Safety considerations of biosimilars

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018-2020).

RESULTS

A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4-37% or 148-2234 2020 Canadian dollars).

CONCLUSION

Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed.

BBCIC Research Network Analysis of First-Cycle Prophylactic G-CSF Use in Patients Treated With High-Neutropenia Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is prevented or minimized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs). Several G-CSF biosimilars are approved in the United States. The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) is a nonprofit initiative whose objective is to provide scientific evidence on real-world use and comparative safety and effectiveness of biologics and biosimilars using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We describe real-world G-CSF use in patients with breast or lung cancer receiving first-cycle chemotherapy associated with high FN risk. We assessed hospitalizations for FN, availability of absolute neutrophil counts, and G-CSF-induced adverse events to inform future observational comparative effectiveness studies of G-CSF reference products and their biosimilars. A descriptive analysis of 5 participating national health insurance plans was conducted within the BBCIC DRN.

RESULTS

A total of 57,725 patients who received at least one G-CSF dose were included. Most (92.5%) patients received pegfilgrastim. FN hospitalization rates were evaluated by narrow (<0.5%), intermediate (1.91%), and broad (2.99%) definitions. Anaphylaxis and hyperleukocytosis were identified in 1.15% and 2.28% of patients, respectively. This analysis provides real-world evidence extracted from a large, readily available database of diverse patients, characterizing G-CSF reference product use to inform the feasibility of future observational comparative safety and effectiveness analyses of G-CSF biosimilars. We showed that the rates of FN and adverse events in our research network are consistent with those reported by previous small studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available BBCIC DRN data can be used to assess G-CSF use with the incidence of FN hospitalizations. Insufficient laboratory result data were available to report absolute neutrophil counts; however, other safety data are available for assessment that provide valuable baseline data regarding the effectiveness and safety of G-CSFs in preparation for comparative effectiveness studies of reference G-CSFs and their biosimilars.

The Law and Ethics of Switching from Biologic to Biosimilar in Canada

Governments and financial institutions in several jurisdictions are planning or implementing nonmedical/'forced' switches by cutting drug coverage for reference biologics and funding only less expensive biosimilars. Switches raise numerous ethical and legal challenges, as the drugs are framed as not being identical and, despite strong evidence for noninferiority of some biosimilars, there is controversy over whether switching can sometimes lead to adverse events. Canadian law generally requires physicians to give precedence to their patients' best interests over social interests such as cost containment. The primacy of patients' interests is also clearly reflected in professional policies and codes of ethics. Moreover, physicians are obligated to disclose everything a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know when obtaining informed consent for treatment, including addressing not only scientific information but also relevant social controversy about nonmedical switches. Under Canadian law, physicians may be obligated to tell patients about the ability to access unfunded biologics, even if patients lack the resources to obtain them. In sum, while there is no inherent right to funding for reference biologics in Canada, physicians in some circumstances may have a legal obligation as fiduciaries to advocate on behalf of patients to remain on a reference biologic. At a minimum, the controversy surrounding switching will necessitate, as part of the consent process, a robust and thorough disclosure of relevant risks, benefits and reasonable alternatives.

Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars - Why is it different from generics and innovator biologics?

Biosimilars are being marketed in India since 2000. Like biologics, biosimilars have a large size, complex structure, and complicated manufacturing process, and they are produced in a living organism. It requires specialized delivery devices for administration and needs tighter temperature control to prevent degradation. As biosimilar development follows abbreviated pathway, adverse events (AEs) previously unknown during a clinical trial may be detected postmarketing. In India, the awareness on pharmacovigilance has increased significantly after implementation of the pharmacovigilance guidance in January 2018. However, biologics require tighter monitoring to ensure their safety and efficacy. This review article discusses the importance of pharmacovigilance for biosimilars, how it is different from generics, and provides recommendations to sensitize clinicians and researchers about the requirement of a different approach to improve pharmacovigilance for biosimilars. Pharmacovigilance for biosimilars is as important as it is for innovator biologics and more important than that for generics.

A safety review of recent advancements in the treatment of psoriasis: analysis of clinical trial safety data

INTRODUCTION

The management of psoriasis can include oral medications and injectable biologics. Safety data of these various treatment options are important to consider when choosing the right treatment for the patient.

AREAS COVERED

This review evaluates the safety of newer treatments approved for psoriasis, including interleukin-(IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-23/p19 inhibitors, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol and apremilast, using phases III and IV clinical trial data.

EXPERT OPINION

Even as treatment of psoriasis becomes safer, it is important to recognize both common and uncommon adverse effects of treatment. Common adverse effects are similar across treatment options, including upper respiratory infection and injection-site reaction. Serious adverse effects occur less frequently and specific to the psoriasis treatment option, such as inflammatory bowel disease and candida infections with IL-17 inhibitors, tuberculosis with certolizumab pegol, and psychiatric events with apremilast. While IL-23/p19 inhibitors may have a slightly better safety profile than other biologics, long-term data are limited. The conclusions that can be drawn from clinical trial safety data are limited given that many clinical trials are not large enough to detect rare safety events. Data from registries provide important complementary information on long-term safety but there are limitations including a lack of randomized assignment between drug treatments.

Generic Substitution of Orphan Drugs for the Treatment of Rare Diseases: Exploring the Potential Challenges

Generic drugs are important components of measures introduced by healthcare regulatory authorities to reduce treatment costs. In most patients and conditions the switch from a branded drug to its generic counterpart is performed with no major complications. However, evidence from complex diseases suggests that generic substitution requires careful evaluation in some settings and that current bioequivalence criteria may not always be adequate for establishing the interchangeability of branded and generic products. Rare diseases, also called orphan diseases, are a group of heterogeneous diseases that share important characteristics: in addition to their scarcity, most are severe, chronic, highly debilitating, and often present in early childhood. Finding a treatment for a rare disease is challenging. Thanks to incentives that encourage research and development programs in rare diseases, several orphan drugs are currently available. The elevated cost of orphan drugs is a highly debated issue and a cause of limited access to treatment for many patients. As patent protection and the exclusivity period of several orphan drugs will expire soon, generic versions of orphan drugs should reach the market shortly, with great expectations about their impact on the economic burden of rare diseases. However, consistent with other complex diseases, generic substitution may require thoughtful considerations and may be even contraindicated in some rare conditions. This article provides an overview of rare disease characteristics, reviews reports of problematic generic substitution, and discusses why generic substitution of orphan drugs may be challenging and should be undertaken carefully in rare disease patients.