Simulating Costs of Intravenous Biosimilar Trastuzumab vs. Subcutaneous Reference Trastuzumab in Adjuvant HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Belgian Case Study

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective

INTRODUCTION

Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics.

METHODS

An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders.

RESULTS

Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature.

CONCLUSIONS

In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Evaluation of the economic benefits, administration times, and patient preferences associated with the use of biotechnological drugs administered subcutaneously and intravenously in patients with cancer: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Cancer imposes a high economic burden with medical care and medication costs. We evaluate the costs, the use of resources, the administration time, and the patient preferences associated with the use of biotechnological drugs in SC and IV presentations.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and seven additional databases. The search was carried out in September 2021 and included only studies directly comparing SC and IV presentations. Evidence was synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

34 references were included, which only analyzed bortezomib, daratumumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Reduction in preparation costs of SC compared to IV presentations ranged from 6.6% to 50.1%, and in administration costs from 4.5% to 95.3%. SC administration of rituximab and trastuzumab resulted in less productivity loss. More than 68% of patients reported greater satisfaction with the SC route. A reduction of time in the infusion chair, lower costs of resources for preparation, and health personnel for the administration process were identified with SC administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SC daratumumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab in patients with cancer reduces direct and indirect costs and adverse events compared to IV use. Patients prefer the SC administration, perceiving more comfort, and less pain at the administration site.

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

SUMMARY

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

CONCLUSION

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.