Brief Report: Utilization of the First Biosimilar Infliximab Since Its Approval in South Korea

Patterns of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor (TNFi) Biosimilar Use Across United States Rheumatology Practices

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear if biosimilars of biologics for inflammatory arthritis are realizing their promise to increase competition and improve accessibility. This study evaluates biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) utilization across rheumatology practices in the United States and compares whether patients initiating biosimilars remain on these treatments at least as long as new initiators of bio-originators.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of patients initiating a TNFi biosimilar between January 2017 and September 2018 from an electronic health record registry containing data from 218 rheumatology practices and over 1 million rheumatology patients in the United States. We also identified a cohort of patients who initiated the bio-originator TNFi during the same period. We calculated the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions compared with other TNFi's and compared persistence on these therapies, adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses codes, and insurance type.

RESULTS

We identified 909 patients prescribed the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb, the only biosimilar prescribed, and 4413 patients with a new prescription for the bio-originator infliximab. Biosimilar patients tended to be older, have a diagnosis code for rheumatoid arthritis, and covered by Medicare insurance. Over the study period, biosimilar prescriptions reached a maximum of 3.5% of all TNFi prescriptions. Patients persisted on the biosimilar at least as long as the bio-originator infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

The uptake of biosimilars in the United States remains low despite persistence on infliximab-dyyb being similar to the infliximab bio-originator. These results add to clinical studies that should provide greater confidence to patients and physicians regarding biosimilar use.

Methodologic considerations for noninterventional studies of switching from reference biologic to biosimilars

PURPOSE

As more biosimilars become available in the United States, postapproval noninterventional studies describing biosimilar switching and comparing effectiveness and/or safety between switchers and nonswitchers will play a key role in generating real-world evidence to inform clinical practices and policy decisions. Ensuring sound methodology is critical for making valid inferences from these studies.

METHODS

The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) convened a workgroup consisting of academic researchers, industry scientists, and practicing clinicians to establish best practice recommendations for the conduct of noninterventional studies of biosimilar and reference biologic switching. The workgroup members participated in eight teleconferences between August 2017 and February 2018 to discuss specific topics and build consensus.

RESULTS

This report provides workgroup recommendations covering five main considerations relating to noninterventional studies describing reference biologic to biosimilar switching and comparing reference biologic to biosimilars for safety and effectiveness in the presence of switching at treatment initiation and during follow-up: (a) selecting appropriate data sources from a range of available options including insurance claims, electronic health records, and registries; (b) study designs; (c) outcomes of interest including health care utilization and clinical endpoints; (d) analytic approaches including propensity scores, disease risk scores, and instrumental variables; and (e) special considerations including avoiding designs that ignore history of biologic use, avoiding immortal time bias, exposure misclassification, and accounting for postindex switching.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations provided in this report provide a framework that may be helpful in designing and critically evaluating postapproval noninterventional studies involving reference biologic to biosimilar switching.

Impact of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars on Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Utilisation and NHS Budget in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective but expensive options for treating rheumatoid arthritis. The introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars presents a significant potential cost saving in a financially constrained health system such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. This study examines the impact of the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars on the utilisation of bDMARDs and subsequent budget impact.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of secondary care utilisation data in rheumatology specialities from the DEFINE database, between March 2014 and February 2017.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars was £38.8 million over 2 years. There was a statistically significant increase in average monthly utilisation of bDMARDs for adalimumab (0.48%), certolizumab pegol (1.90%), golimumab (3.06%), abatacept (2.97%) and tocilizumab (2.24%), but not for etanercept. In contrast, the overall utilisation of infliximab decreased slightly by an average of 0.03% per month. The introduction of infliximab biosimilars negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded infliximab significantly. Similarly, the introduction of an etanercept biosimilar negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded etanercept significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of bDMARDs biosimilars has resulted in considerable cost savings to the NHS, with the branded products reducing their prices in response to the availability of less expensive biosimilars and competition between the biosimilars themselves. Our results also suggest that when a biosimilar is available for a directly comparable branded molecule, price is the key influencing factor in the prescribing of a specific product.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology

Biosimilars remain a hot topic in rheumatology, and some physicians are cautious about their application in the real world. With many products coming to market and a wealth of guidelines and recommendations concerning their use, there is a need to understand the changing landscape and the real clinical and health-economic potential offered by these agents. Notably, rheumatologists will be at the forefront of the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies/soluble receptors. Biosimilars offer cost savings and health gains for our patients and will play an important role in treating rheumatic diseases. We hope that these lower costs will compensate for inequities in access to therapy based on economic differences across countries. Since approved biosimilars have already demonstrated highly similar efficacy, it will be most important to establish pharmacovigilance databases across countries that are adequate to monitor long-term safety after marketing approval.