Economic Impact of Non-Medical Switching from Originator Biologics to Biosimilars: A Systematic Literature Review

Counting the costs: a nationwide study on healthcare use following an adalimumab biosimilar switch in >1300 inflammatory arthritis patients

Background

In Denmark, cost savings motivate mandatory biosimilar switches. In 2018, patients switched from originator to biosimilar adalimumab, that is, to GP2017 in Eastern and to SB5 in Western Denmark. However, concerns were raised about additional costs covering, that is, an increased number of outpatient visits due to patient education, treatment monitoring, and patient concerns.

Objectives

To investigate whether the switch led to increased total healthcare costs, defined as costs related to in- and outpatient contacts in hospitals and the primary sector and use of prescription medicine (excluding biological treatment).

Design

Observational cohort study with geographical cluster pseudo-randomization.

Methods

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA), who switched were identified in the nationwide DANBIO registry. Total healthcare costs 9 months before and after the switch were captured from the National Patient and Prescription registries. The difference between pre- and post-switch costs was estimated by a generalized estimation equations (GEE) model.

Results

Overall, 1316 patients switched to GP2017 (n = 621) or SB5 (n = 695). Total healthcare costs were mainly driven by hospital costs. The monthly fluctuations of hospital costs 9 months before and after the switch were largely similar or decreased. In the adjusted analyses (GEE), hospital costs decreased after the switch (by approximately 15%) for GP2017 switchers, especially PsA (estimate = 0.83; 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and AxSpA patients (estimate = 0.85; 0.77-0.93), with no significant changes for SB5 switchers.

Conclusion

We found no increase in total healthcare costs in 9 months following a nationwide mandatory adalimumab originator to biosimilar switch. Our findings were strengthened by similar results for GP2017 and SB5.

Short and long-term economic implications of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are gaining popularity due to their ability to offer comparable therapeutic benefits at potentially lower costs.

AREAS COVERED

This article analyses studies that compare the cost savings of biosimilars with biologics. It also explores market competition dynamics and the impact of policies in countries. The focus is on the advantages of biosimilars in oncology and rheumatological treatments while considering broader economic implications for the pharmaceutical industry such as market displacement, pricing strategies and their influence on innovation and healthcare sustainability.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of biosimilars marks a shift in healthcare economics by offering cost reductions and long-term potential for economic balance. However, I also recognize challenges related to research methodologies and regulatory inconsistencies across countries. To fully capitalize on their potential, future research and development in the field of biosimilars must emphasize harmonized approaches and comprehensive studies that ensure both cost containment in healthcare and wider access, to high quality treatments.

Does the introduction of an infliximab biosimilar always result in savings for hospitals? A descriptive study using real-world data

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars are biologic drugs that have the potential to increase the efficiency of healthcare spending and curb drug-related cost increases. However, their introduction into hospital formularies through initiatives such as non-medical switching must be carefully orchestrated so as not to cause treatment discontinuation or result in increased health resource utilization, such as additional visits or laboratory tests, among others. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of the introduction of CT-P13 on the healthcare expenditures of patients who were treated with originator infliximab or CT-P13.

METHODS

Gastroenterology, immunoallergology and rheumatology patients treated between September 2017 and December 2020 at a university hospital in Western Switzerland were included and divided into seven cohorts, based on their treatment pathway (i.e., use and discontinuation of CT-P13 and/or originator infliximab). Costs in Swiss francs were obtained from the hospital's cost accounting department and length of stay was extracted from inpatient records. Comparisons of costs and length of stay between cohorts were calculated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Sixty immunoallergology, 84 rheumatology and 114 gastroenterology patients were included. Inpatient and outpatient costs averaged (sd) CHF 1,611 (1,020) per hospital day and CHF 4,991 (6,931) per infusion, respectively. The mean (sd) length of stay was 20 (28) days. Although immunoallergology and rheumatology patients had higher average costs than gastroenterology patients, differences in costs and length of stay were not formally explained by treatment pathway. Differences in health resource utilization were marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of CT-P13 and the disruption of patient treatment management were not associated with differences in average outpatient and inpatient costs and length of stay, in contrast to the results reported in the rest of the literature. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of non-medical switching policies and the potential benefits for patients.

Practical Management of Biosimilar Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Global Survey and an International Delphi Consensus

As the patents for biologic originator drugs expire, biosimilars are emerging as cost-effective alternatives within healthcare systems. Addressing various challenges in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains crucial. To shed light on physicians' current knowledge, beliefs, practical approaches, and concerns related to biosimilar adoption-whether initiating a biosimilar, transitioning from an originator to a biosimilar, or switching between biosimilars (including multiple switches and reverse switching)-a global survey was conducted. Fifteen physicians with expertise in the field of IBD from 13 countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to develop practical guidance regarding biosimilar adoption worldwide, considering the survey results. This consensus centered on 10 key statements covering biosimilar effectiveness, safety, indications, rationale, multiple switches, therapeutic drug monitoring of biosimilars, non-medical switching, and future perspectives. Ultimately, the consensus affirmed that biosimilars are equally effective and safe when compared to originator drugs. They are considered suitable for both biologic-naïve patients and those who have previously been treated with originator drugs, with cost reduction being the primary motivation for transitioning from an originator drug to a biosimilar.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members.

RESULTS

Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

Monitoring a Mandatory Nonmedical Switching Policy from Originator to Biosimilar Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

On September 5, 2019, British Columbia announced a new policy (the Biosimilars Initiative) to switch from originator to biosimilar infliximab for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases.

Objective

To monitor the impacts of the policy on the use of medications and health services during the first year of the policy.

Methods

In this population-based cohort study, we used administrative health data to construct three historical cohorts and one policy cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases who used the originator infliximab. We then monitored the cumulative incidence of medications and health services. Log-likelihood ratios were used to quantify differences between the policy cohort and the average of the historical cohorts.

Results

The cohorts included 1839-2368 users of the originator infliximab, ages 4-90 years, mean age 43 years. During the first year of follow-up, we found: (1) a 0.9% increase in the first dispensation of infliximab, biosimilar, or originator; (2) a 16.2% increase in infliximab dose escalation; (3) a decrease of 2.4% in the dispensation of antibiotics and a 2.6% decrease in new use of prednison; (4) an anticipated increase in visits to physicians and gastroenterologists to manage switching to biosimilars (24.0%); (5) a 4.0% decrease in discharges from hospital; and (6) a 2.9% decrease in emergency admissions to hospital.

Conclusion

British Columbia's Biosimilars Initiative for nonmedical switching from originator to biosimilar infliximab for inflammatory bowel diseases was not associated with harmful impacts on medications and health services use. An increase in dose escalation was accompanied by an improvement in health status proxies.

Real-world evidence of the use of the infliximab biosimilar SB2: data from the PERFUSE study

Objective

PERFUSE is a non-interventional study of 1233 adult patients (rheumatology, n = 496; IBD, n = 737) receiving routine infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 therapy. The aim of this report was to investigate the 12-month persistence, effectiveness and safety outcomes of routine SB2 treatment in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were assigned to one of three study cohorts according to whether SB2 treatment initiated after September 2017 had been the first IFX treatment (IFX naïve) or followed transition from reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs). Outcomes to month 12 (±2) included persistence (primary outcome), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity and safety.

Results

At month 12, persistence on SB2 in IFX-naïve, IFX ref and IFX bs cohorts, respectively, [mean percentage (95% CI)] by indication was as follows: 59% (36.1, 76.2), 75% (57.5, 86.1) and 85% (69.6, 93.0) for RA (n = 98); 64% (34.3, 83.3), 87% (65.6, 95.7) and 83% (60.0, 93.1) for PsA (n = 62); and 56% (44.4, 66.5), 80% (70.8, 86.1) and 80% (72.5, 85.6) for axSpA (n = 336). Disease activity was comparable at baseline and month 12 within the IFX ref and bs subgroups of all cohorts by indication. No immunogenicity concerns or new safety signals were detected.

Conclusion

SB2 was safe and effective in IFX-naïve patients and in patients transitioned from prior IFX ref or bs.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03662919.

Discontinuation and Switchback After Non-Medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF) Inhibitors to Biosimilars: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies from 2012 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

To examine the prevalence rates of biosimilar discontinuation and switchback to the originator tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF) inhibitors following non-medical switch (NMS) in patients.

METHODS

Real-world studies reporting biosimilar discontinuation and switchback rates following NMS published between January 2012 and August 2018 were identified through a systematic literature review. A meta-analysis estimated the annualized discontinuation and switchback rates. A subsequent meta-analysis assessed annualized incremental discontinuation rate among studies reporting both discontinuation rates in patients who underwent an NMS (switchers) and patients who remained on originators (non-switchers).

RESULTS

A total of 66 publications were identified: 31 in gastroenterology, 32 in rheumatology, and 3 in both. Half of the studies reported switchback rates; only 9 studies reported discontinuation rates for both switchers and non-switchers. Across studies, the mean/range sample size of the NMS patient population was 136/9-1641; mean/range follow-up was 10/3-24 months. Annualized biosimilar discontinuation rate was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%, 25%). Switchback rate was 14% (95% CI 10%, 17%) among all NMS patients and 62% (95% CI 44%, 80%) among discontinuers. The mean/range sample size of switchers and non-switchers was 344/89-1621 and 768/19-2870, respectively; mean/range follow-up was 11/6-18 and 12/6-8 months, respectively. Annualized incremental biosimilar discontinuation rate was 18% (95% CI 4%, 31%).

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar discontinuation was found to be prevalent among patients who underwent an NMS from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s) in the real world. In addition, switchback to the originator TNF inhibitors was common following biosimilar discontinuation. Careful consideration is necessary when switching patients already on an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar(s). Main limitations included the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited comparability of the data.

Patient perspectives of successful adalimumab biosimilar transitioning in Crohn's disease: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

Transition from originator biological medicines to their biosimilar equivalents is now part of routine clinical practice, but there is little understanding of patient experiences, which influence adherence and overall satisfaction with care. Understanding this will help ensure future switches adequately address patients' concerns and expectations leading to better outcomes for all stakeholders.

METHOD

35 patients participating in a clinical trial including an open-label transition event from originator to biosimilar adalimumab, mimicking what would be encountered in a real-world setting, took part in semi-structured interviews exploring their experience of biosimilar transition.

RESULTS

Opinions expressed were often heterogeneous, but common experiences and themes were identified. Five themes were identified following thematic analysis. (1) Understanding and awareness of biosimilars: prior awareness of biosimilars and knowledge of the biosimilar concept was low, indicating a disparity between healthcare professionals and patients. (2) Motivation to undertake transition: patients accept a biosimilar transition to minimise drug expenditure. (3) Initial concerns: before undertaking biosimilar transition away from the brand they had experienced, anticipated loss of efficacy and adverse effects from the biosimilar were common concerns for patients. (4) Reassuring factors: trust in the healthcare team is critical to patient acceptance of biosimilars. Important reassurances include a point of contact, education about biosimilars and monitoring. (5) Experiences during the transition: on reflection, participants described consistent efficacy and tolerability (although 22 participants specifically mentioned injection pain) following brand transition.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients felt comfortable with future transition to another adalimumab biosimilar. Injection experience was an important component of patient satisfaction.

Exploring the Reasons Behind the Substantial Discontinuation Rate Among Patients Taking CT-P13 in a Large Tertiary Hospital in Western Switzerland: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Routinely Collected Medical Data

BACKGROUND

CT-P13 is an infliximab biosimilar that was granted market authorization in Switzerland in 2016. Despite the growing literature supporting the equivalence of CT-P13 compared with originator infliximab regarding the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity and the undeniable cost-saving opportunities, CT-P13 remains widely underused in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE

Leaving aside the phenomenon of a low initiation rate, this study aimed to explore the reasons behind the high discontinuation rate observed among the patients taking CT-P13 in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using routinely collected data. Patients were eligible if they received originator infliximab or CT-P13 between September 2017 and December 2020. They were included if they had received at least two CT-P13 infusions during the same period. Patients were excluded if the follow-up was incomplete prior to or 6 months after their first CT-P13 infusion and if they had an oncological main diagnosis. Primary outcomes were the reasons for treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-six patients were included and classified into two groups: switchers who were treated with originator infliximab and were switched to CT-P13 (n = 85, 54%) and initiators who did not receive originator infliximab prior to CT-P13 treatment (n = 71, 46%). Included patients belonged to three different groups of diagnosis: gastroenterological (67, 43%), rheumatological (61, 39%), and immunological (28, 18%). Twenty-three (27%) switchers and 35 (49%) initiators discontinued CT-P13 after 12 months. Main reasons for CT-P13 discontinuation were lack of efficacy (n = 21, 36%) and secondary loss of response (n = 16, 28%); however, objective assessments were not available. Initiators' probability to discontinue CT-P13 at 12 months was significantly higher than switchers' (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of efficacy and secondary loss of response were the main reasons for the high CT-P13 discontinuation rate observed in a large tertiary hospital in Western Switzerland. Lack of active training and coordination among healthcare professionals and little education in patients may have exacerbated patients' subjective complaints and increased the CT-P13 discontinuation rate.

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.

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018-2020).

RESULTS

A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4-37% or 148-2234 2020 Canadian dollars).

CONCLUSION

Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed.

Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Several Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine.

RESULTS

In 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab).

INTERPRETATION

Policies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

The Great Debate With IBD Biosimilars: Con: Biosimilars Should Not Be Routinely Used as a First Line Biologic and Not Switched From Reference Biologics

The costs associated with biologic therapy in immune-mediated diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease has steadily increased since their introduction over 2 decades ago. The introduction of biosimilars has the promise of cost savings and putting reimbursement pressure on future market entries. However, the interpretation of evidence to support the use of biosimilars either as first line or as part of a nonmedical switch strategy is not straight forward due to low to very low-quality evidence. In particular, switching to a biosimilar is associated with both clinical, ethical, and possibly medicolegal issues. Due to these factors, solutions to address cost efficiency should involve an open, transparent, and collaborative dialogue among the various stakeholders and if at all possible involve strategies that allow patients to remain on originator biologics.

Switching and Discontinuation Patterns Among Patients Stable on Originator Infliximab Who Switched to an Infliximab Biosimilar or Remained on Originator Infliximab

OBJECTIVE

To compare switching and discontinuation patterns of patients stable on originator infliximab (IFX) who switched to an IFX biosimilar (switchers) or remained on originator IFX (continuers) in the United States.

METHODS

Symphony Health Solutions' Patient Transactional Datasets (10/2012-03/2019) were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); and ≥1 claim for originator or biosimilar IFX. The index date was the first IFX biosimilar claim for switchers or a random originator IFX claim for continuers. All patients were required to have ≥5 originator IFX claims during the 12 months pre-index (prevalent population). The subset of patients with ≥12 months of observation prior to the first originator IFX claim was also analyzed (incident population). Switchers were matched 1:3 to continuers. Discontinuation was defined as having ≥120 days between 2 consecutive index treatment claims.

RESULTS

Prevalent switchers (N=1109) were 3.57-times more likely than continuers (N=3327) to switch to another originator biologic (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57, p<0.001). Of 249 prevalent switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 200 (80.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Incident switchers (N=571) were 2.55-times more likely than continuers (N=1713) to switch to another originator biologic (HR=2.55, p<0.001). Of 118 incident switchers who switched to another originator biologic, 90 (76.3%) switched back to originator IFX. Prevalent switchers were 1.25-times more likely than continuers to discontinue index therapy (HR=1.25, p<0.001). Similar results were observed in RA (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.49, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.23, p=0.009) and IBD (prevalent population; switching: HR=3.82, p<0.001; discontinuation: HR=1.29, p=0.003) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

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

A health economic guide to market access of biosimilars

Introduction: Little is known about market access to biosimilars from a health economic perspective, except for studies that compute the budget impact of biosimilar use. Areas covered: This comprehensive health economic guide to the market access of biosimilars focuses on the role of biosimilars in pharmaceutical innovation and competition, the objective of biopharmaceutical policy, the budget impact of biosimilars, and the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy in the presence of biosimilars. Expert opinion: We argue that the objective of biopharmaceutical policy in a health system should be to create a competitive and sustainable market for off-patent reference biologics, biosimilars, and next-generation biologics that makes biologic therapy available to patients at the lowest cost. Market access of biosimilars can contribute to this objective as a result of the lower price of biosimilars and price competition with alternative therapies. The resulting improvement in the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy needs to be accounted for by revisiting reimbursement decisions and conditions. When examining the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy following patent expiry, stakeholders need to consider residual uncertainties at the time of biosimilar marketing authorization, the nocebo effect, market entry of a second-generation reference biologic with a different administration form than the biosimilar, and value-added services.

The Argument Against a Biosimilar Switch Policy for Infliximab in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Living in Alberta

A nonmedical switch policy is currently being considered in Alberta, which would force patients on originator biologics to biosimilar alternatives with the hypothetical aim of reducing costs to the health care system. The evidence to support the safety of nonmedical switching in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is of low to very low quality; in fact, existing data suggest a potential risk of harm. In a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials, one patient would lose response to infliximab for every 11 patients undergoing nonmedical switching. Switching to a biosimilar has important logistical and ethical implications including potential forced treatment changes without appropriate patient consent and unfairly penalizing patients living in rural areas and those without private drug insurance. Even in the best-case scenario, assuming perfectly executed switching without logistical delays, we predict switching 2,000 patients with Remicade will lead to over 60 avoidable surgeries in Alberta. Furthermore, nonmedical switching has not been adequately studied in vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and elderly patients. While the crux of the argument for nonmedical switching is cost savings, biosimilar switching may not be cost effective: Particularly when originator therapies are being offered at the same price as biosimilars. Canadian patients with IBD have been surveyed, and their response is clear: They are not in support of nonmedical switching. Policies that directly influence patient health need to consider patient perspectives. Solutions to improve cost efficiency in health care exist but open, transparent collaboration between all involved stakeholders is required.

The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation

Biosimilar use is limited in some healthcare systems because biosimilars are not well understood by many healthcare professionals and patients. The knowledge gap is exacerbated by disparagement of biosimilars and dissemination of misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise. There are several different types of disparagement and misinformation directed towards biosimilars as a class, including statements about biosimilar science or policy that are factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, but is provided out of context; incomplete information, where only partial or a limited set of facts are provided; creation of a false narrative, especially in scientific and medical literature, that provides a set of references to support incorrect conclusions; and negative message framing of factual statements to create a negative perception. Disparagement and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by educational efforts, appropriate oversight, and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by governmental agencies, if warranted. Balanced educational materials about biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups should work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.

Impact of Pharmacy Benefit Managers on Oncology Practices and Patients

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are thoroughly integrated into the drug supply chain as administrators of prescription drug benefits for private insurers, self-insuring business, and government health plans. As the role of PBMs has expanded, their opaque business practices and impact on drug prices have come under increasing scrutiny. PBMs are particularly influential in oncology care because prescription drugs play a major role in the treatment of most cancers and an increasing number of patients with cancer are treated with oral oncology agents managed by PBMs. There is concern that some PBM practices may threaten access to high-quality cancer care and may increase the financial and administrative burden on patients and practices. In this article, we review the role of PBMs in prescription drug coverage and reimbursement, discuss the impact of PBMs on oncology care, and present data from the 2018 ASCO Practice Survey assessing the knowledge and attitude of oncology practices toward PBMs.

Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis - A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

To obtain an up-to-date overview of the measurement of patient experience of switching biologic treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Secondary objectives included summarizing the types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used (if any), and related findings; and summarizing medical and non-medical reasons for treatment switch and/or discontinuation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, searching Medline and Embase for relevant publications.

RESULTS

In total, 70 relevant publications were identified. While the majority of these reported reasons for switching and/or discontinuing treatment, only four provided information explicitly regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. All four utilized ranking tools to assess patient experience of switching biologic treatment. The most common reason for switching and/or discontinuing treatment was loss of efficacy, while the least common reason was patient preference.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of available treatments in IA and UC have increased, there is a sparsity of information regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. Further research regarding patient preference and/or experience would benefit this therapeutic area and help guide treatment choices.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.