Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

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.

Obstacles to Biosimilar Acceptance and Uptake in Oncology: A Review

Importance

Biosimilar drugs provide cost-effective yet clinically indistinguishable replications of target drugs. During initial development, this class of biologic medicines was expected to revolutionize pharmaceutical markets; however, following US Food and Drug Administration approval of the first biosimilar drug in 2015, the commercialization of biosimilars has been limited. The lack of biosimilar use may be especially salient in oncology, given that biosimilar distribution in this particularly high-cost area of medicine would bring savings on the order of many billions of dollars.

Observations

While researchers have focused on salient economic barriers to biosimilar uptake in the US, the present review provides insight regarding noneconomic barriers. This review discusses psychological, attitudinal, and educational factors among both health care professionals and payers in the US that may play a role in slowing biosimilar uptake. More specifically, these factors include a lack of health care professional education, concerns of safety and efficacy, and overly complex product naming systems.

Conclusions and Relevance

The pathway to biosimilar use has been obstructed by economic elements as well as attitudinal and psychological factors. For biosimilar drugs to achieve their potential in decreasing treatment costs and thus increasing patient access, it will be essential for both economic and noneconomic factors to be identified and systematically addressed.

Provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar utilization in community oncology practices

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars reduce the burden of cost on patients and payers, and so doing, increase access to life-saving care. However, biosimilar uptake in the US has been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar use and their relationships to utilization rates in a large, national oncology network and examined if perceptions differed by demographic and practice characteristics.

METHODS

A 28-item survey was administered to 400 network physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and administrators, spanning 25 provider groups, and measured 1) barriers to use categorized into 4 subscales-payer-related, provider-related, operational, and patient-related, using a Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5); and 2) demographic and practice characteristics. Utilization rates were assessed using aggregated patient-level drug administration data found in the electronic health record system. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe responses and assess relationships between variables.

RESULTS

A total of 46 responses were analyzed, with a response rate of 11.5%. Most respondents were female (55.6%), physicians (52.2%), with over 6 years of experience (67%). A majority worked in practices participating in the Oncology Care Model (86.7%) and received continuing education on biosimilars (84.8%). Overall scale score was moderately low (mean=2.31), indicating low levels of perceived barriers. The lowest subscale score was operational barriers (mean=2.21), while payer-related barriers was the highest (mean=2.78). Perceptions of barriers did not differ based on demographic and practice characteristics. The average biosimilar utilization rate was 66.2%, with practices in the West administering biosimilars most frequently (71.8%). Utilization was not impacted by perceptions of barriers.

CONCLUSION

Perceived barriers to biosimilar utilization were not common and not associated with utilization. Infrequent impediments to utilization may be associated with network-wide emphasis on continuing education and a value-based care environment. Future research should consider other practice- and patient-level factors that may impact biosimilar utilization.

Real-world clinical scenarios during introduction of trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive breast cancer in the European Union

Aim: Trastuzumab-anns is an intravenously administered biosimilar to trastuzumab approved by the EMA and US FDA for treatment of HER2+ early and metastatic breast cancer as well as metastatic gastric cancer. Lack of real-world characterization of biosimilar use has hindered uptake. Methods: This observational chart review characterizes 488 patients who received trastuzumab-anns in EU clinical practice settings. Results: Approximately 2/3rds of patients initiated trastuzumab-anns in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings and most were naive new starters (70%). 30% were switchers from another trastuzumab, among whom 48% switched from trastuzumab iv. reference product. Common reasons for trastuzumab-anns discontinuation were a switch to another biosimilar product (34.8%, n = 85) or to trastuzumab reference product (15.6%, n = 38). Conclusion: Trastuzumab-anns was widely used in various treatment settings for HER2+ breast cancer.

Cancer treatment with biosimilar drugs: A review

Biosimilars are biological drugs created from living organisms or that contain living components. They share an identical amino-acid sequence and immunogenicity. These drugs are considered to be cost-effective and are utilized in the treatment of cancer and other endocrine disorders. The primary aim of biosimilars is to predict biosimilarity, efficacy, and treatment costs; they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and have no clinical implications. They involve analytical studies to understand the similarities and dissimilarities. A biosimilar manufacturer sets up FDA-approved reference products to evaluate biosimilarity. The contribution of next-generation sequencing is evolving to study the organ tumor and its progression with its impactful therapeutic approach on cancer patients to showcase and target rare mutations. The study shall help to understand the future perspectives of biosimilars for use in gastro-entero-logic diseases, colorectal cancer, and thyroid cancer. They also help target specific organs with essential mutational categories and drug prototypes in clinical practices with blood and liquid biopsy, cell treatment, gene therapy, recombinant therapeutic proteins, and personalized medications. Biosimilar derivatives such as monoclonal antibodies like trastuzumab and rituximab are common drugs used in cancer therapy. Escherichia coli produces more than six antibodies or antibody-derived proteins to treat cancer such as filgrastim, epoetin alfa, and so on.

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

CONCLUSION

Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

The Impact of Biosimilar Use on Total Cost of Care and Provider Financial Performance in the Medicare Oncology Care Model: A Population-Based Simulation Study

INTRODUCTION

Payment for oncology care is increasingly moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment (VBP). VBPs are agreements in which providers are held accountable for total cost of care (TCOC) through risk-sharing arrangements with payers that tie reimbursement levels to TCOC benchmarks. Oncology biosimilars may play an important role in managing financial risk in the VBPs like Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM), but there has been limited research in this area. The objective of this study is to estimate the impact of biosimilar adoption on TCOC and oncology provider financial performance under the terms of the Medicare OCM.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based simulation study using the Medicare Limited Data Set (LDS) and the methodology of Medicare's OCM. The primary outcome was the simulated average change in TCOC per 6-month episode of care attributable to use of biosimilars as an alternative to reference products. The study population consisted of episodes of care in 2020 and using the reference product or corresponding biosimilar for bevacizumab, rituximab, trastuzumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, or pegfilgrastim. TCOC was calculated for each episode of care with use of reference products only and compared with TCOC with corresponding biosimilars. The simulation calculated TCOC outcomes in cohorts of 100 episodes sampled from the Medicare LDS study population using a Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations.

RESULTS

Among the total of 8281 6-month oncology care episodes identified in the study period (initiating January 2020 to July 2020) in Medicare claims, 1586 (19.2%) episodes met OCM and study criteria and were included. Applying the simulation methods to these observed episodes, biosimilar substitution reduced mean TCOC per episode by $1193 (95% CI $583-1840). The cost reduction from biosimilars represented 2.4% of the average TCOC benchmark and led to a 15% reduction in the risk of providers needing to pay recoupments to Medicare for exceeding TCOC benchmarks.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our simulation study using observed Medicare claims and OCM criteria, we found that biosimilar substitution for reference products can significantly lower episode TCOC and improve provider financial performance under the terms of the largest value-based payment model implemented to date.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Bevacizumab-awwb Biosimilar versus Bevacizumab Reference Product in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab-awwb was the first biosimilar approved for cancer treatment in the USA. Limited information is available on the real-world comparative safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab biosimilars, especially for indications granted approval through extrapolation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the real-world outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) initiated on bevacizumab-awwb versus bevacizumab reference product.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an observational, longitudinal cohort study of US adult patients with mCRC from four integrated care delivery systems who were newly initiated on bevacizumab-awwb between 1 July 2019 and 30 March 2020 or bevacizumab reference product between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2018. Patients were followed until 1 year after treatment initiation, end of plan membership, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary outcome of overall survival (OS) was analyzed using a binary non-inferiority test with lower margin of 10% and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to assess all-cause mortality if non-inferiority was met. Secondary outcomes included counts of doses received, treatment duration, all-cause hospitalizations, and incidence of serious adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 1445 patients initiated on either bevacizumab-awwb (n = 239) or bevacizumab reference product (n = 1206) were included in the analysis. The mean overall age was 60 ± 13 years, 46% of patients were female, and 51% were white. The OS rate was 72.8% and 73.1% for patients receiving bevacizumab-awwb and bevacizumab reference product, respectively (p < 0.01 for non-inferiority). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 1.01 (0.77-1.33, p = 0.93). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that bevacizumab-awwb is as effective and safe as bevacizumab reference product for the real-world treatment of mCRC.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021

PURPOSE

Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use.

METHODS

We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices.

RESULTS

Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

ASCO Policy Statement on Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products in Oncology

As the voice of cancer care clinicians and the patients they serve, ASCO has taken steps to elevate awareness about biosimilar products and their use in oncology. In 2018, ASCO released its Statement on Biosimilars in Oncology which was subsequently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to serve as an educational tool which highlighted and provided guidance on several topical areas surrounding biosimilars. At the time of its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved eight biosimilar products for use in the United States, including one product for use as a supportive care agent in the cancer setting and two products for use in the treatment for cancer. This number has risen dramatically (40 approvals), with a total of 22 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products approved since 2015. Recently, the FDA also approved the four interchangeable biosimilar products for diabetes, certain inflammatory diseases, and certain ophthalmic diseases. Given the current market dynamics and the regulatory landscape, this ASCO manuscript now seeks to propose several policy recommendations across the scope of value, interchangeability, clinician barriers, and patient education and access. This policy statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies and serves to affirm our commitment to providing education to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting.

The Role of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor Biosimilars for Supportive Cancer Care: A Year in Review

This year-in-review article provides insights into clinical updates relating to granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars research presented at five key congresses in 2022. These include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 55th Annual Meeting (3rd–7th June 2022, Chicago, Illinois, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress (9th–13th September 2022, Paris, France), ESMO Asia Congress (2nd–4th December 2022, Singapore), San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS; 6th–10th December 2022, Texas, USA), and American Society of Hematology (ASH) 64th Annual Meeting and Exposition (10th–13th December 2022, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA). Alongside reviewing the current research presented at these key congresses, with a focus on the use of G-CSF agents and biosimilars in patients undergoing treatment for breast, colorectal, and gynaecological cancers, this article provides an overview of current guidelines on the use of G-CSF in supportive cancer care to manage chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and explores trends in G-CSF biosimilars research.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Biosimilars in Oncology: Latest Trends and Regulatory Status

Biologic-based medicines are used to treat a variety of diseases and account for around one-quarter of the worldwide pharmaceutical market. The use of biologic medications among cancer patients has resulted in substantial advancements in cancer treatment and supportive care. Biosimilar medications (or biosimilars) are very similar to the reference biologic drugs, although they are not identical. As patent protection for some of the most extensively used biologics begins to expire, biosimilars have the potential to enhance access and provide lower-cost options for cancer treatment. Initially, regulatory guidelines were set up in Europe in 2003, and the first biosimilar was approved in 2006 in Europe. Many countries, including the United States of America (USA), Canada, and Japan, have adopted Europe's worldwide regulatory framework. The use of numerous biosimilars in the treatment and supportive care of cancer has been approved and, indeed, the count is set to climb in the future around the world. However, there are many challenges associated with biosimilars, such as cost, immunogenicity, lack of awareness, extrapolation of indications, and interchangeability. The purpose of this review is to provide an insight into biosimilars, which include various options available for oncology, and the associated adverse events. We compare the regulatory guidelines for biosimilars across the world, and also present the latest trends and challenges in medical oncology both now and in the future, which will assist healthcare professionals, payers, and patients in making informed decisions, increasing the acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice, increasing accessibility, and speeding up the health and economic benefits associated with biosimilars.

Characterizing experiences of non-medical switching to trastuzumab biosimilars using data from internet-based surveys with US-based oncologists and breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

To characterize current experiences with communication and decision-making practices when non-medical switching to a biosimilar trastuzumab is proposed or required by cancer center or insurer.

METHODS

We developed and launched 60- and 51-item internet surveys to elicit US breast cancer patient and medical oncologist lived experiences with trastuzumab biosimilars and patient information needs and seeking practices. We recruited participants using social media and administered via REDCap in 2020-2021.

RESULTS

143 breast cancer patients and 33 medical oncologists completed the surveys. 63.9% patients reported having switched to a trastuzumab biosimilar and 40.8% reported receiving no prior notification about switching. 44% of patients reported learning about biosimilars primarily through self-directed learning and 41% wanting more time to discuss with oncologist. None of the oncologists reported that the decision to switch a patient to a biosimilar was initiated by them, but rather more frequently by the insurer (45.2%). About 54.8% reported not receiving any pharmaceutical manufacturer material related to the selected biosimilar. Patients and oncologists diverged in their responses to items regarding patient opportunities to ask questions, adequacy of resources, effectiveness of treatment, patient worry, and magnitude of change.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for tailored and effective patient and oncologist information and education on trastuzumab biosimilars, along with improved healthcare communication regarding switching. The discrepancy between patient-reported experiences and oncologist perceptions of the patient experience, suggests a lack of adequate information that may be a challenge not only to the uptake of trastuzumab biosimilars, but to the patient-oncologist relationship.

Webinar as an Informational Resource on Trastuzumab Biosimilars: Planning, Promotion, Execution, and Evaluation

Despite the incorporation of trastuzumab biosimilars (to treat HER2-positive breast cancer) in clinical practice guidelines, gaps remain such as patient and clinician education. We hosted a webinar comprised of a panel of biosimilars experts, oncologists, pharmacist, infusion nurse, patient advocate. The outcomes of the webinar include: audience responses to pre- and post-webinar questionnaires, educational benefits, real-time opportunities to ask questions, recorded webinar. Education needs to be tailored to the needs of both, patients and clinicians.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update evidence-based guideline recommendations to practicing oncologists and others on systemic therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review (for both systemic treatment and CNS metastases) and identified 545 articles. Outcomes of interest included efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

Of the 545 publications identified and reviewed, 14 were identified to form the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

HER2-targeted therapy is recommended for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, except for those with clinical congestive heart failure or significantly compromised left ventricular ejection fraction, who should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and taxane for first-line treatment and trastuzumab deruxtecan for second-line treatment are recommended. In the third-line setting, clinicians should offer other HER2-targeted therapy combinations. There is a lack of head-to-head trials; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to recommend one regimen over another. The patient and the clinician should discuss differences in treatment schedule, route, toxicities, etc during the decision-making process. Options include regimens with tucatinib, trastuzumab emtansine, trastuzumab deruxtecan (if either not previously administered), neratinib, lapatinib, chemotherapy, margetuximab, hormonal therapy, and abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant, and may offer pertuzumab if the patient has not previously received it. Optimal duration of chemotherapy is at least 4-6 months or until maximum response, depending on toxicity and in the absence of progression. HER2-targeted therapy can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities. For patients with HER2-positive and estrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer, clinicians may recommend either standard first-line therapy or, for selected patients, endocrine therapy plus HER2-targeted therapy or endocrine therapy alone.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.