A health economic guide to market access of biosimilars

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.

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.

Are Manufacturing Patents to Blame for Biosimilar Market Launch Delays?

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilar market launch delays are likely costing healthcare systems billions of dollars and preventing patients accessing affordable biologic therapies sooner. Many claim these delays are mostly caused by originator biologics' large patent portfolios asserted during litigation against biosimilar developers, particularly that the manufacturing patents filed after the originator is approved is an important driver of these delays. Our objective was to investigate the accuracy of these claims.

METHODS

We reviewed US Court document submissions for litigation data, including the details of patents asserted against biosimilar owners, and collated biosimilar market launch dates from publicly available databases.

RESULTS

We find that, although approximately half of all patents asserted in litigation were manufacturing patents, a greater proportion of composition, active pharmaceutical ingredient, and treatment patents are associated with longer market launch delays, whereas a greater proportion of manufacturing patents are associated with shorter market launch delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that manufacturing patents were having less of an impact on market launch delays than other types of patents. Our findings have implications for both biosimilar and originator developers, as well as patent policy and its association with healthcare accessibility.

Biosimilar in Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review

Breast cancer (BC) has been identified as a major public health cancer as it topped the list of most prevalent cancers among women in the last three years. Rigorous research has been conducted to improve the prognosis of cancer therapies since the time of inception. Recent advancements in cancer therapy have introduced monoclonal biosimilars as a promising treatment alternative. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), produced through cloning, have demonstrated effectiveness in targeting diverse antigens. Biosimilar, considered complex entities compared to small-molecule drugs, pose challenges in replication due to their biological nature. The manufacturing process involves rigorous comparability testing to ensure similarity in quality, safety, and efficacy with the reference product. Trastuzumab biosimilars, such as CT-P6, Ontruzant®, ABP 980, and PF-05280014, have shown efficacy in treating HER2-positive metastatic BCs, presenting a viable alternative to the reference product. The implications of monoclonal biosimilars extend beyond trastuzumab, with bevacizumab emerging as another significant biosimilar for BC treatment. The shift toward biosimilar aims to enhance accessibility to biologics by reducing costs. Health economic analyses indicate potential cost savings, contributing to the overall cost-effectiveness of biosimilar adoption. While concerns about switching between reference products and biosimilars exist, evidence suggests a lower risk of immunogenicity-related side effects with mAbs like trastuzumab. Monoclonal biosimilars present a promising avenue in BC therapy, demonstrating efficacy, safety, and potential cost savings. The integration of biosimilars into cancer treatment strategies offers a means to improve accessibility to effective care while addressing economic considerations in healthcare.

The PERFUSE study: The experience of patients receiving Adalimumab biosimilar SB5

BACKGROUND

SB5 is an EMA-approved adalimumab biosimilar, having demonstrated bioequivalence, equivalent efficacy, and similar safety and immunogenicity to the reference product.

AIMS

Describe patient training and satisfaction using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and assess their impact on 12-month persistence on SB5.

METHODS

The observational PERFUSE study included 318 Crohn's disease (CD) patients and 88 ulcerative colitis (UC) patients in 27 sites across France between October 2018 and December 2020. PROMs were collected at 1-month post-baseline using an online questionnaire (ePRO) designed with patient associations. Treatment persistence was collected during routine visits (up to 15 months post-initiation). Results are presented by prior experience with subcutaneous biologics and training in proper use of the injection device.

RESULTS

57.1% (n = 145) and 44.1% (n = 67) of naïve and pre-treated patients, respectively, answered the ePRO. Naïve patients were offered training more often (86.9% vs 31.3% respectively, p < 0.05), with disparities between sites. All subgroups' satisfaction scores were high. 12-month persistence on SB5 was significantly higher for respondents than for non-respondents (68.0% [60.9; 74.1] vs 52.3% [44.5; 59.6]; p < 0.05) and in patients with a better perception of their illness (OR=1.02, [1.0; 1.05]; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Early patient questionnaires may be useful to identify patients at higher risk of treatment discontinuation.

An international comparative analysis and roadmap to sustainable biosimilar markets

Background: Although biosimilar uptake has increased (at a variable pace) in many countries, there have been recent concerns about the long-term sustainability of biosimilar markets. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the sustainability of policies across the biosimilar life cycle in selected countries with a view to propose recommendations for supporting biosimilar sustainability. Methods: The study conducted a comparative analysis across 17 countries from North America, South America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Biosimilar policies were identified and their sustainability was assessed based on country-specific reviews of the scientific and grey literature, validation by industry experts and 23 international and local non-industry experts, and two advisory board meetings with these non-industry experts. Results: Given that European countries tend to have more experience with biosimilars and more developed policy frameworks, they generally have higher sustainability scores than the other selected countries. Existing approaches to biosimilar manufacturing and R&D, policies guaranteeing safe and high-quality biosimilars, exemption from the requirement to apply health technology assessment to biosimilars, and initiatives counteracting biosimilar misconceptions are considered sustainable. However, biosimilar contracting approaches, biosimilar education and understanding can be ameliorated in all selected countries. Also, similar policies are sometimes perceived to be sustainable in some markets, but not in others. More generally, the sustainability of the biosimilar landscape depends on the nature of the healthcare system and existing pharmaceutical market access policies, the experience with biosimilar use and policies. This suggests that a general biosimilar policy toolkit that ensures sustainability does not exist, but varies from country to country. Conclusion: This study proposes a set of elements that should underpin sustainable biosimilar policy development over time in a country. At first, biosimilar policies should guarantee the safety and quality of biosimilars, healthy levels of supply and a level of cost savings. As a country gains experience with biosimilars, policies need to optimise uptake and combat any misconceptions about biosimilars. Finally, a country should implement biosimilar policies that foster competition, expand treatment options and ensure a sustainable market environment.

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.

The impact of policy interventions to promote the uptake of biosimilar medicines in Belgium: a nationwide interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Belgian government has taken several measures to increase the uptake of biosimilars in past years. However, no formal evaluation of the impact of these measures has been made yet. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the implemented measures on biosimilar uptake.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model with the Box-Jenkins method. All data were expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) per month/quarter and obtained from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). Three molecules were included in the analysis: etanercept (ambulatory), filgrastim (hospital), and epoetin (hospital). A significance level of 5% was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

In the ambulatory care, the effect of a financial prescriber incentive of 2019 was investigated. After this intervention, 44.504 (95% CI -61.61 to -14.812; P < 0.001) fewer etanercept biosimilar DDDs were dispensed monthly than expected in the absence of the intervention. Two interventions were modelled for biosimilars in the hospital setting. The first intervention of 2016 includes prescription targets for biosimilars and monitoring of hospitals on adequate tendering. The second intervention involves an information campaign on biosimilars. After the first intervention, a small decrease in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 449.820 DDD (95% CI -880.113 to -19.527; P = 0.05) was observed. The second intervention led to a larger increase in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 2733.692 DDD (95% CI 1648.648-3818.736; P < 0.001). For filgrastim, 1809.833 DDD (95% CI 1354.797-2264.869; P < 0.001) more biosimilars were dispensed immediately after the first intervention and 151.639 DDD (95% CI -203.128 to -100.150; P < 0.001) fewer biosimilars each quarter after the first intervention. An immediate and sustained increase of 700.932 DDD (95% CI 180.536-1221.328; P = 0.016) in quarterly biosimilar volume was observed after the second intervention. All other parameter estimates were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the impact of past policy interventions to increase the uptake of biosimilars has been variable and limited. A holistic policy framework is required to develop a competitive and sustainable off-patent biologicals market in Belgium.

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

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).

METHODS AND DATA

We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex^® RED BOOK^® for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.

RESULTS

Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).

CONCLUSION

Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.

Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmaceutical policies are generally based on the assumption that involved stakeholders make rational decisions. However, behavioral economics has taught us that this is not always the case as people deviate from rational behavior in rather predictable patterns. This scoping review examined to what extent behavioral concepts have already been applied in the pharmaceutical domain and what evidence exists about their effectiveness, with the aim of formulating future applications and research hypotheses on policymaking for best-value biologicals.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted on the evidence of behavioral applications to pharmaceuticals. Scientific databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, and Scopus) were searched up to 20 October, 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four full-text scientific articles were identified and narratively described in this article. Pharmaceutical domains where behavioral concepts have been investigated relate to influencing prescribing behavior, improving medication adherence, and increasing vaccination uptake. Multiple behavioral concepts were examined in the identified studies, such as social norms, defaults, framing, loss aversion, availability, and present bias. The effectiveness of the applied interventions was generally positive, but depended on the context. Some of the examined interventions can easily be translated into effective policy interventions for best-value biological medicines. However, some applications require further investigation in a research context.

CONCLUSIONS

Applications of behavioral economics to pharmaceutical policymaking are promising. However, further research is required to investigate the effect of behavioral applications on policy interventions for a more sustainable market environment for best-value biological medicines.

Determinants of prescribing decisions for off-patent biological medicines in Belgium: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A competitive market for off-patent biologicals leads to more affordable and high-quality healthcare. In recent years, Belgium has been characterized by its low use of biosimilars and by its shifts from off-patent biologicals toward new alternative therapies. Yet, the prescribing decisions involved in these observations are poorly understood. This study aims to better understand prescribing choices among Belgian physicians in the ambulatory care setting.

METHODS

This study consisted of two phases. First, a scoping literature review to identify determinants of prescribing choices was conducted. Scientific databases (Embase and PubMed) were searched until 4 November 2021. Second, the nominal group technique (NGT) was employed during focus group discussions with Belgian physicians to consider and validate these determinants for off-patent biologicals in the Belgian context. The qualitative data resulting from the literature review and focus group discussions were analyzed using the thematic framework method.

RESULTS

Fifty-three scientific articles that discussed elements that determine prescribing choices were identified. Out of these, 17 determinants of prescribing choices were found. These were divided into five categories: (1) product-related, (2) physicians' personal, (3) healthcare system-related, (4) patient-related, and (5) determinants related to the pharmaceutical company or brand. Nineteen Belgian physicians from different therapeutic areas that regularly prescribe biologicals then participated in focus group discussions. Using the NGT, the group discussions revealed that prescribing choices for off-patent biologicals are determined by a complex set of elements. Clinical data, geographical region, working environment, pharmaceutical marketing, patient profile, clinical guidelines, and preference of key opinion leaders (KOL) were considered most influential. Physicians indicated that the importance of these determinants differs depending on product classes or therapeutic domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple elements determine the choice of an off-patent biological or biosimilar product. The importance of each of these determinants varies depending on the context in which the prescribing choice is made. To increase the prescription of best-value biologicals in the Belgian ambulatory care, a set of synergistic measures is required including information for healthcare providers (HCP) and patients, prescribing feedback, prescribing targets, tangible incentives, KOL involvement, guidelines regarding pharmaceutical promotion, and regular revision of reimbursement modalities.

How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium?

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets.

Biosimilar Use and Switching in Belgium: Avenues for Integrated Policymaking

Background: By improving the affordability and accessibility of biologicals, biosimilar competition provides important benefits to healthcare systems and patients. In Belgium, biosimilar uptake and competition is limited compared to other European markets. Whereas other countries have initiated structured biosimilar introduction or switching plans, no such framework or guiding principles are yet available in Belgium.

Objective: This study aims to develop recommendations that can inform policy action in Belgium on biosimilar use, especially in the context of switch decision-making, and this by drawing from the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in procuring, prescribing, switching and dispensing biologicals including biosimilars.

Methods: This study made use of the consensus-building Nominal Group Technique, consisting of a three-step process 1) individual grading, 2) three structured Focus Group Discussions, 3) final individual grading involving an expert group of Belgian healthcare professionals (physician specialists and hospital pharmacists).

Results: Participants (n = 13) voiced challenges with the use of biosimilars and switching in practice, and a lack of incentives to use them. Six concrete areas for policy development to support stakeholders with biosimilar use and switch decision-making were identified: 1) address stakeholder hesitations regarding (multiple) switching, 2) provide meaningful incentives, 3) guide healthcare professionals with product decision-making, 4), align practical product modalities when possible, 5) involve healthcare professionals in policy making, and 6) provide practical switch support and patient information material, particularly in the ambulatory care setting. For each area, specific consensus-based recommendations were developed. Furthermore, a set of switch management and patient communication principles was derived, including amongst others, generating buy-in from involved stakeholders prior to switching and communicating with a one-voice message.

Conclusion: Without cohesive actions to reduce hurdles and without tangible benefits or steering mechanisms, changes in biosimilar use are unlikely in Belgium. To overcome this and stimulate market competitiveness, this study advances a set of concrete policy recommendations. At large, policy makers should develop an integrated policy framework, with a pro-active, best-value biological implementation roadmap that provides guidance and compelling measures to incentivize healthcare professionals to use biosimilars. Particular consideration should go to the ambulatory care setting, since drivers for biosimilar use are quasi absent in this context.

Determinants of drug expenditure in the Swiss healthcare market in 2006

BACKGROUND

Several measures are in force in Switzerland to control the cost of drugs, but are not effective enough. There are many determinants influencing these expenditures, related to treatments, markets, physicians, patients and regions, but their impact on costs is not clear.

METHODS

We applied a Bayesian multilevel model with five levels to adjust for patients, drugs' market, and physicians 'characteristics, treatment type, and district (i.e. Swiss canton). We used data of the Swiss drugs' market in 2006, offering real choices for doctors and patients (multiple products for similar active substances), with a neutral position of pharmacists (no financial incentives).

RESULTS

Variance partitioning of yearly drugs' cost per insured showed that market level (delivered substance) contributed to 76% of the variance, treatment level (delivered product) to 20%, whereas patients' and physicians' levels accounted for only 2% each, without significant differences between Swiss cantons. After adjusting for covariables at each level, the model explained about 51% of the variation at the market and 20% at the treatment levels. We found that older but substitutable drugs, generics, larger size of the market and physician's specialty were associated with lower expenditure, whereas drugs requiring a physician's prescription, the number of prescribers per patient, patient' age, male gender, and comorbidities increased expenditure. Our results show that for a specific medication the yearly cost of recently released drugs was 36 CHF higher than for similar and substitutable drugs introduced 15 years earlier, corresponding to one third of the average annual treatment cost observed in our dataset. Competition did not seem to be effective to reduce expenditure on the drug market.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this study is that recentness of drugs was associated with an increase in drug expenditure in 2006, even after adjustment for all non-controllable determinants. Further research is recommended to confirm those results with updated data.

Minimum Manufacturing Costs, National Prices, and Estimated Global Availability of New Repurposed Therapies for Coronavirus Disease 2019

BACKGROUND

Currently, only dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and sarilumab have conclusively been shown to reduce mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Safe and effective treatments will need to be both affordable and widely available globally to be used alongside vaccination programs. This analysis will estimate and compare potential generic minimum costs of a selection of approved COVID-19 drug candidates with available international list prices.

METHODS

We searched for repurposed drugs that have been approved by at least one of the World Health Organization, US Food and Drug Administration, or the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence organizations or at least given emergency use authorization or recommended for off-label prescription. Drug prices were searched for dexamethasone, budesonide, baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, and sarilumab, using active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) data extracted from global shipping records. This was compared with national pricing data from a range of low-, medium-, and high-income countries. Annual API export volumes from India were used to estimate the current availability of each drug.

RESULTS

Repurposed therapies can be generically manufactured for some treatments at very low per-course costs, ranging from US $2.58 for intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (or US $0.19 orally) and US $4.34 for inhaled budesonide. No export price data were available for baricitinib, tocilizumab, casirivimab, and imdevimab, or sarilumab, but courses of these treatments have higher prices, ranging from US $6.67 for baricitinib to US $875.5 for sarilumab. When comparing international list prices, we found wide variations between countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful management of COVID-19 will require equitable access to treatment for all populations, not just those able to pay high prices. Dexamethasone and budesonide are widely available and affordable, whereas monoclonal antibodies and IV treatment courses are more expensive.

Off-Patent Biological and Biosimilar Medicines in Belgium: A Market Landscape Analysis

Background and objective: Best-value biological medicines may generate competition in the off-patent biologicals market, resulting in having more resources available to provide patients with access to necessary medicines while maintaining high-quality care. Belgium is a country known to have low biosimilar market shares, suggesting a malfunctioning market for off-patent biologicals. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the Belgian off-patent biologicals market, by looking at the evolution in volumes and costs of the relevant products in the market. Methods: This study included a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part of this study consisted of the analysis of market data obtained by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) for all relevant products in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market (i.e. TNF-inhibitors, insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, epoetins, rituximab, trastuzumab). In addition, for the qualitative part of this study, semi-structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders were conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Results: Belgian market data and stakeholder perceptions suggest a suboptimal market environment for off-patent biological and biosimilar medicines. Shifts are observed after loss of exclusivities of originator biologicals toward second-generation products or new therapeutic class products, at a higher cost and often limited added value. Moreover, cost reductions for off-patent biologicals after biosimilar market entry are mainly determined by mandatory price reductions applicable to both originator and biosimilar products, and not by lower prices induced by competition. For products used in the retail setting, significant mandatory price reductions for both originator and reference products with low biosimilar volumes were pointed out as the main reasons for the lack of price competition. For products dispensed in hospitals, the hospital financing system is important. First, it does not always encourage the use of lower cost alternatives. Second, competition mainly takes place at the level of confidential discounts in tenders. Most interviewees acknowledged the lack of a competitive environment, which is not supportive of a sustainable Belgian off-patent biologicals market. Conclusion: Market data and stakeholder perceptions indicate that the sustainability of the Belgian market for off-patent biologicals is challenged. A sustainable market ensures access to biological therapies now and in the future.

The Off-Patent Biological Market in Belgium: Is the Health System Creating a Hurdle to Fair Market Competition?

We investigated the off-patent biological market in Belgium from a policy maker’s perspective, in light of the Belgian pharmaceutical health system. The main barriers relate to a short-term budgetary focus, to the overwhelming innovator’s reach and to a concertation model with assessment and appraisal being mixed which results in poorly effective policy measures.