How do biosimilars sustain value, affordability, and access to oncology care?

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

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.

Interface policies bridging outpatient and hospital sectors in Europe: can cross-sectorial collaboration in reimbursement and procurement improve access to affordable medicines?

INTRODUCTION

Pharmaceutical systems are frequently characterized by fragmentation, and competences for outpatient and inpatient sectors sit with different authorities, payers, and purchasers. This fragmentation of responsibilities can incentivize shifting expensive therapies and thus patients from one sector to the other.

AREAS COVERED

Reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe addressing unwanted consequences of this fragmentation were identified through literature reviews and surveys with policy-makers. Good practice examples include cross-sectorial reimbursement lists managed by committees with representatives from the outpatient and hospital sectors, specific funding mechanisms, joint procurement involving purchasers from both sectors, actions against procurement contracts prohibiting generic competition, and an extension of Health Technology Assessment to the hospital sector.

EXPERT OPINION

Recognizing fragmentation as a major challenge for pharmaceutical systems, policy-makers in some countries reacted by implementing policies to support cross-sectorial collaboration. However, only a handful of good practice examples exist for reimbursement and procurement policies in Europe. Though robust evaluations are lacking, there are indications that pharmaceutical policies which ensure collaboration at the interface of the outpatient and inpatient sectors would likely result in efficiency gains and better use of public budgets and may serve as lever to improve access to medicines.

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars versus reference biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A meta-analysis

Background: Although with the application of etanercept biosimilars in the field of rheumatoid arthritis, the evidences of their efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity are still limited. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars for treating active rheumatoid arthritis compared to reference biologics (Enbrel^®). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials of etanercept biosimilars treated in adult patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from their earliest records to 15 August 2022. The outcomes included ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rate at different time points from FAS or PPS, adverse events, and proportion of patients developed anti-drug antibodies. The risk of bias of each included study was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Six RCTs with 2432 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 at 24 weeks from PPS [5 RCTs, OR = 1.22 (1.01, 1.47), p = 0.04, I ² = 49%, high certainty], ACR50 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.43 (1.10, 1.86), p < 0.01, I ² = 0%, high certainty] or FAS [2 RCTs, OR = 1.36 (1.04, 1.78), p = 0.03, I ² = 0%, high certainty], and ACR70 at 1 year from PPS [3 RCTs, OR = 1.32 (1.01, 1.71), p = 0.04, I ² = 0%, high certainty]. In terms of other outcomes about efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, the results showed that there was no significant difference between etanercept biosimilars and reference biologics, and the certainty of evidences ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: Etanercept biosimilars showed more benefits in ACR50 response rate at 1 year than reference biologics (Enbrel^®), other outcomes for clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of etanercept biosimilars were comparable with originator in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022358709.

Identification of Barriers Preventing Biosimiliar Oncology Medication Adoption

(1) Background: A biosimilar is a biologic medical product that has been approved by the United States Food and Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and is an almost identical copy of an original biologic product yet manufactured by a different company. Biosimilars are often assumed to be the same as generic medications, while often made from living organisms. Through clinical trials, biosimilars have been shown to be both as safe and as effective as their originator products. Biosimilars have also proven they can reduce the costs to both insurance companies and patients in many circumstances. However, despite their cost savings, biosimilar manufacturers continue to face barriers in having oncologists and cancer centers prescribe them for their patients. This review aims to identify barriers associated with medical provider prescriptive behaviors related to biosimilars for patients. (2) Methods: Reviewers analyzed 27 articles and identified common themes. (3) Results: After a thorough literature review, the researchers identified seven barriers to prescribing of biosimilars: physician comfort in originators instead of biosimilars, patient reluctance to switch from a current biologic to a biosimilar, provider profits associated with an originator biologic, lack of stakeholder education on biosimilars, lack of provider team knowledge of biosimilars, lack of knowledge surrounding the biosimilar FDA approval process, and hesitancy to stock multiple drugs for a specific indication. (4) Conclusions: This review's findings of identified barriers to use of biosimilars provides insight for healthcare providers and organizations surrounding prescribing practices and potential treatment benefits for cancer patients who may benefit from biosimilar treatment medications.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Compared With Reference Biologics in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Bevacizumab biosimilars are slowly making their way into cancer treatment, but the data on their efficacy and safety in cancer patients are still poor. We systematically summarized the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

Methods: This review searched CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Library (Ovid) for randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab biosimilars treated in adults with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC. A pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on the random-effect model were performed to summarize the evidence. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results: Ten eligible trials with a total of 5526 patients were included. Seven trials (n = 4581) were for the NSCLC population, while three trials (n = 945) were for patients with CRC. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, the efficacy (objective response rate: risk ratio (RR) 0.98 [0.92–1.04], p = 0.45; progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 [0.92–1.10], p = 0.85; and overall survival: HR 1.06 [0.94–1.19], p = 0.35) and safety (incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: odds ratio (OR) 1.03 [0.91–1.16], p = 0.65) of bevacizumab biosimilars performed no significant difference with reference biologics in patients with NSCLC as well as metastatic CRC patients (objective response rate: RR 0.97 [0.87–1.09], p = 0.60; overall survival: HR 0.94 [0.70–1.25], p = 0.66; incidence of grade 3–5 adverse events: OR 0.78 [0.59–1.02], p = 0.73). Network estimates displayed 7 types of bevacizumab biosimilars in the medication regime of NSCLC patients who had no significant difference among each other in terms of efficacy and safety. The certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to moderate. Three types of biosimilars were found to be clinically equivalent to each other in the patients with CRC, which were evaluated with very low to moderate certainty.

Conclusion: In patients with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC, the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars were found to be comparable with those of reference biologics and each other.

Simulating Costs of Intravenous Biosimilar Trastuzumab vs. Subcutaneous Reference Trastuzumab in Adjuvant HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Belgian Case Study

This study aimed to compare drug costs and healthcare costs of a 1 year adjuvant course with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab vs. subcutaneous reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer from the Belgian hospital perspective. Our simulation is based on the methodology used by Tjalma and colleagues, and considered costs of drugs, healthcare professional time and consumables. We calculated intravenous drug costs for different body weights, and computed drug costs and healthcare costs to treat 100 patients with either trastuzumab formulation, assuming a binomial body weight distribution in this sample. Scenarios were run to account for drug discounts and intravenous vial sharing. Drug costs amounted to €1,431,282 with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and €1,522,809 with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab for a sample of 100 patients in the base case analysis. When healthcare professional time and consumables were also considered, healthcare costs with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab were similar to those with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab. Differences in healthcare costs between intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and subcutaneous reference trastuzumab depended on the level of discounts on these formulations and on intravenous vial sharing. Our case study demonstrates that comparing costs of intravenous vs. subcutaneous formulations is complex and multifactorial, and entails more than a simple cost comparison of products.