How to select a biosimilar

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

SUMMARY

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

CONCLUSION

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards Biosimilars and Interchangeable Products: A Prescriptive Insight by the Pharmacists

Background

Pharmacists being the drug experts need to be well aware of the applied handling of biosimilar medicines (BSMs). They are an integral educator, trailblazer, and advocate of biosimilar integration across all clinical settings. Therefore, the current study was conducted to assess the pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude, and practices of integrating BSMs into clinical practice.

Methods

The cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to November 2019. The community pharmacies, clinical and academic settings in Karachi were approached for gathering the responses of pharmacists towards BSMs and interchangeable products using a 30-item survey form. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were used to identify the relationship among independent variables and the responses, considering p values <0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

Overall, there were 305 survey forms used with a response rate of 87.14%. More than 80% of the respondents have good knowledge about the definition, characteristics, safety and efficacy, compatibility, cost issues, and utilization of BSMs. Around half of the respondents (48.9%, [95% CI 46.6–51.2]) were confident in using BSMs in clinical practice. However, they were concerned about the BSM’s safety profile (45.2%, [95% CI 42.1–48.3]), quality (30.2%, [95% CI 28.3–32.1]), and efficacy issues (32.3%, [95% CI 31.2–37.5]).

Conclusion

The findings revealed that pharmacists were well informed about the BSMs. However, some of the responses to the attitude demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of that knowledge. The respondents persuaded that advanced patterns of diseases, product marketing stipulations, and need for better patient care drives higher demand for developing BSMs and were enthusiastic about gaining more insight to integrate BSMs into routine clinical practice.

The process defines the product: what really matters in biosimilar design and production?

Biologic drugs are highly complex molecules produced by living cells through a multistep manufacturing process. The key characteristics of these molecules, known as critical quality attributes (CQAs), can vary based on post-translational modifications that occur in the cellular environment or during the manufacturing process. The extent of the variation in each of the CQAs must be characterized for the originator molecule and systematically matched as closely as possible by the biosimilar developer to ensure bio-similarity. The close matching of the originator fingerprint is the foundation of the biosimilarity exercise, as the analytical tools designed to measure differences at the molecular level are far more sensitive and specific than tools available to physicians during clinical trials. Biosimilar development, therefore, has a greater focus on preclinical attributes compared with the development of an original biological agent. As changes in CQAs can occur at different stages of the manufacturing process, even small modifications to the process can alter biosimilar attributes beyond the point of similarity and impact clinical effectiveness and safety. The manufacturer's ability to provide consistent production and quality control will greatly influence the acceptance of biosimilars. To this end, preventing drift from the required specifications over time and avoiding the various implications brought by product shortage will enhance biosimilar integration into daily practice. As most prescribers are not familiar with this new drug development paradigm, educational programmes will be needed so that prescribers see biosimilars as fully equivalent, efficacious and safe medicines when compared with originator products.

How to select a nanosimilar

Nanomedicines in the class of nonbiological complex drugs (NBCDs) are becoming increasingly available. Up to 23 nanomedicines have been approved, and approximately 50 are in clinical development. Meanwhile, the first nanosimilars have entered the market through the generic approval pathway, but clinical differences have been observed. Many healthcare professionals may be unaware of this issue and must be informed of these clinically relevant variances. This article provides a tool for rational decision making for the inclusion of nanomedicines into the hospital formulary, including defined criteria for evaluation of substitutability or interchangeability. The tool was generated by conducting a roundtable with an international panel of experts and follows the same thought process that was developed and published earlier for the selection of biologicals/biosimilars. In addition to the existing criteria for biosimilars, a set of seven criteria was identified that specifically apply to nanosimilars. These include (1) particle size and size distribution, (2) particle surface characteristics, (3) fraction of uncaptured bioactive moiety, (4) stability on storage, (5) bioactive moiety uptake and (6) distribution, and (7) stability for ready-to-use preparation. Pharmacists should utilize their pharmaceutical expertise to use the appropriate criteria to evaluate the comparability of the drug to decide on interchangeability or substitutability.

Medication practice in hospitals: are nanosimilars evaluated and substituted correctly?

Introduction

This study investigates the drug selection and dispensing behaviour of hospital pharmacists of intravenous iron products including iron sucrose and iron sucrose similar, with special emphasis on substitution and interchangeability in France and Spain. Iron-carbohydrate complex drugs represent different available intravenous iron drugs and are part of the non-biological complex drug (NBCD) class, an expanding drug class with up to 30 brands available in intravenous pharmacotherapy and over 50 in clinical development. Follow-on versions of iron sucrose have appeared in some markets such as France and Spain, which were authorised by the generic approval pathway. However, differences in clinical efficacy and safety of iron sucrose similars compared with the reference originator drug Venofer have been observed, putting a question mark on their equivalence as assessed for authorisation and consequently their substitutability and interchangeability.

Method

70 French and 70 Spanish hospital pharmacists were surveyed via an online questionnaire on their formulary selection and dispensing behaviour of intravenous iron medicines.

Results

There is little awareness about the characteristics of this class of drugs and the reported differences in safety and efficacy between iron sucrose and iron sucrose similars. In approximately 85% of cases the intravenous iron is chosen according to the hospital formulary. In 30% (France) and 34% (Spain) of cases an iron sucrose similar was dispensed because the formulary requires dispensing an alternative lower cost drug when available. In 26% (France) and 52% (Spain) of cases the physician is not informed on such a medication change using a similar product.

Conclusions

Evaluation of NBCD similars for substitution and interchange by hospital pharmacists is rarely based on scientific and clinical criteria but rather on cost aspects only, which does not ensure safe, efficacious and cost-effective use of such drugs.

Overcoming Barriers to the Market Access of Biosimilars in the European Union: The Case of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies

BACKGROUND

In 2014, six of the top ten blockbuster medicines were monoclonal antibodies. This multibillion-dollar market with expiring patents is the main driver for the development of biosimilar mAbs. With the ever-increasing cost of healthcare and the economic pressure to reduce or sustain healthcare expenses, biosimilars could be instrumental in reducing costs for medication and increasing patient access to treatment.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to identify and describe the barriers to market access of biosimilar mAbs in the European Union and to analyze how these barriers could be overcome.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was carried out using the databases PubMed, Embase, and EconLit. Studies were published in English or Dutch. Additionally, the reference list of the articles was checked for relevant studies. Articles and conference papers known to the authors were included as well. Articles were also identified by searching on the website of the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) journal.

RESULTS

Six barriers were identified based on available literature: The manufacturing process, the regulatory process, intellectual property rights, lack of incentive, the impossibility of substitution, and the innovator's reach. These six barriers are presented as a possible framework to study the market access of biosimilar mAbs. Based on the literature search, recommendations can be made to overcome these barriers: (i) invest initially in advanced production processes with the help of single-use technology, experience or outsourcing (ii) gain experience with the regulatory process and establish alignment between stakeholders (iii) limit patent litigation, eliminate evergreening benefits, build out further the unitary patent and unified patent litigation system within the EU (iv) create demand-side policies, disseminate objective information (v) change attitude toward biosimilar switching/substitution, starting with physician, and patient education (vi) differentiate the biosimilar by service offerings, use an appropriate comparator in cost-effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers to the market access of biosimilar mAbs could be reduced when more transparency and communication/education is used in all steps toward market access in order to increase the trust in biosimilar mAbs by all stakeholders. Only then biosimilar mAbs will be able to fully capture their cost saving potential.

Biosimilars - terms of use

The impending expiry of the patent on a number of leading biologic drugs has led to a surge in the development of 'biosimilar' or 'follow-on' products. However, in contrast to generic small-molecule medicines, biosimilars are not identical to their reference products. The differences and complexities surrounding both the molecular structure and the manufacturing process for biologics and biosimilars have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the terms used in different parts of the world to define various aspects of development and utilization such as regulatory approval, pharmacovigilance, interchangeability and treatment-naivety. This makes quantitative evaluation of biosimilars a great challenge to both the scientific community and regulatory agencies. This manuscript attempts to clarify the terms used and address an important knowledge gap which is currently resulting in an increasing rush to position biosimilars for certain indications and patients in the absence of agreed upon definitions.