Factors Associated with Biosimilar Exclusions and Step Therapy Restrictions Among US Commercial Health Plans

Patterns of Infliximab Biosimilar Uptake for Medicare, Medicaid, and Private Insurance from 2016 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars have the potential to reduce spending on biologic drugs, yet uptake has been slower than anticipated. We investigated how successive introductions of infliximab biosimilars influenced their adoption by major US insurance providers.

METHODS

Data came from the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness, a national registry with electronic health records from more than 1,100 US rheumatologists. All infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients aged ≥18 years from April 2016 to September 2022 were included. We used an interrupted time series to model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb, November 2016; infliximab-adba, July 2017; and infliximab-axxq, July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

RESULTS

With the first and second biosimilar releases, biosimilar uptake rose slowly, with average annual increases of ≤5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare 3.2%, Medicaid 5.2%, and private insurance 1.8%). With the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%). By September 2022, uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

CONCLUSION

Our results have two key findings for policy makers. First, our results suggest that one or two biosimilars may not generate enough competition to speed adoption rates for biosimilars. Second, Medicare, which covers most patients receiving biologics nationally, had slow adoption rates even after the third biosimilar was introduced. Policy levers to speed adoption among Medicare beneficiaries are needed.

Stakeholder perspectives on the sustainability of the United States biosimilars market

Biologic therapies play a critical role in modern medical practice but also present challenges for payers, patients, and other stakeholders because of their high cost. Biosimilars can mitigate the cost pressures of reference biologic therapy because they are typically priced at least 25% lower, providing a means to administer cutting-edge biologic therapy while also managing cost of care. In fact, the US health care system has saved an estimated $23.6 billion from use of biosimilars. However, the market is still in a nascent phase of development, and early cost-saving successes are not guaranteed to persist unless sustainable market conditions are established. To better understand the perspectives of stakeholders about opportunities and threats to the sustainability of the US biosimilar market, a multistakeholder roundtable discussion was convened in December of 2023 and included health care payers, providers, self-insured employers, a manufacturer, and a biosimilar research and advocacy organization. The objective of this commentary, authored by the roundtable participants, is to posit specific opportunities and threats that stakeholders should consider to better facilitate sustainable biosimilar market conditions in the United States. We highlight key points, including (1) biosimilar price volatility with large quarter-on-quarter declines for most products; (2) perverse economic incentives that encourage providers to use more expensive reference products because reimbursement dynamics make them more profitable; (3) complex rebate structures that create barriers to biosimilar access; and (4) ongoing changes to the legal and regulatory environment, including evidence requirements to gain "interchangeable" status. We conclude with an overview of potential policy solutions to address the sustainability opportunities and threats. The authors welcome the opportunity to advance this dialogue toward action and encourage additional stakeholders to join the effort. We are optimistic that, through informed decision-making and compromise, we can collectively achieve a robust and sustainable US biosimilars market that appropriately benefits all stakeholders.

US Commercial Plans Increase Choice Of Biosimilar And Originator Products; Market Net Prices Decrease

Biosimilars drugs are almost identical copies of original biologic products. Early biosimilars had slower adoption and savings than expected; however, biosimilars launched in recent years have had more success. With several biosimilar launches planned in the next few years, it is important to understand how the state of the market might foretell significant market savings in the future. To do so, we explored how the introduction of biosimilars affected originator-biosimilar markets during the period 2017-22. We found that after biosimilar availability, payers increasingly allowed choice of preferred products. By 2022, 76 percent of commercial payers' coverage policies listed two or more products (originator or biosimilar) as first-line options. Biosimilar market shares exceeded those of originators a mean of three years after first biosimilar launch, and originator-biosimilar market average sales price declined substantially. Taken together, these findings provide evidence of a functioning competitive market.

Real-World Noninferiority Assessment of Two Filgrastim Biosimilars in Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although multiple filgrastim biosimilars are now available in the United States, no studies comparing clinical outcomes between products have been reported. This analysis evaluated real-world outcomes of filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz in patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy to compare the two filgrastim biosimilars.

METHODS

This was an observational, noninferiority, cohort study of patients from three integrated health care systems who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and were prophylactically initiated on filgrastim-sndz between January and November 2021 or filgrastim-aafi between June and November 2022. Patients were followed from filgrastim biosimilar initiation until the start of their next chemotherapy cycle. The primary outcome of severe neutropenia was analyzed using a binary noninferiority test with a 5% upper margin. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of emergency department or hospital encounters due to febrile neutropenia and systemic antibiotic/antifungal medication use. If noninferiority was met, adjusted logistic regression modeling was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 2,730 patients who initiated filgrastim-aafi (n = 880) or filgrastim-sndz (n = 1,850) during the study period were included. The overall mean age was 55 years, 87.4% were female, 42.3% were White, and 76.6% had breast cancer. Severe neutropenia occurred in 1.8% and 1.7% of patients initiated on filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz, respectively (P < .01 for noninferiority). The adjusted odds ratio for severe neutropenia with filgrastim-aafi compared with filgrastim-sndz was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.68; P = .76). Noninferiority was met for all secondary outcomes (P < .01), and there were no adjusted statistically significant differences between the groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, severe neutropenia outcomes were comparable between filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz biosimilars. Findings from this study may support utilization of different filgrastim biosimilars in clinical practice.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Biosimilars in Pediatric Non-infectious Uveitis: Real-Life Data from the International AIDA Network Uveitis Registry

INTRODUCTION

Since many biological drug patents have expired, biosimilar agents (BIOs) have been developed; however, there are still some reservations in their use, especially in childhood. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors BIOs as treatment for pediatric non-infectious uveitis (NIU).

METHODS

Data from pediatric patients with NIU treated with TNF inhibitors BIOs were drawn from the international AutoInflammatory Disease Alliance (AIDA) registries dedicated to uveitis and Behçet's disease. The effectiveness and safety of BIOs were assessed in terms of frequency of relapses, risk for developing ocular flares, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), glucocorticoids (GCs)-sparing effect, drug survival, frequency of ocular complications, and adverse drug event (AE).

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients (77 affected eyes) were enrolled. The BIOs employed were adalimumab (ADA) (89.4%), etanercept (ETA) (5.3%), and infliximab (IFX) (5.3%). The number of relapses 12 months prior to BIOs and at last follow-up was 282.14 and 52.43 per 100 patients/year. The relative risk of developing ocular flares before BIOs introduction compared to the period following the start of BIOs was 4.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.38-5.98, p = 0.004). The number needed to treat (NNT) for ocular flares was 3.53. Median BCVA was maintained during the whole BIOs treatment (p = 0.92). A significant GCs-sparing effect was observed throughout the treatment period (p = 0.002). The estimated drug retention rate (DRR) at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up were 92.7, 83.3, and 70.8%, respectively. The risk rate for developing structural ocular complications was 89.9/100 patients/year before starting BIOs and 12.7/100 patients/year during BIOs treatment, with a risk ratio of new ocular complications without BIOs of 7.1 (CI 3.4-14.9, p = 0.0003). Three minor AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

TNF inhibitors BIOs are effective in reducing the number of ocular uveitis relapses, preserving visual acuity, allowing a significant GCs-sparing effect, and preventing structural ocular complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05200715.