Pharmacoeconomics of cancer therapies: considerations with the introduction of biosimilars

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Versus Originator Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study Using Real-World Data

OBJECTIVES

MVASI (Amgen) and Zirabev (Pfizer) are 2 of the earliest bevacizumab biosimilars approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to confirm and quantify the real-world cost savings and cost-effectiveness of MVASI and Zirabev relative to originator bevacizumab for patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, where originator and biosimilar bevacizumab are universally publicly funded. All mCRC patients who received originator bevacizumab between January 2008 and August 2019 or biosimilar bevacizumab between August 2019 and March 2021 were propensity score matched (1:4) to adjust for baseline differences. Total 1-year patient-level costs (CAD) and effects (life years [LY] and quality-adjusted LYs) were calculated from the public health payer's perspective. Primary outcomes included incremental net monetary benefit and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses included a subgroup analysis by biosimilar type (MVASI/Zirabev) and a 2-year analysis.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 747 biosimilar cases and 2945 comparators. Bevacizumab biosimilars were associated with an incremental cost of -$6379 (95%CI: -9417, -3537) (ie, cost saving) and incremental effect of 0.0 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.02) LY and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.03, 0) quality-adjusted LYs gained. Incremental net monetary benefit and INHB estimates were $6331 (95% CI: 6245, 6417) and 0.127 LY (95% CI: 0.125, 0.128), respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/life year gained, with all estimates indicating the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar bevacizumab. Cost-effectiveness remained consistent across biosimilar brand subgroups and 2-year sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab biosimilars demonstrated real-world cost savings while providing similar survival benefit as originator bevacizumab, confirming the initial expectations of their implementation and supporting health system sustainability.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries.

METHODS

This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period.

RESULTS

Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent.

CONCLUSION

The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.

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.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (Grastofil®) to the Reference Biologic (Neupogen®) in Breast Cancer and Lymphoma: A Canadian Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy that may result in poor treatment outcomes. The short acting granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) act to stimulate granulocytes to increase production of white blood cells. The filgrastim biosimilar is useful, as it may provide a cheaper and equally effective treatment to FN. This study explored the usage of the filgrastim biosimilar (Grastofil^®) and the reference biologic (Neupogen^®) in breast cancer and lymphoma patients. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving Grastofil^® from January 2017 to June 2019 or Neupogen^® for primary prophylaxis of FN from January 2013 to December 2017 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN and the occurrence of dose reduction (DR) and dose delay (DD). One hundred and fifty-three Grastofil^® patients were matched to 153 Neupogen^® patients. This cohort was further split into breast cancer (n = 275) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 31) cohorts. After adjusting for chemotherapy cycles, the biosimilar filgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

N-of-1 Trials in Pediatric Oncology: From a Population-Based Approach to Personalized Medicine-A Review

Pediatric oncology is a critical area where the more efficient development of new treatments is urgently needed. The speed of approval of new drugs is still limited by regulatory requirements and a lack of innovative designs appropriate for trials in children. Childhood cancers meet the criteria of rare diseases. Personalized medicine brings it even closer to the horizon of individual cases. Thus, not all the traditional research tools, such as large-scale RCTs, are always suitable or even applicable, mainly due to limited sample sizes. Small samples and traditional versus subject-specific evidence are both distinctive issues in personalized pediatric oncology. Modern analytical approaches and adaptations of the paradigms of evidence are warranted. We have reviewed innovative trial designs and analytical methods developed for small populations, together with individualized approaches, given their applicability to pediatric oncology. We discuss traditional population-based and individualized perspectives of inferences and evidence, and explain the possibilities of using various methods in pediatric personalized oncology. We find that specific derivatives of the original N-of-1 trial design adapted for pediatric personalized oncology may represent an optimal analytical tool for this area of medicine. We conclude that no particular N-of-1 strategy can provide a solution. Rather, a whole range of approaches is needed to satisfy the new inferential and analytical paradigms of modern medicine. We reveal a new view of cancer as continuum model and discuss the "evidence puzzle".

A new approach for identifying positional isomers of glycans cleaved from monoclonal antibodies

Glycosylation patterns in monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can vary significantly between different host cell types, and these differences may affect mAbs safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity. Recent studies have demonstrated that glycan isomers with the terminal galactose position on either the Man α1-3 arm or the Man α1-6 arm have an impact on the effector functions and dynamic structure of mAbs. The development of a robust method to distinguish positional isomers of glycans is thus critical to guarantee mAb quality. In this work, we apply high-resolution ion mobility combined with cryogenic infrared spectroscopy to distinguish isomeric glycans with different terminal galactose positions, using G1F as an example. Selective enzymatic synthesis of the G1(α1-6)F isomer allows us to assign the peaks in the arrival-time distributions and the infrared spectra to their respective isomeric forms. Moreover, we demonstrate the impact of the host cell line (CHO and HEK-293) on the IgG G1F gycan profile at the isomer level. This work illustrates the potential of our approach for glycan analysis of mAbs.

Can biosimilar products be interchangeable? Pharmaceutical perspective in the implementation of biosimilars in oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety in the interchangeability of biosimilar products approved for cancer treatment from a pharmaceutical perspective.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out using the descriptors "Biosimilar", "Oncology Therapy", "Interchangeable drugs" and "Biological Products", in the Sciencedirect, MEDLINE, and CAPLUS databases.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were selected, which addressed the importance of establishing standards that prove the efficacy and safety of biosimilars with reference products, as well as the growing interest of the pharmaceutical industry in the development of biosimilars and the impact on costs and changes in the perspective of the treatment of cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As they are large and complex molecules, it is impossible to obtain identical copies of their reference products, which generates conflicts and concerns on the part of the pharmaceutical class regarding the safety in the interchangeability of these products, highlighting the importance of pharmacovigilance in this process.

Technological Advancements in Monoclonal Antibodies

Biopharmaceuticals are innovative solutions that have revolutionized the treatment of important chronic diseases and malignancies. The approval of biosimilar products has become a complex and balanced process, and there are versions of drugs with established biosimilarity that can offer a more accessible treatment option to patients. The objective of this work was to identify the advancement of these technologies by means of patent and article analysis based on technological and scientific prospection. In patent document recovery, Derwent Innovation Index (DWPI) and PatentInspiration databases were used. The research was based on the search of the selected terms in the title, summary, and claims of the documents through a search strategy containing IPC code and keywords. In articles recovery, the Web of Science tool was used in the search of scientific publications dated from the last 5 years. The search resulted in a total of 2295 individual patent documents and 467 families using DWPI database, 769 individual patents and 205 families using PatentInspiration, and 2602 articles using Web of Science database. Additionally, this work describes the number of organizations that contribute to this area, where they are, how much development they have undergone, and the inventors/authors involved. Based on the number of publications registered, there is an important prominence for scientific research in mAbs. In terms of innovation, it is expected that several therapeutic drugs are already under regulatory review, which will allow drugs to be approved over the next few years and will thus generate a continuous flow of new products based on immunotherapies, mAbs, and biosimilar drugs. These drugs have become essential weapons for the treatment of significant diseases, and the increasing trend in the number of related scientific and technological publications contributes to making these therapies available to the greatest number of people.

Identifying Key Benefits in European Off-Patent Biologics and Biosimilar Markets: It is Not Only About Price!

Biosimilar medicines have shown similarity with the originator biologic and offer a similar clinical outcome generally at a lower cost. This paper identifies benefits of off-patent biologics and biosimilars, and illustrates these benefits with empirical data from Europe. We provide a narrative review of published literature on values and benefits of biosimilars in Europe. The results describe cost savings as the key driver stemming from the lower price of biosimilars, than that of originator products, and from price competition between biosimilar(s), originator, and next-generation products. Cost savings may then translate into a number of other associated benefits. The lower price of biosimilars and similar effectiveness to the originator biologics improve cost effectiveness, implying that reimbursement can be granted or extended to other patient groups, or that the biologic therapy can be moved to an earlier line of treatment. Cost savings from biosimilars can be used to increase patient access to therapy or to increase the number of healthcare professionals. Finally, competition between off-patent biologics and biosimilars may stimulate an innovation in the formulation and development of next-generation biologics. Our paper illustrates that the benefit of off-patent biologics and biosimilars is not restricted to cost savings, but that these medicines may contribute to an expansion of medical treatment options for patients, hence concomitantly contributing to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system. This review provides a broader view for clinical and economic decision makers and healthcare professionals on the added benefits of off-patent biologics and their use in clinical practice.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies: the need for a real-world approach

The introduction of rituximab biosimilars into healthcare systems can potentially help to control healthcare costs for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. However, there are currently several barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. This review discusses barriers to the adoption of rituximab biosimilars by stakeholders including patients and healthcare providers. We outline the importance of utilizing real-world evidence in providing additional clinical experience on rituximab biosimilars in hematologic malignancies to improve stakeholder confidence regarding their efficacy and safety. We conclude by offering recommendations for designing and conducting effective real-world studies. Such studies can provide evidence to help achieve lower-priced biologics and improved patient access to help sustain the treatment of hematologic malignancies with biologics, including rituximab biosimilars.

Adherence to oral anticancer chemotherapies and estimation of the economic burden associated with unused medicines

Background The list of oral and expensive chemotherapy agents has lengthened over the last few years and has created unique medication adherence concerns. In a real-life setting, patients often do not take their medications as prescribed. This pattern is associated with poor outcomes and increased health care costs. Objectives To estimate the adherence to oral anticancer chemotherapies and to determine the economic burden of unused medicines due to patients' death. Setting Alsace (France). Method This retrospective study was carried out by using ERASME, an Insurance Healthcare database. Main outcome measures Adherence was calculated using medication possession ratio and economic impact using prescription refill data. Results 10,734 patients were treated with oral anticancer medicines (cytotoxic agents, hormonal and targeted therapies). Averaged adherence of 0.86 was observed although it varied significantly between subclasses (cytotoxic agents: 0.69 ± 0.14, hormonal therapy: 0.91 ± 0.17 and targeted therapy: 0.79 ± 0.17). 1631 patients died during the study period. The expenses related to unused chemotherapies amounted to €152,175. Conclusions Our data showed that overall adherence to oral anticancer medicines was above the acceptable limit of adherence of 80% with a marked graduation in values between cytotoxic agents, hormonal and targeted therapies. These statistical significant differences in medication possession ratio could be related to the intrinsic toxicity of the three subclasses of molecules, their tolerance and adverse effects. To limit the cost associated with unused medicines, interventions such as dispensing expensive oral anticancer chemotherapies per unit over shorter periods and not only on monthly intervals could be implement.

Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries

BACKGROUND

As the economic burden of treating cancer patients has been soaring in European countries, performing a budget impact analysis is becoming one of the requirements for payers' application dossiers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing the biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) from the payer's perspective and to determine the number of additional patients who could be treated with resulting savings in 28 European countries.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the financial impact of switching from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer with a time horizon of 1-5 years. Budgetary savings and the number of patients potentially affected were measured based on epidemiological and sales volume data. The base-case analysis assumed that the price of CT-P6 is 70% of the originator price, the switching rate of originator to CT-P6 in the first year is 20%, and the annual growth in the switching rate for each subsequent year is 5%.

RESULTS

For analyses using the base-case scenario following CT-P6 introduction, the total estimated budgetary savings over a 5-year period (depending on the scenario) ranged from €1.13 billion to €2.27 billion based on epidemiological data, or from €0.91 billion to €1.82 billion based on sales volume data. In the first year only, the projected budgetary savings ranged from €58 million to €136 million, and the number of additional patients who could be treated using the savings ranged from 3503 to 7078 by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The conducted budget impact analysis assessing a switch from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in 28 European countries indicates that budget savings could be between €0.91 billion and €2.27 billion over the next 5 years. These savings could be used to help improve patient access to local biologics in their respective countries while simultaneously strengthening the overall public health landscape across the European Union.

Emerging Role of Biosimilars in Oncology-Hematology in Saudi Arabia: A Practical Perspective

Biologics are significant drivers of globally escalating healthcare costs. Biosimilars have potential to offer cost savings with comparable efficacy and safety to innovator products and increase the access of treatment to more patients. This study aimed to increase understanding and perception of biosimilars concept. It also described the pharmacoeconomic impact of biosimilar in oncology and formulary consideration of oncology biosimilars substituting with their originators in major oncology centers in the Saudi Arabia. A biosimilar is a biological product that is similar to a reference biopharmaceutical product. As the manufacturing process hinders the ability to identically replicate the structure of the original product, biosimilar cannot be described as an absolute equivalent of the original medication. Different regulatory agencies such as United States Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Saudi Food and Drug Authority have approved several biosimilars of oncology biologics. The experience of biosimilar use in Europe and USA provides valuable insights into the use of biosimilars. The widespread use of biosimilars has the potential to reduce healthcare expenditure, as well as improving access without compromising patient outcomes. There is a need for increasing awareness about biosimilars to improve acceptance rates. The use of biosimilar filgrastim in Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Saudi Arabia, has resulted in a significant cost saving annually. It was proposed that further substitution and switching to biosimilars in oncology would lead to major savings in resources.

Biosimilars for breast cancer: a review of HER2-targeted antibodies in the United States

The utilization of trastuzumab biosimilar medications is of particular interest in HER2-positive breast cancer as these drugs have the potential for cost savings and increased utilization/access to HER2 targeted therapy in both early stage and metastatic HER2-positive breast cancers. Five trastuzumab biosimilars: MYL-1401O (Ogivri), CT-P6 (Herzuma), SB3 (Ontruzant), PF-05280014 (Trazimera), and ABP980 (Kanjinti), have now been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in HER2-positive breast cancers. This review provides an overview of these agents with special consideration of the development and approval process, including available clinical data results for these trastuzumab biosimilars. Adoption in the clinic will depend on the degree of comfort with the overall evidence.

Pharmacist perspectives and considerations for implementation of therapeutic oncology biosimilars in practice

Purpose

An overview of therapeutic oncology biosimilars, the U.S. biosimilars regulatory pathway, and the clinical development of selected biosimilar products is provided, including discussion of considerations in adopting biosimilars into oncology practice.

Summary

Biosimilars are biologic agents that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from an approved reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. There is a large market for cancer biologics, and approval of biosimilars has the potential to increase access to care and reduce costs. An abbreviated regulatory pathway for the development and approval of biosimilars defines a stepwise approach to demonstrating biosimilarity and conducting clinical comparative trials to confirm equivalent pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference product. Three therapeutic biologics (bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and rituximab) have been used extensively in the treatment of a variety of cancers and are targets for biosimilar product development. Preclinical and clinical experience with 2 recently approved biosimilars to bevacizumab and trastuzumab is reviewed. Challenges faced by pharmacy and therapeutics committees when considering oncology biosimilars for formulary inclusion are discussed.

Conclusion

Increased adoption of biosimilars could potentially lower treatment costs and improve access to biologics for patients with cancer. Key considerations in formulary review of biosimilars include the quality and quantity of data from comparative clinical trials, economic factors, manufacturer reliability, and challenges associated with incorporating biosimilars into practice.

Biosimilars: Considerations for Payers

Evaluating biosimilars requires payers to go beyond cost considerations: safety and efficacy, reliability of supply and logistics, and the impact of state laws on substitution and interchangeability must all be deliberated.

The evolution of biosimilars in oncology, with a focus on trastuzumab

Cancer therapy has evolved significantly with increased adoption of biologic agents ("biologics"). That evolution is especially true for her2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor-2)-positive breast cancer with the introduction of trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody against the her2 receptor, which, in combination with chemotherapy, significantly improves survival in both metastatic and early disease. Although the efficacy of biologics is undeniable, their expense is a significant contributor to the increasing cost of cancer care. Across disease sites and indications, biosimilar agents are rapidly being developed with the goal of offering cost-effective alternatives to biologics. Biosimilars are pharmaceuticals whose molecular shape, efficacy, and safety are similar, but not identical, to those of the original product. Although these agents hold the potential to improve patient access, complexities in their production, evaluation, cost, and clinical application have raised questions among experts. Here, we review the landscape of biosimilar agents in oncology, with a focus on trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss important considerations that must be made as these agents are introduced into routine cancer care.

The Impact of Biosimilars in Supportive Care in Cancer

Collapse

Reviewing the evidence for biosimilars: key insights, lessons learned and future horizons

Biologic therapies have become central to the long-term management of many chronic diseases, including inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Over recent years, the development and licensing pathways for biosimilars have become more standardized, and several biosimilars have been made available for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, such as RA. Pre-licensing requirements for biosimilars mandate the demonstration of comparability with reference products in terms of clinical activity, safety and immunogenicity, whereas post-marketing surveillance and risk minimization requirements are set in place to ensure that long-term, real-world safety data are collected to assess biosimilars in clinical practice. These measures should provide a foundation for physician confidence in biosimilars, which can be established further through clinical experience. Biosimilars may help to fill an unmet need by improving patient access to effective biologic treatments for chronic diseases. Greater access may result in additional clinical benefits, with appropriate use of biologic therapies according to treatment guidelines being associated with improved outcomes and the potential for reduced costs of care. Key challenges for the integration of biosimilars into everyday practice include questions about interchangeability, switching and automatic substitution. Several switching studies have shown that biosimilars can be used in place of reference products while maintaining efficacy and safety. Additional ongoing studies and registries may help to optimize the process of switching, and different funding models are examining the optimal mechanisms to ensure effective uptake of these new treatments.

Antimetabolites in the treatment of advanced pleural mesothelioma: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

An indirect comparison of cisplatin-pemetrexed (CP) and cisplatin-raltitrexed (CR) was performed. The Odds Ratios of 10, 15 and 20 month survival rate and response rate were assumed as indexes of efficacy; the Odds Ratio of grade III-IV side effects, and the absolute risk of overall, hematologic and non-hematologic toxicity, were assumed as indexes of safety. The outcomes of 352 patients were analysed. The Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) of 10, 15 and 20 months survival rate and response rate were 1.2 (95% CI 0.65-2.24, p = 0.559), 1.02 (95% CI 0.49-2.12, p = 0.953), 1.13 (95% CI 0.44-2.91, p = 0.805) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.26-1.21, p = 0.141), respectively. An absolute increased risk of grade III-IV side effects was observed for CP: 6% (95% CI 3-9%, p < 0.001), 9% (95% CI 2-16%, p = 0.008) and 3% (95% CI 0-5%, p = 0.035) for overall, hematological and non-hematological toxicity. CP and CR can be considered comparable in terms of efficacy in the treatment of metastatic pleural mesothelioma, with a modest increased risk of grade III-IV side effects for CP.

Update on biosimilars of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor - when no news is good news

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the approval of the first biosimilar granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), biosimilars - copies of therapeutic biologicals whose patent protection has expired - have finally reached the US healthcare market. Its advent is an occasion for a closer look at recent insights into biosimilar G-CSF and an attempt at prognosticating the future (future role) of biosimilars in general.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature regarding biosimilar G-CSF orbits significantly around patient access and effects on healthcare expenditure. The advent of biosimilar G-CSF has induced unexpectedly large price reductions for short-acting G-CSF. On the clinical side, little excitement is tangible, probably appropriately so, since clinical data indicate nothing short of biological similarity. Although formal clinical trials are few, the plethora of case series and historic comparisons which have come forth offer reassurance about the appropriateness of the regulators' assessment of biosimilar G-CSF as indeed in all respects biologically similar to the originator.

SUMMARY

All evidence points to an overwhelming similarity of originator and biosimilar G-CSF in all indications. Overall clinical acceptance, albeit possibly significantly dictated by economic pressures, is good. Price reductions exceed predictions and may jeopardize the economic viability of biosimilar programs. A concurrent shift towards long-acting G-CSF ('biobetters') is observed in Europe.

Biosimilar infliximab for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in France: what are the expected savings?

Objectives

Biosimilar infliximab, the first similar biological medicinal product containing monoclonal antibodies to be commercialised, is likely to contribute to a significant reduction in healthcare costs. We aimed to assess the cost savings potential over 1 year of the use of biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in Alsace and in France, in a real-life setting.

Methods

The analysis was based on a previously conducted observational study which evaluated the annual cost of the care of patients with RA treated with biological therapies in 2012 in Alsace. Average annual costs to manage RA patients were calculated, taking into account the decrease in the retail price between 2012 and 2015 (as given in the official national price list) and the local negotiated price for biosimilar infliximab. Annual cost savings for different biosimilar prescription scenarios were calculated using 2015 prices.

Results

Management of RA patients with biosimilar infliximab was significantly cheaper than with adalimumab or etanercept (€11 907 vs €12 981 and €13 551, respectively). The projected annual cost savings reached €13.6 million nationally, if all adult RA patients treated with the originator infliximab switched to the biosimilar drug. These savings, if fully reallocated for the treatment of RA, would enable the treatment of 1141 additional patients.

Conclusions

The study showed a positive financial impact of introducing biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of RA patients in France. Such savings could contribute to improved patient care by allowing more patients to be treated without more money being spent.

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.

Routine Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia with Biosimilar Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (Nivestim) or Pegfilgrastim Is Cost Effective in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients undergoing Curative-Intent R-CHOP Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of various strategies of myeloid growth factor prophylaxis for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Singapore who are undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy with curative intent.

METHODS

A Markov model was created to compare seven prophylaxis strategies: 1) primary prophylaxis (PP) with nivestim (biosimilar filgrastim) throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 2) PP with nivestim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 3) secondary prophylaxis (SP) with nivestim; 4) PP with pegfilgrastim throughout all cycles of chemotherapy; 5) PP with pegfilgrastim during the first two cycles of chemotherapy; 6) SP with pegfilgrastim; and 7) no prophylaxis (NP). The perspective of a hospital was taken and cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per episode of FN avoided over six cycles of chemotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Strategies 3, 6, and 7 were dominated in the base case analysis by strategy 5. The costs associated with strategies 2, 5, 1, and 4 were US$3,813, US$4,056, US$4,545, and US$5,331, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for strategy 5 vs. strategy 2, strategy 1 vs. strategy 5, and strategy 4 vs. strategy 1 were US$13,532, US$22,565, and US$30,452, respectively, per episode of FN avoided. Strategy 2 has the highest probability to be cost-effective (ranged from 48% to 60%) when the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold is lower than US$10,000 per FN episode prevented.

CONCLUSION

In Singapore, routine PP with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (nivestim or pegfilgrastim) is cost-effective for reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving R-CHOP.

Progress and remaining challenges for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean

Cancer is one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide, and an increasing threat in low-income and middle-income countries. Our findings in the 2013 Commission in The Lancet Oncology showed several discrepancies between the cancer landscape in Latin America and more developed countries. We reported that funding for health care was a small percentage of national gross domestic product and the percentage of health-care funds diverted to cancer care was even lower. Funds, insurance coverage, doctors, health-care workers, resources, and equipment were also very inequitably distributed between and within countries. We reported that a scarcity of cancer registries hampered the design of credible cancer plans, including initiatives for primary prevention. When we were commissioned by The Lancet Oncology to write an update to our report, we were sceptical that we would uncover much change. To our surprise and gratification much progress has been made in this short time. We are pleased to highlight structural reforms in health-care systems, new programmes for disenfranchised populations, expansion of cancer registries and cancer plans, and implementation of policies to improve primary cancer prevention.

Biosimilars in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: initial lessons from the first approved biosimilar anti-tumour necrosis factor monoclonal antibody

The introduction of targeted biological therapies has revolutionised the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. Following treatment with these therapies, many patients experience significant improvements in different aspects of their disease, including symptoms, work productivity and other outcomes relevant for individuals and society. However, due to the complexity of biological drug development and manufacturing processes, the costs of these therapies are relatively high. Indeed, the financial burden on healthcare systems due to biological therapies is considerable and lack of patient access to effective treatment remains a concern in many parts of the world. As many reference biological therapies have now reached or are near to patent expiry, a number of 'biosimilar' drugs have been developed for use in various clinical settings, and some of these drugs are already in use in several countries. While the potential pharmacoeconomic benefits of cost-effective biosimilars seem clear, several issues have been raised regarding, for example, the definition of biosimilarity and the validity of indication extrapolation, as well as the 'switchability' and relative immunogenicity of biosimilars and their reference drugs. In this review, these issues will be discussed with reference to CT-P13, a biosimilar of the anti-tumour necrosis factor monoclonal antibody infliximab, which is approved in Europe and elsewhere for the treatment of various IMIDs. Other important issues, including those related to data collection during nonclinical and clinical development of biosimilars, are also discussed.

Biosimilars advancements: Moving on to the future

Many patents for the first biologicals derived from recombinant technology and, more recently, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are expiring. Naturally, biosimilars are becoming an increasingly important area of interest for the pharmaceutical industry worldwide, not only for emergent countries that need to import biologic products. This review shows the evolution of biosimilar development regarding regulatory, manufacturing bioprocess, comparability, and marketing. The regulatory landscape is evolving globally, whereas analytical structure and functional analyses provide the foundation of a biosimilar development program. The challenges to develop and demonstrate biosimilarity should overcome the inherent differences in the bioprocess manufacturing and physicochemical and biological characterization of a biosimilar compared to several lots of the reference product. The implementation of approaches, such as Quality by Design (QbD), will provide products with defined specifications in relation to quality, purity, safety, and efficacy that were not possible when the reference product was developed. Actually, the need to prove comparability to the reference product by the biosimilar industry has increased the knowledge about the product and the production-process associated by the use of powerful analytical tools. The technological challenges to make copies of biologic products while attending regulatory and market demands are expected to help innovation in the direction of attaining more productive manufacturing processes.

Clinical considerations for the development of biosimilars in oncology

Despite availability of biologic therapies, limited patient access to many of the most-effective cancer treatments affects overall health outcomes. To address this issue, many governments have enacted legislation for the approval of biosimilars. The term "biosimilar" refers to a biologic product that is developed to be highly similar, as opposed to identical, to a licensed biologic product (the reference or innovator product), such that, per US Food and Drug administration draft guidelines, "no clinically meaningful differences [exist] between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency." This article presents some considerations about the development of biosimilars in cancer treatment through an overview of biosimilars from a clinical perspective. Topics covered include the development requirements and unique regulatory requirements for biosimilars, labeling considerations, potential limitations to the uptake of biosimilars, and review of some biosimilars in development for oncology indications.