Interchangeability and substitution of biosimilars: is health technology assessment (HTA) a tool for decision-making?

The advancement of artificial intelligence in biomedical research and health innovation: challenges and opportunities in emerging economies

The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), algorithm optimization and high-throughput experiments has enabled scientists to accelerate the discovery of new chemicals and materials with unprecedented efficiency, resilience and precision. Over the recent years, the so-called autonomous experimentation (AE) systems are featured as key AI innovation to enhance and accelerate research and development (R&D). Also known as self-driving laboratories or materials acceleration platforms, AE systems are digital platforms capable of running a large number of experiments autonomously. Those systems are rapidly impacting biomedical research and clinical innovation, in areas such as drug discovery, nanomedicine, precision oncology, and others. As it is expected that AE will impact healthcare innovation from local to global levels, its implications for science and technology in emerging economies should be examined. By examining the increasing relevance of AE in contemporary R&D activities, this article aims to explore the advancement of artificial intelligence in biomedical research and health innovation, highlighting its implications, challenges and opportunities in emerging economies. AE presents an opportunity for stakeholders from emerging economies to co-produce the global knowledge landscape of AI in health. However, asymmetries in R&D capabilities should be acknowledged since emerging economies suffers from inadequacies and discontinuities in resources and funding. The establishment of decentralized AE infrastructures could support stakeholders to overcome local restrictions and opens venues for more culturally diverse, equitable, and trustworthy development of AI in health-related R&D through meaningful partnerships and engagement. Collaborations with innovators from emerging economies could facilitate anticipation of fiscal pressures in science and technology policies, obsolescence of knowledge infrastructures, ethical and regulatory policy lag, and other issues present in the Global South. Also, improving cultural and geographical representativeness of AE contributes to foster the diffusion and acceptance of AI in health-related R&D worldwide. Institutional preparedness is critical and could enable stakeholders to navigate opportunities of AI in biomedical research and health innovation in the coming years.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members.

RESULTS

Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

Biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars: facts every prescriber, payor, and patient should know. Insulins perspective

INTRODUCTION

For many of the 537 million adults living now with diabetes, the cost of insulin is becoming prohibitive as the insulin prices have tripled between 2002-2013. Globally, the direct annual cost of healthcare expenditure due to diabetes will soon be US$1 Trillion. Biosimilars provide access to high-quality, affordable biologic therapy that is otherwise inaccessible due to the high costs of original biologics.

AREAS COVERED

A primer to the development of biosimilars shows comparable structural and analytical characterization to the original biologics (e.g. insulins), with no clinically significant or meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. 'Interchangeability' status, a regulatory designation by the US FDA, bestowed to some biosimilars, enables confidence in high-quality, bio-equivalent biosimilar of insulin with key global approvals. This can allow rapid uptake of biosimilars by the prescribers, formulary decision-makers, and payors. Biocon-Viatris's biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Semglee®) is the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin approved by the US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

The 'interchangeable' status can prompt faster and wider uptake of insulin biosimilars and keep the insulin expenditure under control, especially for patients who otherwise practice non-adherence or rationing of life-saving insulin. Education, support, and awareness can ensure that interchangeable biosimilars gain wider acceptance.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Quality of Life Among Brazilian Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Treated With Insulin Glargine: Findings and Implications

This article describes a cross-sectional study involving 401 adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin glargine in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Health-related quality of life was assessed, and worse scores were found to be associated with a low level of education, self-perceived health reported as poor/very poor, being bedridden and not physically exercised, having seen a doctor more than four times in the past year, and having reported comorbidities and episodes of hypoglycemia.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.