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

Global outlook on affordability of biotherapeutic drugs

Although biotherapeutic drugs have the potential of transforming the management of many life-threatening diseases, their affordability and accessibility remain an issue. This study offers an overview of the global affordability of biotherapeutic products. For this, prices for 10 representative biotherapeutic products were examined in 40 countries, including high-income countries (HICs), upper middle-income countries (UMICs), lower middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs). The affordability of these biotherapeutics was calculated based on the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) method. As expected, affordability was found to be better in HICs, followed by UMICs, LMICs, and finally, LICs. Furthermore, based on the trend of per capita income, we predict that in UMICs and LMICs, the affordability of high molecular weight biologics will worsen by 1.5× and 2× by 2030, respectively, and further by 4× and 6× by 2040. On the other hand, affordability will stay nearly the same for people living in HICs in the coming decades. Our analysis suggests that it is imperative that measures be taken to make this class of products more affordable and accessible. Governments can contribute by creating conducive policies. Global institutions like the WHO can play a significant role as well. Finally, manufacturers need to invest in and implement manufacturing innovations.

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.

A Cross-National Comparison of Biosimilars Pricing in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar medicines are defined as biological products highly similar to an already licensed biological product (RP). The market entry of biosimilars is expected to reduce the costs of biological treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the range of differences between the prices of biosimilars and the corresponding RP for biologicals approved in four countries.

METHOD

This is a cross-national comparison of pricing of biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy. The study examined online price databases provided by the national authorities of the investigated countries. Biosimilar price difference was calculated by subtracting the unit price of the biosimilar by the unit price of the RP, and then dividing it by the unit price of the RP. The results were presented as percentage.

RESULTS

Brazil had the highest median price reduction (- 36.3%) in biosimilars price, followed by Italy (- 20.0%) and Argentina (- 18.6%). All the biosimilars in Italy were priced below the RP presenting a minimum reduction of 6.3%, while in Australia, most of the prices of biosimilars were equal to the RP. In Argentina, one infliximab-biosimilar displayed price above the RP (40.7%) while the lower priced brand had a reduction of 14.4%. Brazil had four biosimilars with prices above the respective RP, including isophane insulin (1), insulin glargine (1) and somatropin (2).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed a marked dispersion in the price's differences between biosimilars and RP across the studied countries. Governments should evaluate whether their policies have been successful in improving affordability of biological therapies.

Biosimilars Would Reduce Health Care Costs But Are Yet Poorly Known - Patient Survey Study Among Biological Medicine Users

Background

From the beginning of the year 2024, gradually implemented amendment to the Medicines Act will enable interchange of biological medicines in pharmacies in Finland. The legislative change aims to reduce health care costs.

Methods

Opinions of the biological medicine users regarding substitution in pharmacies and knowledge about biological medicines were determined by a patient survey in community pharmacies and via patient organizations in Finland.

Results

In total, 199 users of biological medicines responded to the survey. The respondents did not always know which product they were using, an originator or a biosimilar. This was more prominent among patients with biosimilars determined according to brand names. The more recently the biological medicine had been prescribed, the more likely a biosimilar was in use. Only about 40% of the respondents would enable pharmacies to substitute their biological medicine to a lower cost product. The most common obstacle to the idea of interchange in pharmacies was that the respondents wanted to keep the product the doctor had prescribed for them. In general, biosimilar users were more accepting towards possible interchange than originator users.

Conclusion

Although the most recent treatments appear to be initiated with biosimilars, interchange in pharmacies could enable an efficient way to lower health care costs. However, guidance and awareness regarding biosimilars and biological medicines in general would improve patients' willingness towards the change, but also help pharmacists and prescribing doctors in their meaningful role.

Market Diffusion of Biosimilars in Off-Patent Biologic Drug Markets across Europe

Biologics are among the most expensive pharmaceuticals but have begun to lose their exclusivity rights over the past 15 years, offering the possibility for biosimilar competition. Therefore, we examine the market diffusion of biosimilars across Europe. Using revenues and sales data from IQVIA, we identified 12 biologic substances facing first biosimilar competition between 2014 and 2020 in 25 European countries. We investigated biosimilar market share depending on product and market characteristics with beta regression. Moreover, we compared market diffusion across countries using multilevel modelling. The average market share of biosimilars at first biosimilar entry was about seven percent in the retail and hospital market and grew to 34.69% and 38.29% after 16 quarters, respectively. Quarters since first biosimilar entry had a positive but decreasing effect on biosimilar market share (p<.001 for both markets). Quarterly growth ranged from 0.006 (Netherlands) to 0.026 (Slovakia) in the retail market and from 0.007 (Hungary) to 0.040 (United Kingdom) in the hospital market. The diffusion increased over time across all European markets, although at different rates. Biosimilar market share was higher in the hospital market. Compared to generics, diffusion of biosimilars is much slower. If policymakers desire to increase biosimilar diffusion, they should aim at policies that increase competition and use countries with the highest diffusion rates as benchmarks.