What drives the prescribing of growth hormone preparations in England? Prices versus patient preferences

Physician experience with once-weekly somatrogon versus once-daily rhGH regimen in pediatric patients with growth hormone deficiency: a cross-sectional survey of physicians from the global phase 3 study

Introduction

The standard of care for pediatric growth hormone deficiency (pGHD) is once-daily recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH). Somatrogon, a long-acting rhGH, requires less frequent, once-weekly, dosing. We describe physicians' preference for, experiences, and satisfaction with once-weekly somatrogon vs once-daily rhGH.

Methods

English-speaking investigators from somatrogon's global phase III study (NCT02968004) with prior experience using once-daily rhGH were included. Participants answered an online survey containing 14 closed- and open-ended items.

Results

Twenty-four pediatric endocrinologists (41.7% men; 79.2% practiced at public/private hospitals) from 12 countries with 25.8 ± 12.0 years' experience treating pGHD completed the survey. In terms of the time and effort required to explain device instructions, injection regimen, procedure for missed injection, and address patients'/caregivers' concerns, a similar proportion of physicians chose once-weekly somatrogon and once-daily rhGH; 62.5% physicians indicated that once-daily rhGH required greater effort to monitor adherence. Overall, 75% preferred once-weekly somatrogon over once-daily rhGH, 79.2% considered once-weekly somatrogon to be more convenient and less burdensome, and 83.3% were likely to prescribe somatrogon in the future. Overall, 50% felt that once-weekly somatrogon was more beneficial to patients, while 50% chose "No difference". Most physicians (62.5%) felt both regimens were equally likely to support positive long-term growth outcomes and reduce healthcare utilization. More physicians were "very satisfied" with once-weekly somatrogon (62.5%) than with once-daily rhGH (16.7%). Reduced injection frequency, patient and caregiver burden, increased convenience, and improved adherence were reasons for these choices.

Conclusion

Physicians had a positive experience with, and perception of, treating pGHD with once-weekly somatrogon.

A Look at the History of Biosimilar Adoption: Characteristics of Early and Late Adopters of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars in Subregions of England, Scotland and Wales - A Mixed Methods Study

Background

Regions within England, Scotland and Wales show variation in rate of adoption of biosimilar infliximab and etanercept.

Objectives

This study aims to examine how local decisions and practices in regions within England, Scotland and Wales might explain initial variation in market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept.

Methods

Market data provided by the National Health Service (NHS) on biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept uptake were analysed for the 10 historical regions of England, 14 health boards in Scotland and 7 health boards in Wales (2015–2018). Findings were discussed in ten semi-structured interviews: on a national level with an industry representative (1), on a regional level with NHS employees in England (6), Scotland (1) and Wales (1), and on a local level with a representative of a clinical commissioning group in England (1).

Results

Tenders for infliximab and etanercept in England, Scotland and Wales have consistently resulted in a biosimilar as the best value biological. Early and late biosimilar adopters are seen, with overall convergence towards high biosimilar market shares over time. Qualitative results suggest that biosimilar adoption was positively influenced by (a) a price difference between biosimilar and originator product making it worthwhile to switch patients; (b) a good relationship between commissioner and provider in England resulting in gain share agreements; (c) leadership on biosimilars in regional NHS offices in England or Scottish and Welsh health boards; (d) key opinion leaders or leading hospitals that start using biosimilars early and gain experience.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the savings potential drives biosimilar use. Regions with a proactive attitude, good stakeholder relationships, and clinician engagement were identified as early adopters.

Lost cost savings to the NHS in England due to the delayed entry of multiple generic low-dose transdermal buprenorphine: a case scenario analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator pharmaceutical companies prolonging the patent of a medicine prevents rivals' entry to the market and competition. As the entry of generic alternatives usually results in price reduction, any delay in their entry potentially deprives the National Health Service (NHS) of much-needed savings. This study estimates the potential cost savings lost to the NHS as a result of delayed entry of generic low-dose buprenorphine (LDTB) patches in England.

DESIGN

Two case scenarios were modelled to determine the savings from the entry of generic LDTB Butec only between February and August 2016 and the potential savings which could have been achieved if all generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time.

SETTING

The volume of utilisation of branded and generic LDTB in UK primary care was derived from the NHS business services authority website for prescriptions dispensed between February 2015 and January 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost savings associated with the entry of generic LDTB.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of Butec alone was £0.7 ($0.92) million. The model predicted that if all generic buprenorphine entered the market at the same time with Butec, they could have been achieved a £1.2 ($1.57) million saving. This means that approximately £0.5 ($0.65) million savings was lost to the NHS over the 6-month time period.

CONCLUSIONS

The entry of Butec was associated with cost savings. We estimated that more cost savings could have been achieved if other generic LDTB patches had entered the market at the same time to drive competition between rivals. Patent protection strategies which delayed the entry of multiple generics were responsible for the reduced cost savings to the NHS in England.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions and perspectives on biosimilar medicines and the barriers and facilitators to their prescribing in UK: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate UK healthcare professionals' perceptions and perspectives towards biosimilar infliximab, etanercept and insulin glargine and the potential barriers and facilitators to their prescribing.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional qualitative study design was used.

SETTING

Five hospitals within the West Midlands area in UK.

INTERVENTIONS

30 min face-to-face, semistructured interviews of healthcare professionals.

PARTICIPANTS

22 healthcare professionals (consultants, nurses and pharmacists) participated in the semistructured interviews.

OUTCOMES

Participants' opinion and attitudes about biosimilars and the barriers and facilitators to the prescribing of infliximab, etanercept and insulin glargine biosimilars in gastroenterology, rheumatology and diabetology specialties.

RESULTS

This study showed that UK healthcare professionals had good knowledge of biosimilars and were content to initiate them. Healthcare professionals disagreed with biosimilar auto-substitution at pharmacy level and multiple switching. Subtle differences among healthcare professionals were identified in the acceptance of switching stable patients, indication extrapolation and cost savings sharing.

CONCLUSION

Safety and efficacy concerns, patients' opinion and how cost savings were shared were the identified barriers to considering prescribing biosimilars. Real-life data and financial incentives were the suggested facilitators to increase biosimilar utilisation.

Shared Decision-Making in Growth Hormone Therapy-Implications for Patient Care

Several studies have shown that adherence to growth hormone therapy (GHT) is not optimal. There are several reasons why patients may not fully adhere to their treatment regimen and this may have implications on treatment success, patient outcomes and healthcare spending and resourcing. A change in healthcare practices, from a physician paternalistic to a more patient autonomous approach to healthcare, has encouraged a greater onus on a shared decision-making (SDM) process whereby patients are actively encouraged to participate in their own healthcare decisions. There is growing evidence to suggest that SDM may facilitate patient adherence to GHT. Improved adherence to therapy in this way may consequently positively impact treatment outcomes for patients. Whilst SDM is widely regarded as a healthcare imperative, there is little guidance on how it should be best implemented. Despite this, there are many opportunities for the implementation of SDM during the treatment journey of a patient with a GH-related disorder. Barriers to the successful practice of SDM within the clinic may include poor patient education surrounding their condition and treatment options, limited healthcare professional time, lack of support from clinics to use SDM, and healthcare resourcing restrictions. Here we discuss the opportunities for the implementation of SDM and the barriers that challenge its effective use within the clinic. We also review some of the potential solutions to overcome these challenges that may prove key to effective patient participation in treatment decisions. Encouraging a sense of empowerment for patients will ultimately enhance treatment adherence and improve clinical outcomes in GHT.