A budget impact model for biosimilar infliximab in Crohn's disease in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia

Efficacy and safety of biosimilar versus originator infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A real-world cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monoclonal antibody, infliximab, is the primary therapeutic modality for patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), refractory to conventional therapy. Biosimilars of infliximab have been shown to have equivalent efficacy to originator infliximab. We compared the safety and efficacy of infliximab biosimilar with the originator in Indian patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

Patients with IBD treated with either originator or biosimilar infliximab from January 2005 to October 2020 were included in this retrospective analysis. The safety and efficacy of originator or biosimilar infliximab in inducing and maintaining clinical remission at weeks 14 and 52 for CD and UC were evaluated. Disease activity was estimated at baseline, after induction therapy, after 1 year of treatment, and during 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

In all, 137 patients (82 CD; 55 UC) were included, of whom 102 were on originator, and 35 patients received biosimilar. In biosimilar group, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 84.2%, 58% and 68.4%, 52.6% in CD and 81.2%, 56.2% and 68.7%, 62.5% in UC patients, respectively. Among patients who were on originator, clinical response and remission rates at weeks 14 and 52 were 79.4%, 46% and 57.1%, 43% in CD and 72%, 64.1% and 66.7%, 56.4% in UC patients, respectively. Thirty-three (24.1%) patients experienced adverse events; eighteen developed tuberculosis (TB), of whom 17 received originator and one patient received biosimilar.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab biosimilar is comparable to originator infliximab in terms of safety profile and its efficacy in inducing and maintaining remission in patients with IBD.

Biosimilars in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Real Life-Based Evidence

Background: Many pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are now using biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), with increasing trends in recent years. This study reviewed all available data regarding the use of biosimilars in children with IBD. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched through keywords; inflammatory bowel diseases, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, biosimilar and child were combined using "AND" and "OR." Original research articles involving pediatric patients receiving one of the biosimilar medications based on the anti-TNF-α biologic drugs approved for pediatric IBD treatment, independently from efficacy and drug response, were included. Results: Nine studies were included in the evidence synthesis. CT-P13 was the biosimilar used in all studies. Four studies assessed the induction effectiveness of CT-P13. Clinical response and remission rates of biosimilar treatment were 86-90% and 67-68%, respectively, and they were not significantly different to the originator group. Five prospective studies on patients elected to switch from originator IFX to CT-P13 yielded similar results. Adverse events related to CT-P13 were mostly mild. The most frequently reported were upper respiratory tract infections. The switch from the originator had no significant impact on immunogenicity. Conclusion: The current review showed reported CT-P13 effectiveness as measured by clinical response and/or remission rates after induction or during maintenance and suggest that there is no significant difference with that of the originator IFX. Further studies are warranted, including clinical, and pharmacovigilance studies.

An Introduction to Biosimilars for the Treatment of Retinal Diseases: A Narrative Review

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of disease across a number of therapeutic areas including retinal diseases. However, on occasion, such treatments may be relatively more expensive compared to small molecule therapies. This can restrict patient access and treatment length leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Several biosimilar candidates of ranibizumab and aflibercept are currently in development and the first biosimilar of ranibizumab received EMA approval in August and FDA approval in September 2021. Biosimilars are biological medicines that are highly similar to an already-approved biological medicine (reference product). The physicochemical and clinical similarity of a biosimilar is determined by a rigorous analytical and clinical program, including extensive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis with phase III equivalence studies where appropriate. These phase III studies are carried out in a patient population that is representative of all of the potential approved therapeutic indications of the originator product and the most sensitive for detecting potential differences between the biosimilar and the reference product. Biosimilars have been used successfully across a wide range of therapeutic areas for the past 15 years where they have achieved substantial cost savings that can be reinvested into healthcare systems without affecting the quality of patient care. The current review provides an introduction to biosimilars with the aim of preparing retinal specialists for discussing these products with their patients.

Current evidence on the use of the adalimumab biosimilar SB5 (ImraldiTM): a multidisciplinary perspective

INTRODUCTION

This review provides an overview of data from trials and real-world studies available for SB5 (Imraldi^TM) across three main therapeutic areas: rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search for publications on data for SB5 efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity was undertaken.

EXPERT OPINION

Evidence derived from clinical studies suggest that the biosimilar SB5 is a safe and effective alternative to reference adalimumab. Considering that patients suffering from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis often require long-term biologic treatment, biosimilar medicines (such as SB5) can reduce healthcare costs while increasing access to effective treatments.

The Impact of Reimbursement Practices on the Pharmaceutical Market for Off-Patent Medicines in Slovakia

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of selected legislative initiatives and their implementation for off-patent medicinal products in Slovakia compared with the rest of the Visegrád Group (V4 countries).

Methods: We analyzed the development of applications for the reimbursement of generic and biosimilar drugs. Particular emphasis was placed on a) the availability and penetration of biosimilars from 2006 to 2020 in Slovakia, b) a comparative analysis of biosimilars in V4 countries based on the national reimbursement lists of medicinal products for August 2021. Data relating to the sales of generic and biosimilar medicines in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia were based on the IQVIA MIDAS MAT July 2021.

Results: The number of applications for the reimbursement of generic drugs decreased from 296 in 2016 to 165 in 2020. In financial terms, the sales of generic medicines in Slovakia increased from 21.7% in 2015 to 22.3% in 2020. Over the same period, the sales of generic drugs in Poland fell from 40.4% in 2015 to 35.0% in 2020, from 26.2 to 22.1% in Hungary, and from 29.6 to 20.4% in Czechia. When considering the 66 biosimilars registered by the European Medicines Agency 38 drugs (58%) were available on the Slovak market as of August 1, 2021; this compared to 32 drugs (48%) in Poland, 38 drugs (58%) in Hungary, and 40 drugs (61%) in Czechia. In financial terms, the sales of biosimilars in Slovakia increased from 0.94% in 2015 to 2.00% in 2020. Over the same period, the sales of biosimilars in Poland increased from 0.59% in 2015 to 1.29% in 2020, from 0.72 to 2.23% in Hungary, and from 0.76 to 2.15% in Czechia.

Conclusion: To intensify the use of generic and biosimilar medicines, we suggest the comprehensive re-evaluation of combinations of the three-threshold entry, the amount of mandatory price reductions, and external reference pricing requirements (as the average of the three lowest prices among the official prices of a medicinal product in other Member States) for generic and biosimilar drugs. We also suggest cancellation of the exception from the fixed co-payment of the insured.

Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure

Introduction: Biosimilar medicines are considered promising alternatives to new biologicals with high price tags. The extent of savings resulting from biosimilar use depends on their price and uptake, which are largely shaped by pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies. This article informs about different policy measures employed by European countries to design the biologicals market and explores potential savings from the increased use of biosimilar medicines in Germany. Methods: Policy measures that target the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines were identified based on a prefilled questionnaire survey with public authorities in 16 European countries, who were the members of the Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Information network (July 2020). Potential savings that could have been generated in Germany if different measures identified in the surveyed countries had been implemented were calculated for six publicly funded biological molecules. Price data of the Pharma Price Information service and German consumption data for 2018 were used for the calculation of five scenarios. Results: Several countries use a price link policy, setting the biosimilar price as a percentage of the price of the reference biological. Also lowering the price of the reference biological upon market entry of a biosimilar is less frequently used. While tendering of biosimilar medicines in the inpatient setting is the norm, it is rarely employed for biosimilars in outpatient use. Reference price systems and INN prescribing of medicines are the commonly used policy measures in the off-patent market, but some countries define exemptions for biologicals. Substituting biosimilars at the pharmacy level is rather an exception. Potential savings in Germany ranged from 5% (simple price link) to 55% (prices at the level of other countries) for the six studied molecules. Conclusion: Despite some differences, there are discernible tendencies across European countries with regard to their applications of certain policy measures targeting the price and uptake of biosimilar medicines. The potential for savings of some of these policies was clearly demonstrated. Monitoring and evaluation of these rather recent measures is key for obtaining a more comprehensive picture of their impact.

Unlocking the Value of Anti-TNF Biosimilars: Reducing Disease Burden and Improving Outcomes in Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are chronic conditions that create a significant disease burden on millions of patients while adding a major financial burden to societies and healthcare systems.

The introduction of biologic medicines has contributed majorly to improving the clinical outcomes of IMIDs and as such these modalities have gained first- or second-line positions in a wide range of treatment guidelines from different international clinical societies. However, the high cost of these biologics traditionally limited their accessibility and delayed their initiation, leaving millions of patients with unmet medical needs for a more affordable and sustainable solution.

The introduction of cost-efficient biosimilar anti-TNFs within Europe since 2013 has allowed more patients with IMIDs to access biologic therapies earlier and for longer, potentially altering the course of the disease into a milder phenotype and reducing the long-term disease burden. This review provides the latest evidence for the impact of biosimilars on patient outcomes and demonstrates their clinical value beyond a reduction in price.

Potential Cost-Savings From the Use of the Biosimilars in Slovakia

Objectives: To analyse the market shares of biosimilars in Slovakia and to calculate the potential cost-savings from the use of biosimilars in Slovakia based on two different data sources. Methods: National reimbursement lists from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia were used for analyzing the availability of biosimilars with public funding. In addition, the reimbursement dossiers of biosimilars, the justifications of reimbursement decisions by the Slovak Ministry of Health, and final reimbursement decrees, which are published on the webpage of the Slovak Ministry of Health, were utilized for this study. Reimbursement decisions regarding biosimilars by the Slovak Ministry of Health from 2006 to August 2019 were considered and the detailed utilization of biosimilars in 2018 was analyzed based on data from the State Institute for Drug Control. The study was validated based on data from the Slovak National Health Information Center. Results: Fifty four biosimilars were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in August 2019. Of the total group of licensed biosimilars on the market, 29 biosimilars (54%) were available in the Czech Republic, 28 biosimilars (52%) were available in Poland, and 27 biosimilars (50%) were available in Hungary and 24 biosimilars (44%) were available in Slovakia. Our analysis, based on the data provided by distributors of medicinal products to the State Institute for Drug Control, revealed that the health fund in Slovakia could have saved 35 to 50 million euros per year if biosimilars with marketing authorisations had been available on the Slovak market. The calculations assumed a 25-35% price decrease against the original biological medical products, and that there would be no increase in the utilization of biosimilars in Slovakia. Conclusions: To achieve significant improvement in patient access to biosimilars in Slovakia, a top-down approach establishing targets and quotas for the procurement of biosimilars should be applied.

Lengthening adalimumab dosing interval in quiescent Crohn's disease patients: protocol for the pragmatic randomised non-inferiority LADI study

INTRODUCTION

Adalimumab is effective for maintenance of remission in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks. However, adalimumab is associated with (long-term) adverse events and is costly. The aim of this study is to demonstrate non-inferiority and cost-effectiveness of disease activity guided adalimumab interval lengthening compared to standard dosing of every other week (EOW).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Lengthening Adalimumab Dosing Interval (LADI) study is a pragmatic, multicentre, open label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Non-inferiority is reached if the difference in cumulative incidence of persistent (>8 weeks) flares does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%. 174 CD patients on adalimumab maintenance therapy in long-term (>9 months) clinical and biochemical remission will be included (C-reactive protein (CRP) <10 mg/L, faecal calprotectin (FC) <150 µg/g, Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI) <5). Patients will be randomised 2:1 into the intervention (adalimumab interval lengthening) or control group (adalimumab EOW). The intervention group will lengthen the adalimumab administration interval to every 3 weeks, and after 24 weeks to every 4 weeks. Clinical and biochemical disease activity will be monitored every 12 weeks by physician global assessment, HBI, CRP and FC. In case of disease flare, dosing will be increased. A flare is defined as two of three of the following criteria; FC>250 µg/g, CRP≥10 mg/l, HBI≥5. Secondary outcomes include cumulative incidence of transient flares, adverse events, predictors for successful dose reduction and cost-effectiveness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Medical Ethics Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (registration number NL58948.091.16). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT registry (2016-003321-42); Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03172377); Dutch trial registry (NTRID6417).

Biosimilars: concept, current status, and future perspectives in inflammatory bowel diseases

The inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), which consist of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, are chronic, incurable immunemediated inflammatory disorders of the intestine. As IBD incidence continues to increase globally and its mortality is low, prevalent cases of IBD are rapidly increasing, thereby leading to a substantial increase in health care costs. Although the introduction of biologic agents for IBD management has revolutionized the armamentarium of IBD therapy, the high cost of this therapy is concerning. With the expirations of patents for existing biologic agents (originals), biosimilars with cheaper costs have been highlighted in the field of IBD. Despite concerns regarding their short- and long-term efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and interchangeability, increasing evidence via prospective observations and phase III or IV clinical trials, which aim to prove the "biosimilarity" of biosimilars to originals, has partly confirmed their efficacy, safety, and interchangeability. Additionally, although patients and physicians are reluctant to use biosimilars, a positive budget impact has been reported owing to their use in different countries. In the near future, multiple biosimilars with lower costs, and efficacy and safety profile similar to originals, could be used to treat IBD; thus, further consideration and knowledge dissemination are warranted in this new era of biosimilars.

Potential cost-savings from the use of the biosimilars filgrastim, infliximab and insulin glargine in Canada: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

In 2014 and 2015, biosimilars for the drugs filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine were approved for use in Canada. The introduction of biosimilars in Canada could provide significant cost savings for the Canadian healthcare system over originator biologic drugs, however it is known that the use of biosimilars varies widely across the world. The aim of this study was to estimate the use of biosimilars in Canada and potential cost-savings from their use.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of Canadian drug purchases for filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine from July 2016 to June 2018. This was a cross-sectional study and the time horizon was limited to the study period. As a result, no discounting of effects over time was included. Canadian drugstore and hospital purchases data, obtained from IQVIA™, were used to estimate the costs per unit and unit volume for biosimilars and originator biologic drugs within each province. Potential cost-savings were calculated as a product of the units of reference originator product purchased and the cost difference between the originator biologic and its corresponding biosimilar.

RESULTS

The purchase of biosimilars varied by each province in Canada, ranging from a low of 0.1% to a high of 81.6% of purchases. In total, $1,048,663,876 Canadian dollars in savings could have been realized with 100% use of biosimilars over the originator products during this 2 year time period. The potential savings are highest in the province of Ontario ($349 million); however, even in smaller markets (PEI and Newfoundland), $28 million could have potentially been saved. Infliximab accounted for the vast majority of the potential cost-savings, whereas the purchases of the biosimilar filgrastim outpaced that of the originator drug in some provinces. In sensitivity analyses assuming only 80% of originator units would be eligible for use as a biosimilar, $838 million dollars in cost savings over this two-year time period would still have been realized.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall use of biosimilar drugs in Canada is low. Policy makers, healthcare providers, and patients need to be informed of potential savings by increased use of biosimilars, particularly in an increasingly costly healthcare system.

Effectiveness and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in a real-life setting in patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis

Objective: To assess the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in a real-life setting in adults with moderate-to-severe active Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Methods: This multi-centre, observational cohort study was conducted at medical centres in Romania, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria. Effectiveness was measured using the Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for CD or partial Clinical Activity Index (pCAI) for UC. Quality-of-life (QoL) was measured using the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ). Safety was assessed according to treatment withdrawals and adverse events (AEs) monitoring. Analyses were performed in the safety population and were reported based on the observed case (OC) or last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Results: Altogether, 85 patients with CD (n = 38) or UC (n = 47) received biosimilar infliximab for up to 30 weeks. Most patients (n = 68; 80.0%) had no prior exposure to infliximab. At the end of treatment, 65.8% (95% CI = 49.8–78.9) of CD patients and 55.3% (95% CI = 41.2–68.6) of UC patients showed a clinical response, and 47.4% (95% CI = 32.5–62.7) and 48.9% (95% CI = 35.3–62.8), respectively, were in remission. Statistically significant (p < 0.0001) improvements from baseline were observed in CDAI and pCAI scores (both LOCF). In the combined CD and UC population, SIBDQ was significantly improved (p < 0.0001) from baseline to end of treatment (OC). Two AEs (moderately severe infusion reactions) were judged by investigators to be definitely related to treatment, one of which led to treatment withdrawal.

Conclusion: Results align with those of previous studies demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of biosimilar infliximab in CD and UC.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Switching from infliximab to biosimilar in inflammatory bowel disease: overview of the literature and perspective

BACKGROUND

Biological therapy has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). After the expiration of patents for biological innovator products, development of biosimilars increased. CT-P13 was the first biosimilar approved for the same indications as the reference product; however, the approval was based on extrapolated data from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Our aim was to review clinical studies about switching from originator infliximab (IFX-O) to biosimilar infliximab (IXF-B) in IBD, focusing on recently published data and the future of biosimilars.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for original articles published up to 1 December 2018 reporting data on IFX-B in IBD.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies assessing switching from IFX-O to IFX-B, 14 assessing induction therapy with IFX-B were found. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were discussed. Studies confirm that CT-P13 is safe and equally efficient as the reference product for both induction and maintenance therapy; and that switching from the reference product to biosimilar is non-inferior to continuous biosimilar use. However, efficacy and safety data on Flixabi (SB2) in IBD patients is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable, although scientific and clinical evidence is lacking regarding reverse switching, multiple switching and cross-switching among biosimilars in IBD patients.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

Biosimilars in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease

The introduction of biological treatments has changed disease outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Biologicals have high efficacy, and can induce and maintain remission after failed responses to conventional immunosuppressive and/or steroid therapy. The increasing occurrence of severe disease at diagnosis has resulted in infliximab being more often introduced as the first-line treatment in a “top-down” approach. Besides their favourable efficacy and safety profile, biologicals have one significant disadvantage, which is their high cost. This results in many patients stopping therapy prematurely, with the maintenance phase being too short. This often leads to disease exacerbation shortly after treatment cessation. Every newly started course of biological therapy can induce production of anti-drug antibodies, which can result in treatment failure and possible allergic/anaphylactic reactions. The introduction of biological biosimilars was intended to greatly reduce therapy costs thus increasing the availability of these agents to more patients. It was also anticipated that biosimilars would prevent premature termination of therapy. Analyses of paediatric data suggest that biosimilar infliximabs are equally effective as the reference infliximab. Safety patterns also seem to be similar. Paediatric experience places cost-therapy reductions at around 10%-30%.

Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn's disease

PURPOSE

The EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) is the most commonly used instrument to obtain utility values for cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to compare the measurement properties of the two adult versions of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in patients with CD.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2017, a multicentre cross-sectional survey was carried out. Consecutive outpatients with CD completed the 3L, 5L and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS). Disease severity was graded by the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Perianal Disease Activity Index (PDAI). The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of feasibility, agreement, ceiling effect, redistribution properties, discriminatory power, convergent and known-groups validity.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and six patients (54.9% male, mean age 35 ± 11 years) participated in the survey. For 3L, 25 unique health states were observed versus 59 for the 5L. The overall ceiling effect decreased from 29.6% (3L) to 25.5% (5L). Absolute discriminatory power improved (mean Shannon index 0.84 vs. 1.18). The 3L correlated stronger with EQ VAS and CDAI scores, whereas the 5L with PDAI. The 5L demonstrated a better known-groups validity on the basis of age, perianal fistulas, extraintestinal manifestations and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to report the impact of CD on quality of life using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. The 5L seems to perform better than 3L in terms of feasibility, ceiling effect, discriminatory power and known-groups validity. Understanding the differences in psychometrics between the 3L and 5L is essential as they have substantial implications for financial decision-making about CD treatments.

Progress with infliximab biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in the last two decades. Though biological drugs are effective, their use is associated with high costs and access to biological agents varies among countries. As the patent for the reference products expired, the advent of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies has been expected. Biosimilars represent less expensive alternatives compared to the reference product.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, authors will review the literature on the clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of current and future biosimilar infliximabs. Short- and medium-term data from real-life cohorts and from randomized-clinical trials in IBD demonstrated similar outcomes in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity as the reference product for CT-P13. Switch data from the reference to the biosimilar product are also accumulating (including the NOR-SWITCH and the CT-P13 3.4 study).

EXPERT OPINION

The use of biosimilar infliximab in IBD is increasing worldwide. Its use may be associated with budget savings leading to better access to biological therapies and consequently improved health outcomes. Switching from the originator to a biosimilar in patients with IBD is acceptable, although scientific and clinical evidence is lacking regarding reverse switching, multiple switching, and cross-switching among biosimilars in IBD patients.

Patterns and predictors of long-term retention of inflammatory bowel or rheumatoid disease patients on innovator infliximab: an analysis of a Canadian prescriptions claims database

BACKGROUND

Long-term effectiveness is an important factor when considering treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the long-term retention patterns of Canadian inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and rheumatologic disease (RD) patients, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, treated with innovator infliximab (IFX) and to assess the impact of year-over-year cumulative IFX exposure on retention in both patient populations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This analysis used a Canadian longitudinal prescription claims database to measure retention on IFX over a period of 5 years. Twelve-month unadjusted odds ratios of retention by time on IFX were calculated for the overall cohort, and within-group comparisons evaluated differences according to age, sex, region, insurance coverage, use of concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, indication (RD cohort only), and previous biologic experience. Between-group analyses compared unadjusted 5-year retention among the same variables. Variables that were independently associated with longer retention on IFX were identified using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Seven thousand eight hundred and six IBD patients and 2,935 RD patients on stable treatment with IFX were included in the analysis. Sixty-nine percent of IBD patients and 66% of RD patients were retained on IFX after 1 year and 33% and 29%, respectively, were retained after 5 years. Moreover, the probability of being retained on IFX significantly increased with cumulative time on IFX. Independent predictors of 5-year retention included sex, region, and type of insurance coverage among IBD patients and region, type of insurance, prior biologic therapy, and specific indication among RD patients. Patients with IBD were 17% more likely to be retained on IFX over 5 years compared to patients with RD.

CONCLUSION

Real-world Canadian IBD and RD patients on IFX have good overall long-term treatment retention. Previous duration of IFX treatment predicts better future retention, and this knowledge could help inform treatment decisions when patients have been stable on IFX treatment for varying periods of time.

Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis

Biosimilar drugs are highly similar to an originator (reference) biologic, with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety or efficacy. As biosimilars offer the potential for lower acquisition costs versus the originator biologic, evaluating the economic implications of the introduction of biosimilars is of interest. Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a commonly used methodology. This review of published BIAs of biosimilar fusion proteins and/or monoclonal antibodies identified 12 unique publications (three full papers and nine congress posters). When evaluated alongside professional guidance on conducting BIA, the majority of BIAs identified were generally in line with international recommendations. However, a lack of peer-reviewed journal articles and considerable shortcomings in the publications were identified. Deficiencies included a limited range of cost parameters, a reliance on assumptions for parameters such as uptake and drug pricing, a lack of expert validation, and a limited range of sensitivity analyses that were based on arbitrary ranges. The rationale for the methods employed, limitations of the BIA approach, and instructions for local adaptation often were inadequately discussed. To understand fully the potential economic impact and value of biosimilars, the impact of biosimilar supply, manufacturer-provided supporting services, and price competition should be included in BIAs. Alternative approaches, such as cost minimization, which requires evidence demonstrating similarity to the originator biologic, and those that integrate a range of economic assessment methods, are needed to assess the value of biosimilars.

Access to biologicals in Crohn’s disease in ten European countries

AIM

To analyze access (availability, affordability and acceptability) to biologicals for Crohn’s disease (CD) in ten European countries and to explore the associations between these dimensions, the uptake of biologicals and economic development.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey combined with desk research was carried out in May 2016. Gastroenterologists from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden were invited to participate and provide data on the availability of biologicals/biosimilars, reimbursement criteria, clinical practice and prices, and use of biologicals. An availability score was developed to evaluate the restrictiveness of eligibility and administrative criteria applied in the countries. Affordability was defined as the annual cost of treatment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Correlations with the uptake of biologicals, dimensions of access and GDP per capita were calculated.

RESULTS

At the time of the survey, infliximab and adalimumab were reimbursed in all ten countries, and vedolizumab was reimbursed in five countries (France, Germany, Latvia, Slovakia, Sweden). Reimbursement criteria were the least strict in Sweden and Germany, and the strictest in Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Between countries, the annual cost of different biological treatments differed 1.6-3.3-fold. Treatments were the most affordable in Sweden (13%-37% of the GDP per capita) and the least affordable in the Central and Eastern European countries, especially in Hungary (87%-124%) and Romania (141%-277%). Biosimilars made treatments more affordable by driving down the annual costs. The number of patients with CD on biologicals per 100000 population was strongly correlated with GDP per capita (0.91), although substantial differences were found in the uptake among countries with similar economic development. Correlation between the number of patients with CD on biologicals per 100000 population and the availability and affordability was also strong (-0.75, -0.69 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Substantial inequalities in access to biologicals were largely associated with GDP. To explain differences in access among countries with similar development needs further research on acceptance.

Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? - A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.

Pricing and Reimbursement of Biosimilars in Central and Eastern European Countries

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the requirements for the reimbursement of biosimilars and to compare the reimbursement status, market share, and reimbursement costs of biosimilars in selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017 among experts from the following CEE countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars were reviewed for each country. Data on the extent of reimbursement of biologic drugs (separately for original products and biosimilars) in the years 2014 and 2015 were also collected for each country, along with data on the total pharmaceutical and total public health care budgets. Results: Our survey revealed that no specific criteria were applied for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars in the selected CEE countries; the price of biosimilars was usually reduced compared with original drugs and specific price discounts were common. Substitution and interchangeability were generally allowed, although in most countries they were at the discretion of the physician after a clinical assessment. Original biologic drugs and the corresponding biosimilars were usually in the same homogeneous group, and internal reference pricing was usually employed. The reimbursement rate of biosimilars in the majority of the countries was the same and amounted to 100%. Generally, the higher shares of expenditures were shown for the reimbursement of original drugs than for biosimilars, except for filgrastim, somatropin, and epoetin (alfa and zeta). The shares of expenditures on the reimbursement of biosimilar products ranged from 8.0% in Estonia in 2014 to 32.4% in Lithuania in 2015, and generally increased in 2015. The share of expenditures on reimbursement of biosimilars in the total pharmaceutical budget differed between the countries, with the highest observed value for Slovakia and Hungary and the lowest-for Croatia. Conclusions: The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilar products as well as the access of patients to biologic treatment do not differ significantly between the considered CEE countries. Biosimilar drugs significantly influence the reimbursement systems of these countries, and the expenditure on the reimbursement of biosimilars is increasing as they are becoming more accessible to patients.

Cost-effectiveness of biological treatment sequences for fistulising Crohn's disease across Europe

Background

In clinical practice, treatment sequences of biologicals are applied for active fistulising Crohn's disease, however underlying health economic analyses are lacking.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of different biological sequences including infliximab, biosimilar-infliximab, adalimumab and vedolizumab in nine European countries.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare treatment sequences of one, two and three biologicals from the payer's perspective on a five-year time horizon. Data on effectiveness and health state utilities were obtained from the literature. Country-specific costs were considered. Calculations were performed with both official list prices and estimated real prices of biologicals.

Results

Biosimilar-infliximab is the most cost-effective treatment against standard care across the countries (with list prices: €34684-€72551/quality adjusted life year; with estimated real prices: €24364-€56086/quality adjusted life year). The most cost-effective two-agent sequence, except for Germany, is the biosimilar-infliximab-adalimumab therapy compared with single biosimilar-infliximab (with list prices: €58533-€133831/quality adjusted life year; with estimated prices: €45513-€105875/quality adjusted life year). The cost-effectiveness of the biosimilar-infliximab-adalimumab-vedolizumab three-agent sequence compared wit biosimilar-infliximab -adalimumab is €87214-€152901/quality adjusted life year.

Conclusions

The suggested first-choice biological treatment is biosimilar-infliximab. In case of treatment failure, switching to adalimumab then to vedolizumab provides meaningful additional health gains but at increased costs. Inter-country differences in cost-effectiveness are remarkable due to significant differences in costs.

The Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 in Rheumatology and Cancer: A Budget Impact Analysis in 28 European Countries

Introduction

New biosimilars of monoclonal antibodies are anticipated to bring significant cost savings and increase access to treatment. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 has recently been approved in Europe in all indications held by reference rituximab (RTX), including rheumatoid arthritis, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We analyzed the budgetary impact of the introduction of CT-P10 into the European Union (EU) for use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and cancer diagnoses, using a budget impact analysis model.

Methods

The model used a base case scenario in which the 1-year uptake of CT-P10 was estimated at 30%, and the cost of CT-P10 was assumed to be 70% of the cost of RTX. A second 1-year scenario was also modeled, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 50% (scenario 2). Finally, 3-year time horizon outcomes were calculated, in which the market share of CT-P10 was assumed to be 30%, 40%, and 50% in the first, second, and third years, respectively.

Results

In the base case scenario, the introduction of CT-P10 was associated with projected savings of €90.04 million in the first year, which would allow 7531 additional patients to access rituximab treatment. This was equivalent to a 6.4% increase in the number of rituximab-treated patients. In scenario 2, budget savings were €150.10 million, with a total of 12,551 additional patients able to access rituximab, equivalent to a 10.7% increase. Over a 3-year time horizon, projected budget savings were approximately €570 million, equating to 47,695 additional patients able to access rituximab.

Conclusions

The model predicted that the introduction of CT-P10 in the EU will be associated with significant budget savings, the reallocation of which will enable many more patients to access rituximab treatment. This is likely to have a significant impact on health gains at patient and societal levels.

Funding: CELLTRION Healthcare Co., Ltd. sponsored the development and analysis of the budget impact analysis model.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0522-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-utility of biological treatment sequences for luminal Crohn's disease in Europe

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences with available biologics, including adalimumab (ADA), biosimilar infliximab (bsIFX), originator infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VEDO) for luminal Crohn's disease in nine European countries.

METHODS

A Markov-model was constructed to simulate five-year medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data on clinical efficacy were obtained from randomised controlled trials. Country-specific unit costs, discount rates and a third-party payer perspective were applied.

RESULTS

The bsIFX versus conventional therapy resulted in the most favourable incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) ranging from €34,580 (Hungary) to €77,062/QALY (Sweden). Compared to bsIFX, the bsIFX-ADA sequence was more cost-effective than the bsIFX-VEDO sequence with ICURs varying between €70,277 (France) and €162,069/QALY (Germany). The ICURs of the bsIFX-ADA-VEDO sequence versus the bsIFX-ADA strategy were between €206,266 (The Netherlands) and €363,232/QALY (Spain).

CONCLUSION

We are the first to compare cost-effectiveness of multiple biological sequences for luminal Crohn's disease. Based on our findings, bsIFX can be recommended as a first-line treatment in patients unresponsive to conventional treatments. While biological sequences only slightly differ in their associated health gains, their costs vary greatly. The bsIFX-ADA-VEDO seems to be the most cost-effective sequence of the available biologics across Europe.

Emerging biologics in inflammatory bowel disease

Early biologic therapy is recommended in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and poor prognostic factors and in those refractory to conventional medications. Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are the most commonly used biologic agents. However, some patients may not have an initial response to anti-TNF therapy, and one-third will develop loss of response over time. Anti-TNF drugs can also be associated with side effects. In addition, the use of biologics is currently limited by their cost, especially in developing countries. A number of new therapeutic targets, including novel small molecules, and cellular therapy are available or under investigation. These novel molecules include oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor (tofacitinib), interleukin inhibitor (ustekinumab), oral SMAD7 antisense oligonucleotide (mongersen), and anti-integrin inhibitors (vedolizumab). Here, we review the mechanisms of action, the efficacy, and the safety data of these novel agents. Biological products that are highly similar to reference biologic products whose patents have expired-also known as "biosimilars"-can be produced at lower cost with similar efficacy, and are also available for the treatment of IBD. We review the efficacy data for such agents as well.

Experience with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in paediatric patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

Infliximab was the first monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Over several years, this antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) treatment proved its efficacy in both induction and maintenance therapy. In many cases this biological treatment stopped the progression of the disease, probably also decreasing morbidity and hospitalization rates, and improving patients' comfort. When the patent on infliximab started to expire, the first biosimilar of a monoclonal antibody was introduced onto the pharmacological market. Biosimilar infliximab was studied in rheumatology and proved a high similarity to the reference drug. Based on extrapolation, biosimilars were approved to treat adult and paediatric IBD patients. Biosimilar infliximab, mainly because of its lower cost, has started to be in common use in Europe. The first studies have shown a similar efficacy and safety profile in comparison with reference drug. Biosimilar infliximab is raising hopes for improving the availability of this effective treatment.