Pharmacoutilization of epoetins in naïve patients with hematological malignancies in an unselected Italian population under clinical practice setting: a comparative analysis between originator and biosimilars

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Cancer Biosimilars Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders. Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist. Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion. Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.

Efficacy and Safety of Supportive Care Biosimilars Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologics are widely used to manage the side effects of cancer treatment (e.g., epoetin alfa is used to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia [CIA] and granulocyte colony-stimulating factors [G-CSFs] are used to treat chemotherapy-induced neutropenia [CIN]). As several patents for biologics used in cancer treatment have expired, a number of companies have developed supportive care biosimilars (e.g., epoetin alfa biosimilar, filgrastim biosimilar, pegfilgrastim biosimilar).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to synthesize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars compared with their reference biologics in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISI Web of Science and several Chinese databases from their inception dates to December 31, 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative observational studies that compared the efficacy and safety of supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology. We pooled results separately for RCTs and observational studies, as such studies involve different patient populations and are designed differently. We pooled binary outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous outcomes using weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs, then conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 28 studies that compared biosimilars of G-CSF or epoetin alfa: one RCT and five cohort studies (total N = 2816) of epoetin alfa biosimilars, and 13 RCTs and 9 cohort studies (total N = 23,043) of G-CSF biosimilars [corrected]. Despite involving different populations, RCTs and observational studies comparing biosimilars and reference biologics indicated similar efficacy and safety results. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in any efficacy or safety outcomes between any biosimilars and their corresponding original biologics (all p > 0.05). The quality of GRADE evidence of efficacy and safety outcomes was moderate or low. Findings were robust for all prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence suggests highly comparable efficacy and safety profiles for supportive care biosimilars and their reference biologics in oncology.

Antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with atrial fibrillation in Italy pre- and post-DOACs: the REPAIR study

AIM

To evaluate antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients in Italy with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) before and after direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were approved.

METHODS

This analysis included patients with a discharge diagnosis of NVAF in 2010 and 2014, which constituted the pre- and post-DOACs populations, respectively.

RESULTS

Approximately 90% of patients were eligible for oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. Overall use of OACs increased from 38% in 2010 to 45% in 2014; use of antiplatelet therapy decreased from 36 to 25%. Approximately 14% of eligible patients remained untreated.

CONCLUSION

Although an improvement in OAC prescription was observed post-DOACs launch, treatment patterns in Italy suggest that a proportion of patients with NVAF are still undertreated or do not receive appropriate therapy.

Use and costs of originator and biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia: real-world evidence from an Italian hospital

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate adherence, switch and costs a year after the start of treatment with different erythropoietin-stimulating agents. There were 277 patients, 200 were originators (72.20%) and 77 (27.80%) were biosimilars. Adherence to treatment for originators is 0.84 ± 0.22 versus 0.76 ± 0.27 for biosimilars (p = 0.3241). Medication adherence was calculated as ratio between received daily dose to prescribed daily dose. The optimum value is 1, values less than 1 indicate loss of adherence.  The cost of treatment per year is €7365 per patient for the use of the originator drug versus €2587 for biosimilars, with a difference of €4777 per patient.