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

Global outlook on affordability of biotherapeutic drugs

Although biotherapeutic drugs have the potential of transforming the management of many life-threatening diseases, their affordability and accessibility remain an issue. This study offers an overview of the global affordability of biotherapeutic products. For this, prices for 10 representative biotherapeutic products were examined in 40 countries, including high-income countries (HICs), upper middle-income countries (UMICs), lower middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs). The affordability of these biotherapeutics was calculated based on the World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) method. As expected, affordability was found to be better in HICs, followed by UMICs, LMICs, and finally, LICs. Furthermore, based on the trend of per capita income, we predict that in UMICs and LMICs, the affordability of high molecular weight biologics will worsen by 1.5× and 2× by 2030, respectively, and further by 4× and 6× by 2040. On the other hand, affordability will stay nearly the same for people living in HICs in the coming decades. Our analysis suggests that it is imperative that measures be taken to make this class of products more affordable and accessible. Governments can contribute by creating conducive policies. Global institutions like the WHO can play a significant role as well. Finally, manufacturers need to invest in and implement manufacturing innovations.

A Cross-National Comparison of Biosimilars Pricing in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar medicines are defined as biological products highly similar to an already licensed biological product (RP). The market entry of biosimilars is expected to reduce the costs of biological treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the range of differences between the prices of biosimilars and the corresponding RP for biologicals approved in four countries.

METHOD

This is a cross-national comparison of pricing of biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy. The study examined online price databases provided by the national authorities of the investigated countries. Biosimilar price difference was calculated by subtracting the unit price of the biosimilar by the unit price of the RP, and then dividing it by the unit price of the RP. The results were presented as percentage.

RESULTS

Brazil had the highest median price reduction (- 36.3%) in biosimilars price, followed by Italy (- 20.0%) and Argentina (- 18.6%). All the biosimilars in Italy were priced below the RP presenting a minimum reduction of 6.3%, while in Australia, most of the prices of biosimilars were equal to the RP. In Argentina, one infliximab-biosimilar displayed price above the RP (40.7%) while the lower priced brand had a reduction of 14.4%. Brazil had four biosimilars with prices above the respective RP, including isophane insulin (1), insulin glargine (1) and somatropin (2).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed a marked dispersion in the price's differences between biosimilars and RP across the studied countries. Governments should evaluate whether their policies have been successful in improving affordability of biological therapies.

Modelling Treatment Sequences in Immunology: Optimizing Patient Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

For some immune-mediated disorders, despite the range of therapies available there is limited evidence on which treatment sequences are best for patients and healthcare systems. We investigated how their selection can impact outcomes in an Italian setting.

METHODS

A 3-year state-transition treatment-sequencing model calculated potential effectiveness improvements and budget reallocation considerations associated with implementing optimal sequences in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Crohn's disease (CD), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (NR-AxSpA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ulcerative colitis (UC). Sequences included three biological or disease-modifying treatments, followed by best supportive care. Disease-specific response measures were selected on the basis of clinical relevance, data availability, and data quality. Efficacy was differentiated between biologic-naïve and experienced populations, where possible, using published network meta-analyses and real-world data. All possible treatment sequences, based on reimbursement as of December 2022 in Italy (analyses' base country), were simulated.

RESULTS

Sequences with the best outcomes consistently employed the most efficacious therapies earlier in the treatment pathway. Improvements to prescribing practice are possible in all diseases; however, most notable was UC, where the per-patient 3-year average treatment failure was 37.3% higher than optimal. The results focused on the three most crowded and prevalent immunological sub-condition diseases in dermatology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology: PsO, RA, and UC, respectively. By prescribing from within the top 20% of the most efficacious sequences, the model found a 15.1% reduction in treatment failures, with a 1.59% increase in drug costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing more efficacious treatments earlier provides a greater opportunity to improve patient outcomes and minimizes treatment failures.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

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.

Short and long-term economic implications of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are gaining popularity due to their ability to offer comparable therapeutic benefits at potentially lower costs.

AREAS COVERED

This article analyses studies that compare the cost savings of biosimilars with biologics. It also explores market competition dynamics and the impact of policies in countries. The focus is on the advantages of biosimilars in oncology and rheumatological treatments while considering broader economic implications for the pharmaceutical industry such as market displacement, pricing strategies and their influence on innovation and healthcare sustainability.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of biosimilars marks a shift in healthcare economics by offering cost reductions and long-term potential for economic balance. However, I also recognize challenges related to research methodologies and regulatory inconsistencies across countries. To fully capitalize on their potential, future research and development in the field of biosimilars must emphasize harmonized approaches and comprehensive studies that ensure both cost containment in healthcare and wider access, to high quality treatments.

Comparative price analysis of biological medicines: disparities generated by different pricing policies

Introduction: Biological medicines have been assuming an important role among the therapeutic options for several diseases, however, due to their complex production process, the products obtained from this technology have a high added value and do not reach the purchasing power of most patients, which overwhelms the budget of health systems. With the development of biosimilars, which have reduced production costs, it is expected that access to biological medicines will become broader. However, in Brazil, the criteria for determining the price of biosimilars, unlike the generic policy in the country, do not foresee a price reduction due to the reduction of development costs. Objective: To understand the impact of the current model of economic regulation on the availability and access of these products in the country, based on a comparative analysis in selected countries, and identify trends that can help to expand the availability and access to biological medicines. Method: Quantitative and qualitative study, to identify the variation between the entry prices of biological medicines in Brazil and in selected countries, as well as the differences in the economic regulation policies established in these countries. Results: The results demonstrate that the current pricing model in Brazil has generated distortions in the prices of biosimilars in the market, which, consequently, makes it difficult for the population to access this category of products, in addition to allowing unsustainable market practices for the systems of public and private health in Brazil. It was also found that most of the analyzed countries, unlike Brazil, seek to harmonize the prices of different brands of the same molecule marketed in the country and with the international market, in addition to establishing incentive policies for indication and replacement by biosimilars, which expands the participation of biosimilars in the market significantly. Conclusion: Based on the data presented, it is concluded that it is essential to build a broader political and regulatory debate on the market for biologicals and biosimilars in the country to guarantee the access of the Brazilian population to more cost-effective technologies, generate a more competitive market and consequently contribute to the financial sustainability of health systems.

Is the Availability of Biosimilar Adalimumab Associated with Budget Savings? A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of 14 Countries

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the influence of the presence of biosimilar adalimumab on adalimumab budget savings in 14 high- and upper-middle-income countries.

METHODS

This study analyzed Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS)-IQVIA data from the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 to the Q4 of 2019, comparing adalimumab expenditure (in United States dollars) and consumption (in standard units [SU]) across 14 countries (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan). The countries were divided into two groups based on the availability of adalimumab biosimilars during the study period. A difference-in-difference design was employed to analyze the groups, focusing on changes from Q4 2018 to Q4 2019. Additionally, changes in adalimumab expenditure were decomposed into price, quantity, and drug mix during the study period.

RESULTS

Among countries with adalimumab biosimilars, there was a significant decrease in expenditure (- $371.0 per gross domestic product per capita; p = 0.03) over four quarters, while the consumption significantly increased (1.0 SU per 1000 population; p = 0.02). This was consistent with visual observations and differed from countries without adalimumab biosimilar. Sensitivity analysis with a narrowed list of countries (12 high-income countries) showed a consistent trend. Adalimumab expenditure decreased by 14% during the study period in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were available, mainly due to the price changes (Pt = 0.85; - 15%) and the drug-mix effect (εt  = 0.88; - 12%). Yet, adalimumab expenditure (Et = 1.04; +4%) changed in a quantity-dependent manner (Qt = 1.06; +6%) in countries where adalimumab biosimilars were absent.

CONCLUSION

The availability of biosimilars was associated with a decrease in adalimumab expenditure without compromising the consumption of adalimumab.

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

Uptake and Spending on Biosimilar Infliximab and Etanercept After New Start and Switching Policies in Canada: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Uptake of biosimilars has been suboptimal in North America. This study was undertaken to quantify the impact of various policy interventions (namely, new start and switching policies) on uptake and spending on biosimilar infliximab and etanercept in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

METHODS

We used administrative claims data to identify BC residents ≥18 years of age with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or plaque psoriasis who qualified for public drug coverage from January 2013 to November 2020. Using interrupted time series analysis, we studied the change in proportion spent on and prescriptions dispensed of biosimilar infliximab and etanercept out of the total amount per agent after new start and biosimilar switching policies were implemented.

RESULTS

Our study included 208,984 individuals living with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, plaque psoriasis, and/or psoriatic arthritis, corresponding to 5,884 patients taking infliximab and etanercept. After the new start policy, we detected a small gradual increase in the proportion of dispensed biosimilar etanercept prescriptions of 0.65% per month (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.44, 0.85). The trend related to the proportion of total spending on biosimilar etanercept also increased (0.51% [95% CI 0.28, 0.73]). After the switching policy, there was a sustained increase in the proportion of dispensed biosimilar etanercept and infliximab prescriptions of 76.98% (95% CI 75.56, 78.41) and 58.43% (95% CI 52.11, 64.75), respectively. Similarly, there was a persistent increase in monthly spending on biosimilar etanercept and infliximab of 78.22% (95% CI 76.65, 79.79) and 71.23% (95% CI 66.82, 75.65), respectively.

CONCLUSION

We found that mandatory switching policies were much more effective than new starting policies for increasing the use of biosimilar medications.

An international comparative analysis and roadmap to sustainable biosimilar markets

Background: Although biosimilar uptake has increased (at a variable pace) in many countries, there have been recent concerns about the long-term sustainability of biosimilar markets. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the sustainability of policies across the biosimilar life cycle in selected countries with a view to propose recommendations for supporting biosimilar sustainability. Methods: The study conducted a comparative analysis across 17 countries from North America, South America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Biosimilar policies were identified and their sustainability was assessed based on country-specific reviews of the scientific and grey literature, validation by industry experts and 23 international and local non-industry experts, and two advisory board meetings with these non-industry experts. Results: Given that European countries tend to have more experience with biosimilars and more developed policy frameworks, they generally have higher sustainability scores than the other selected countries. Existing approaches to biosimilar manufacturing and R&D, policies guaranteeing safe and high-quality biosimilars, exemption from the requirement to apply health technology assessment to biosimilars, and initiatives counteracting biosimilar misconceptions are considered sustainable. However, biosimilar contracting approaches, biosimilar education and understanding can be ameliorated in all selected countries. Also, similar policies are sometimes perceived to be sustainable in some markets, but not in others. More generally, the sustainability of the biosimilar landscape depends on the nature of the healthcare system and existing pharmaceutical market access policies, the experience with biosimilar use and policies. This suggests that a general biosimilar policy toolkit that ensures sustainability does not exist, but varies from country to country. Conclusion: This study proposes a set of elements that should underpin sustainable biosimilar policy development over time in a country. At first, biosimilar policies should guarantee the safety and quality of biosimilars, healthy levels of supply and a level of cost savings. As a country gains experience with biosimilars, policies need to optimise uptake and combat any misconceptions about biosimilars. Finally, a country should implement biosimilar policies that foster competition, expand treatment options and ensure a sustainable market environment.

Uptake of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor biosimilars for psoriasis: a drug utilization study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR)

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) have revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Following patent expiry of the originator biologics, TNFi biosimilars became available, presenting the opportunity for significant reductions in drug costs.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the uptake of TNFi biosimilars for psoriasis treatment in the UK and Ireland.

METHODS

This observational cohort study utilizes data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a national pharmacovigilance study register for patients with psoriasis on systemic treatments. We analysed biosimilar uptake trends over time in nine geographical regions of England along with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We assessed the incidence of switching to biosimilars in an originator-user cohort (switchers). Patients on originators infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab at the time originator patents expired, entered the cohort on 1 February 2015, August 2015 and October 2018, respectively, and were followed up until 31 October 2021. Trends in biosimilar initiations were assessed in an adalimumab-naïve cohort who started adalimumab between 1 October 2018 and 31 July 2019 (starters). We assessed the associations between patient factors and originator-to-biosimilar switching and biosimilar initiation using a multivariable Cox regression model and a multivariable logistic regression model, respectively.

RESULTS

Included in the originator-user cohort were 4202 patients (209 on infliximab, 742 on etanercept and 3251 on adalimumab). For infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab, respectively, the cumulative incidence of originator-to-biosimilar switching increased with time to 14.8%, 23.6% and 66.6% after 3 years. Across geographical regions, 3-year switching rates varied from 0% to 43.7% for infliximab; from 0% to 40.4% for etanercept; and from 12.5% to 84.3% for adalimumab. Out of the 528 patients included in the adalimumab-naïve cohort, 67.8% started on biosimilars. Originator-to-biosimilar switching and biosimilar initiation were more common in men and in patients who had lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at cohort entry.

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of biosimilars increased over time and varied considerably across the UK and Ireland; adalimumab had the highest biosimilar uptake rate compared with that of other TNFi drugs.

The impact of policy interventions to promote the uptake of biosimilar medicines in Belgium: a nationwide interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

The Belgian government has taken several measures to increase the uptake of biosimilars in past years. However, no formal evaluation of the impact of these measures has been made yet. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the implemented measures on biosimilar uptake.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model with the Box-Jenkins method. All data were expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) per month/quarter and obtained from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). Three molecules were included in the analysis: etanercept (ambulatory), filgrastim (hospital), and epoetin (hospital). A significance level of 5% was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

In the ambulatory care, the effect of a financial prescriber incentive of 2019 was investigated. After this intervention, 44.504 (95% CI -61.61 to -14.812; P < 0.001) fewer etanercept biosimilar DDDs were dispensed monthly than expected in the absence of the intervention. Two interventions were modelled for biosimilars in the hospital setting. The first intervention of 2016 includes prescription targets for biosimilars and monitoring of hospitals on adequate tendering. The second intervention involves an information campaign on biosimilars. After the first intervention, a small decrease in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 449.820 DDD (95% CI -880.113 to -19.527; P = 0.05) was observed. The second intervention led to a larger increase in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 2733.692 DDD (95% CI 1648.648-3818.736; P < 0.001). For filgrastim, 1809.833 DDD (95% CI 1354.797-2264.869; P < 0.001) more biosimilars were dispensed immediately after the first intervention and 151.639 DDD (95% CI -203.128 to -100.150; P < 0.001) fewer biosimilars each quarter after the first intervention. An immediate and sustained increase of 700.932 DDD (95% CI 180.536-1221.328; P = 0.016) in quarterly biosimilar volume was observed after the second intervention. All other parameter estimates were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the impact of past policy interventions to increase the uptake of biosimilars has been variable and limited. A holistic policy framework is required to develop a competitive and sustainable off-patent biologicals market in Belgium.

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance

BACKGROUND

Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template.

RESULTS

26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO's position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice.

Maximizing the benefits of using biosimilars in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars constitute a pathway for sustainable financing of healthcare systems in the era of expensive biologics. However, such a pathway is not free of challenges. Since the biosimilars market is expanding in Egypt, there is an urgent need for a policy framework to optimize their use and diffusion in the market. We aim to characterize a national framework based on the experiences of other countries and consultation with local experts.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted to identify biosimilars' policy elements worldwide. A workshop was organized with experts to discuss the narrative review findings and create consensus on recommendations.

RESULTS

The narrative literature review highlighted the need for biosimilar policy actions in four areas: market authorization, pricing, reimbursement, and uptake. Eighteen experts representing the Egyptian healthcare authorities attended the workshop. The most significant conclusions from the workshop included setting the price of the biosimilar at 30-40% less than its originator's price and establishing financing protocols, in which the more expensive biologics with significant price premiums should be excluded from the formulary.

CONCLUSIONS

A summarized national framework policy recommendation for biosimilars was created by local experts from the main public healthcare entities in Egypt. These recommendations coincide with the international policies adopted across different countries that aim to improve patient access while sustaining health expenditure.

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

Biosimilar competition in European markets of TNF-alpha inhibitors: a comparative analysis of pricing, market share and utilization trends

Background: Factors like the number of biosimilar competitors and competitive pricing strategies from originator companies may influence price competition and biosimilar uptake. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze multiple facets of biosimilar competition of TNF-alpha inhibitors in Europe by exploring the existence of a biosimilar first-mover advantage, pricing strategies of originator companies, and the evolution in patient access. Methods: Sales and volume data on biosimilar and originator infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between 2008 and 2020 were provided by IQVIA. Countries included 24 European Union Member States, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sales value was expressed as ex-manufacturer price per defined daily dose (DDD), and volume data were transformed into the number of DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Descriptive analyses were conducted based on the evolution in price per DDD, trends in biosimilar and originator market shares and utilization trends. Results: Market entry of the first biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab resulted in a decrease of the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) per DDD by 13.6% and 0.9% on average, whilst the second biosimilars resulted in a decrease by 26.4% and 27.3%, respectively. The first and second etanercept biosimilars generated a similar decrease in the VWAP per DDD by 9.3% and 9.1% on average, respectively. Average market share captured by the first biosimilars was at least twice as large as the second biosimilars for all molecules. In addition, sharp reductions in price per DDD of Humira^® in most countries indicated a pricing strategy resulting in low uptake of adalimumab biosimilars. Lastly, utilization of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab following biosimilar entry increased by an average of 88.9%, 14.6%, and 22.4%, respectively. However, introduction of (multiple) biosimilar competitors did not necessarily translate into increase in treatment access for all three molecules across some European countries indicating a shift in utilization from one molecule towards the other(s). Conclusion: Overall, this study revealed that biosimilar entry results in increased utilization and price reduction, although at a heterogenous rate among TNF-alpha inhibitors. Observed trends in market shares indicate a biosimilar first-mover advantage whereas pricing strategies considered to be anti-competitive can limit market uptake.

How do hospital characteristics and ties relate to the uptake of second-generation biosimilars? A longitudinal analysis of Portuguese NHS hospitals, 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on within-country discrepancies in biosimilar uptake. This study analyzes differences in timing and diffusion of biosimilar uptake across Portuguese NHS hospitals and explores possible determinants.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed publicly accessible consumption data of originator biologic and biosimilar drugs for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, by hospital and month for the years 2015-2021 (N = 9,467). We modeled the time to biosimilar adoption using survival regression models and the share of biosimilar consumption using generalized estimated equations with random hospital effects.

RESULTS

Academic hospitals were characterized by a quicker uptake of adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars but lower shares for other drugs. A higher total consumption of biologics was related to a lower share of biosimilar uptake. A stronger participation in randomized controlled trials was linked to higher biosimilar shares and quicker uptake, except for rituximab. If all NHS hospitals had biosimilar shares equal to the highest ones, potential annual savings could reach 13.9 million euros.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest a need for capacity-building on biosimilar prescribing, including for doctors of academic hospitals and those working in settings where high biosimilar use would be expected.

Germany's Use Of Reference Pricing For Biologics: Lessons For The US

A redesign of consumer cost sharing in the United States is important to accelerate the adoption of biosimilars and price reductions for biologics. This article analyzes therapeutic reference pricing for anti-inflammatory biosimilars in Germany and its implications for the United States. The German experience demonstrates that a redesign of consumer cost sharing can achieve savings for payers without creating onerous financial barriers for patients. In contrast, the dominant coinsurance structure of cost sharing in the US creates strong incentives for patients to abandon treatment, especially for serious illnesses treated by complex biologics, and only weak incentives to compare prices among therapeutically equivalent products. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has advocated that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services adopt a variant of reference prices for biologics, their related biosimilars, and therapeutically similar branded alternatives by assigning them the same billing code or by paying a similar rate for all the products. The German experience demonstrates that the proposed MedPAC approach is technically feasible and would generate savings for payers without imposing access obstacles on patients.

Cost per responder of Adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 and ABP 501 versus the originator and methotrexate in chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacoeconomic studies comparing the cost of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and conventional drugs in psoriasis are lacking.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To assess the cost per responder of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and methotrexate for psoriasis treatment. A cost per responder analysis comparing adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 (Idacio®) and ABP 501 (Amgevita®), and methotrexate to the originator (Humira®) was performed. The incremental cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment based on the perspective of the National Healthcare System and number needed to treat for each therapy.

RESULTS

Considering the PASI75 response rate at 16 weeks, the cost per responder for MSB11022 and ABP 501 compared to the originator was € 500 versus 1,831 and € 968 versus 1,949, respectively. For the same endpoint, the cost per responder for subcutaneous or oral methotrexate was € 543 or 34 compared to 2,117 for adalimumab originator. At an indirect comparison among methotrexate, MSB11022 and ABP 501, the costs per PASI75 responder at week 16 were 2%, 26%, 27% and 50% of that of the originator, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biosimilars was confirmed as a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare cost in patients with psoriasis.

Comparison of Uptake and Prices of Biosimilars in the US, Germany, and Switzerland

IMPORTANCE

Biologics account for a substantial proportion of health care expenditures. Their costs have been projected to reach US $452 billion in global spending by 2022. Given recent expiration of patent protection of biologics, a shift toward greater follow-on competition among biosimilars would be expected that would allow greater uptake and lower drug costs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess uptake and prices of biosimilars in the US compared with 2 European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, biologics and biosimilars that were approved in the US, Germany, and Switzerland until August 2020 were identified. Prices and sales data were extracted from public and commercial databases for the years 2011 to 2020. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Descriptive statistics were used to show temporal trends in the uptake of biosimilars and relative prices compared with those of reference products (ie, biologic agents) for each country. Descriptive analysis was also performed to compare the uptake of biosimilars between the 3 countries limited to biologics that have biosimilars on the market in all countries. To test if biosimilar awareness in each country increased over the last decade, a linear least squares regression was applied.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 15 biosimilars and 6 biologics for the US, 52 biosimilars and 15 biologics for Germany, and 28 biosimilars and 13 biologics for Switzerland. Uptake of biosimilars increased over time in all countries. On average, the biosimilar market share at launch was highest in Germany; however, it increased at the fastest rate in the US. Monthly treatment costs of biosimilars in the US were a median of 1.94 (IQR, 1.78-2.44) and 2.74 (IQR, 1.91-3.46) higher than corresponding costs in Germany and Switzerland, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that more biosimilars have been marketed in Germany and Switzerland than in the US. Policies that counter anticompetitive practices in the US could allow biosimilars to enter the market sooner and could also lower health care costs with improved access. Awareness of biosimilars should be promoted to increase uptake of biosimilars globally.

Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmaceutical policies are generally based on the assumption that involved stakeholders make rational decisions. However, behavioral economics has taught us that this is not always the case as people deviate from rational behavior in rather predictable patterns. This scoping review examined to what extent behavioral concepts have already been applied in the pharmaceutical domain and what evidence exists about their effectiveness, with the aim of formulating future applications and research hypotheses on policymaking for best-value biologicals.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted on the evidence of behavioral applications to pharmaceuticals. Scientific databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, and Scopus) were searched up to 20 October, 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four full-text scientific articles were identified and narratively described in this article. Pharmaceutical domains where behavioral concepts have been investigated relate to influencing prescribing behavior, improving medication adherence, and increasing vaccination uptake. Multiple behavioral concepts were examined in the identified studies, such as social norms, defaults, framing, loss aversion, availability, and present bias. The effectiveness of the applied interventions was generally positive, but depended on the context. Some of the examined interventions can easily be translated into effective policy interventions for best-value biological medicines. However, some applications require further investigation in a research context.

CONCLUSIONS

Applications of behavioral economics to pharmaceutical policymaking are promising. However, further research is required to investigate the effect of behavioral applications on policy interventions for a more sustainable market environment for best-value biological medicines.

The Inflation Reduction Act: A boon for the generic and biosimilar industry

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

After more than a year of negotiation, a $740 billion climate and health care bill known as The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) became law on 16 August 2022. In addition to its impact on the environment, job creation and reducing inflation, a key focus is to reduce the burden of Medicare by over $100B per year and other benefits to 65 million Medicare patients. A fixed number of top expenditures drugs that have stayed as single-source chemical products for 8 years and the biologicals for 12 years; 2 years more are allowed if the approval of a generic or biosimilar is imminent. Once a second source appears, as a generic or biosimilar, the price reduction is removed. The number of products negotiated for price reduction goes from 10 to 20 over the years and stays fixed at this number. Reaching any significant number out of the 14,000 reimbursed will take forever if biosimilars and generics keep entering. The IRA does not apply to private markets.

METHODS

The IRA legislation and related statutes were analysed in consultation with legal teams; the spending data were derived from the CMS portals and the FDA databases to rank the most likely products selected when the selection process is initiated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The savings to Medicare will come from reducing the price of only a few products, primarily with $1B and upward spending; when Plan B product scheduling enters, these will be at the bottom of the selection because of their lower expenditure. The total number of products subject to price reduction may be negligible if generics and biosimilars are introduced after the exclusivity period of the listed drug or reference product. The private market with an 80% share may benefit due to price spillover but mainly by the expedited entry of generics and biosimilars.

WHAT IS NEW AND THE CONCLUSION

The entry of generics and biosimilars will now be encouraged by brand-name product companies, reducing the intellectual property hurdles like the "patent dance" for biosimilars. The IRA includes restrictions to prevent the brand name companies from exploiting the entry of generics and biosimilars to assure their independence.

Indication-wide drug pricing: Insights from the pharma market

Background

Pharmaceutical spending has been increasing rapidly for years and is higher than ever before. To control the rising costs, countries are implementing regulatory frameworks such as (internal) reference pricing, price cuts or generics substitution. Internal reference pricing establishes a reference price within a country which serves as the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of pharmaceuticals. Price setting in the German market is especially relevant for many European countries, which use Germany as a reference country for their own price setting.

Methods

We evaluate pharmaceutical price dynamics for not reference priced pharmaceuticals (NRPs) as well as for reference priced pharmaceuticals (RPs) in Germany—referring to the internal reference price system. 64,862 medication packs have been extracted from the German pharmaceutical pricing register Lauer-Taxe. For each pack, we extracted detailed data on the company, manufacturer rebates, pharmacy retail prices, reference prices, co-payments, import quotas, and discount agreements. We then investigated price setting and dynamics of NRPs vs. RPs for all 14 indication areas by ATC code level 1.

Results

The average manufacturer price per pack was 604.84€ for NRPs and 112.11€ for RPs. Similar differences were found for the wholesale price and the pharmacy retail price. The reference price was—as expected—0.00€ for NRPs, and 154.40€ for RPs. NRP packs were imported in 42.38%, while RP packs were imported only in 24.62%. Highest average pharmacy retail prices could be found in the therapeutic areas ‘antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents’ (1711.47€), ‘systemic hormonal preparations’ (1331.95€), and ‘blood and blood forming organs’ (1260.58€). We detected high fluctuations in pharmacy retail prices per indication, as well as for reference prices per indication. The indications with the highest number of reference price regulated medical packs are ‘cardiovascular system’, ‘musculo-skeletal system’, and ‘nervous system’. Highest co-payments were found in the indications ‘antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents’, ‘blood and blood forming organs’, and ‘antiinfectives for systemic use’.

Conclusion

Price setting and price dynamics vary substantially between NRP and RP medication packs. Further, we saw major differences across all indication areas as well as when comparing medication packs launched by top 20 pharma companies vs. the rest.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-022-00451-x.

Switching Among Biosimilars: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Biological medicines have improved patients’ outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

Under the Umbrella of Clinical Pharmacology: Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Infliximab and Adalimumab, and a Bridge to an Era of Biosimilars

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders—Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe—Who Decides the Future?

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists’ discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.

Assessing, Pricing and Funding Point-of-Care Diagnostic Tests for Community-Acquired Acute Respiratory Tract Infections–Overview of Policies Applied in 17 European Countries

Point-of-care diagnostic tests for community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) can support doctors by improving antibiotic prescribing. However, little is known about health technology assessment (HTA), pricing and funding policies for CA-ARTI diagnostics. Thus, this study investigated these policies for this group of devices applied in the outpatient setting in Europe. Experts from competent authority responded to a questionnaire in Q4/2020. Information is available for 17 countries. Studied countries do not base their pricing and funding decision for CA-ARTI diagnostics on an HTA. While a few countries impose price regulation for some publicly funded medical devices, the prices of CA-ARTI diagnostics are not directly regulated in any of the surveyed countries. Indirect price regulation through public procurement is applied in some countries. Reimbursement lists of medical devices eligible for public funding exist in several European countries, and in some countries these lists include CA-ARTI diagnostics. In a few countries, the public payer funds the health professional for performing the service of conducting the test. Given low levels of regulation and few incentives, the study findings suggest room for strengthening pricing and funding policies of CA-ARTI diagnostics to contribute to increased acceptance and use of these point-of-care tests.

Awareness and Knowledge of Pharmacists toward Biosimilar Medicines: A Survey in Jordan

Aims

Pharmacists in all clinical settings are recognized drug experts and integral educators of biosimilar medicines. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess pharmacists' knowledge, predictors of knowledge, and views toward biosimilar medicines in Jordan.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Jordan during October-December 2020. An Internet-based self-administrated questionnaire on knowledge and views was distributed using social media groups to the pharmacists among different areas in Jordan. A descriptive and univariate analysis was performed. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine the predictors of knowledge including all variables with p < 0.20 on univariate analysis.

Results

A total 536 responses were received, 502 of which were completed (93.7% response rate). A total of 52.6% of the pharmacists were knowledgeable about biosimilar medicines and the mean of knowledge level was 6.47 ± 1.62 (range 2-10). Multivariate analysis identified that respondents who had heard about biosimilars before (OR = 1.942, 95% CI = 1.231-3.063, p < 0.05) was more likely to be knowledgeable. Respondents who had not taken the course or the postgraduating training course about biosimilars that were less likely to be knowledgeable (OR = 0.548, 95% CI = 0.357-0.839, p < 0.05). A positive response was noted in pharmacist's view regarding the implementation of biosimilar medicines in healthcare setting, biosimilar medicine prescription related to decreased costs, self-study about biosimilar medicine, and incorporating biosimilar education program at the pharmacy school curriculum universities level.

Conclusions

Pharmacists' views and knowledge vary regarding the particularities and key issues on biosimilar medicines in Jordan. Incorporating biosimilar course in pharmacy school curriculum could improve their acceptance for future pharmacy jobs.

Dynamics of biosimilar uptake in emerging markets

INTRODUCTION

Globally, biosimilars are expected to play a key role in lowering healthcare costs and providing increased patient access to biological therapies. Given this, and in line with the European Union and World Health Organization, many emerging nations have adapted and established biosimilar regulatory guidelines. Emerging nations present a lucrative market for biosimilar development and commercialization, yet they also pose unique challenges. A thorough understanding of the unique attributes of emerging markets in relation to biosimilars is needed to promote their successful uptake in low- and middle-income countries.

AREAS COVERED

This article highlights the opportunities and challenges that emerging markets represent in terms of biosimilar uptake. A comprehensive analysis of biosimilar uptake in European countries, where biosimilars have gained significant market share, was carried out to identify policies that can enhance market penetration in emerging nations.

EXPERT OPINION

Implementation of pricing and procurement policies, as well as provider and patient confidence in biosimilar efficacy, are key factors in their uptake. Due to the high cost of biosimilar development, incentivizing domestic companies with the biosimilar manufacturing capability to produce these drugs will be helpful in ensuring a sustainable biosimilar market and a steady supply chain.

Moving forward: Implementing health psychology research to improve patient acceptance of biosimilars

As more biosimilars enter the pharmaceutical market, patient acceptance remains a significant barrier to their uptake. Psychological factors, such as negative expectations, are important causes of patient hesitancy. As a result, patients can develop nocebo responses following a transition, discontinue biosimilar treatment early, or have poor adherence. These negative outcomes may offset some of the cost-saving potential of biosimilars. Key healthcare professionals such as pharmacists, physicians, and nurses already play a noteworthy role in educating and transitioning patients. However, given the psychological aspect of biosimilar acceptance, it is logical for healthcare professionals and researchers to draw on research and theory from health psychology. This commentary outlines how a multidisciplinary approach can add to the understanding of the mechanisms behind patient resistance to biosimilars and help engage patients in the transitioning process. It also explores how health psychology strategies that have been successful in similar areas can be translated to help conduct more effective transitions. Future directions in research are discussed.

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.