biosimilar to another was also achieved quickly and thoroughly. We believe that the rapid dissemination of information and involvement of all stakeholders - administrators, pharmacies, prescribers, nurses, and patients - constitute the backbone of the Danish success. A similar strategy is recommend for biosimilar implementation in other countries.

Off-Patent Biological and Biosimilar Medicines in Belgium: A Market Landscape Analysis

Background and objective: Best-value biological medicines may generate competition in the off-patent biologicals market, resulting in having more resources available to provide patients with access to necessary medicines while maintaining high-quality care. Belgium is a country known to have low biosimilar market shares, suggesting a malfunctioning market for off-patent biologicals. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the Belgian off-patent biologicals market, by looking at the evolution in volumes and costs of the relevant products in the market. Methods: This study included a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part of this study consisted of the analysis of market data obtained by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) for all relevant products in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market (i.e. TNF-inhibitors, insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, epoetins, rituximab, trastuzumab). In addition, for the qualitative part of this study, semi-structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders were conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Results: Belgian market data and stakeholder perceptions suggest a suboptimal market environment for off-patent biological and biosimilar medicines. Shifts are observed after loss of exclusivities of originator biologicals toward second-generation products or new therapeutic class products, at a higher cost and often limited added value. Moreover, cost reductions for off-patent biologicals after biosimilar market entry are mainly determined by mandatory price reductions applicable to both originator and biosimilar products, and not by lower prices induced by competition. For products used in the retail setting, significant mandatory price reductions for both originator and reference products with low biosimilar volumes were pointed out as the main reasons for the lack of price competition. For products dispensed in hospitals, the hospital financing system is important. First, it does not always encourage the use of lower cost alternatives. Second, competition mainly takes place at the level of confidential discounts in tenders. Most interviewees acknowledged the lack of a competitive environment, which is not supportive of a sustainable Belgian off-patent biologicals market. Conclusion: Market data and stakeholder perceptions indicate that the sustainability of the Belgian market for off-patent biologicals is challenged. A sustainable market ensures access to biological therapies now and in the future.