Effect on Patients’ Outcomes of a Change to Biosimilar Filgrastim Product in Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization

Background: Following addition of a biosimilar filgrastim product to the formulary, sites in the authors’ provincial health authority transitioned from using the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar for autologous stem cell mobilization. Objective: To assess the effect on patient outcomes of a universal change to use of the biosimilar filgrastim in stem cell mobilization. Methods: This retrospective pre–post study included patients undergoing autologous stem cell mobilization at 2 cancer hospitals in Alberta, Canada, between July 1, 2018, and November 30, 2019. Clinical outcomes were investigated for patients treated with a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (biosimilar or originator product) for mobilization before stem cell transplant, approximately 6 months before and after the defined date of product change. Results: In total, 102 patients were treated with the originator product and 101 patients with the biosimilar. Effectiveness was similar between the originator and biosimilar products, with 98% successful harvest of stem cells in all patients treated. Independent t tests showed no statistically significant differences between patients receiving the originator and those receiving the biosimilar in terms of time from mobilization to collection (difference of means –0.9 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] –2.12 to 0.32), time for neutrophil engraftment (difference of means 0 days, 95% CI –0.36 to 0.36), time for platelet engraftment (difference of means 1 day, 95% CI –0.55 to 2.55), average length of stay (difference of means –0.7 day, 95% CI –2.71 to 1.31), and CD34+ value (difference of means –1 × 106/kg body weight, 95% CI –2.11 to 0.11). A 98% rate of conversion to use of the biosimilar filgrastim was achieved, with an estimated annual drug-cost saving of $67 500. Conclusions: In this pre–post study, changing to the biosimilar product from the originator maintained clinical effectiveness outcomes while decreasing overall drug expenditures. A well-planned change to the biosimilar product, executed in conjunction with clinician consultation and monitoring of effectiveness outcomes, can ensure appropriate patient therapy while significantly improving the uptake of biosimilars and decreasing expenditures for biologic drugs. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : À la suite de l’ajout d’un produit filgrastim biosimilaire à la liste des médicaments, les sites relevant de l’autorité sanitaire provinciale des auteurs sont passés de l’utilisation du filgrastim princeps à la version générique pour la mobilisation des cellules souches autologues. Objectif : Évaluer l’effet sur les résultats des patients d’un changement généralisé visant à utiliser le filgrastim générique pour la mobilisation des cellules souches. Méthodes : Cette étude rétrospective pré-post comprenait des patients soumis à une mobilisation des cellules souches autologues dans deux hôpitaux de cancérologie en Alberta (Canada) entre le 1er juillet 2018 et le 30 novembre 2019. L’examen des résultats cliniques des patients traités à l’aide d’un facteur stimulant les colonies de granulocytes (G-CSF) (générique ou princeps) pour une mobilisation avant la greffe de cellules souches a eu lieu environ six mois avant et après la date du changement de produit. Résultats : Au total, 102 patients ont été traités à l’aide du produit princeps et 101 patients à l’aide du générique. Les deux produits présentaient une efficacité similaire, et 98 % de réussite dans la récolte de cellules souches chez tous les patients traités. Des tests t indépendants n’ont montré aucune différence statistique significative entre les patients recevant le princeps et ceux recevant le biosimilaire en termes de temps allant de la mobilisation à la collecte (différence des moyennes –0,9 jour, intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 % –2,12 à 0,32); temps de la prise de la greffe neutrophile (différence des moyennes 0 jour, IC 95 % –0,36 à 0,36); temps de la prise de la greffe des plaquettes (différence des moyennes 1 jour, IC 95 % –0,55 à 2,55); durée moyenne du séjour (différence des moyennes –0,7 jour, IC 95 % –2,71 à 1,31) et valeur CD34+ (différence des moyennes –1 × 106/kg masse corporelle, IC 95 % –2,11 à 0,11). Un taux de conversion de 98 % visant à utiliser le filgrastim générique a été atteint, avec une estimation des économies annuelles sur le coût des médicaments de 67 500 $. Conclusions : Dans cette étude pré-post, le passage du produit princeps au générique a préservé l’efficacité des résultats cliniques, tout en diminuant les dépenses générales liées au médicament. Un changement bien programmé pour passer au produit générique, mené conjointement avec la consultation d’un clinicien et un contrôle des résultats d’efficacité, peut assurer une thérapie du patient appropriée tout en améliorant grandement la prise de produits génériques et en diminuant les dépenses associées aux médicaments biologiques.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry.Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures.Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab.Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80–90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 – €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures.Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners global position on the use of biosimilars in cancer treatment and supportive care

With the development of innovative cancer treatments over recent decades, the cost of cancer care has risen exponentially, limiting patient access to patented originator biotherapeutics in many countries. The introduction of biosimilars to the market has created new opportunities as well the need for changes in practice within healthcare institutions. A ‘biosimilar’ is a biotherapeutic product which is highly similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an already licensed originator product. Although biosimilars lack clinically meaningful differences in therapeutic activity as compared to the originator product, these complex biological molecules are not considered identical chemical copies, unlike generics, and minor differences in molecular structure and inactive compounds may exist. A thorough understanding of these differences and their clinical implications is necessary for optimising medicines-use practices involving biosimilars. This position statement, developed by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Biosimilars Taskforce, aims to provide the global oncology pharmacy community with guidance to support decisions around biosimilar use. The 11 statements cover the regulation and evaluation of biosimilars, practical issues around local implementation, the education of healthcare staff and patients, and the requirement for ongoing pharmacovigilance and outcome monitoring.

The rise of oncology biosimilars: from process to promise

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to, and have no clinically meaningful differences from, the approved originator molecule. They are poised to play an increasingly central role in cancer treatment, helping to improve access by driving down costs. Regulatory bodies have set out robust mechanisms for the approval of biosimilars, based on comprehensive and rigorous analytical and nonclinical comparisons with the originator. Product attributes (e.g., post-translational modifications) that are important to the function of the molecule must be similar between biosimilar and originator. This should be followed by a robust clinical development program, assessing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. Equivalence in one indication might allow extrapolation across all the indications of the originator biologic. The recent approval of several trastuzumab biosimilars provides an example of how this process can work in practice for the benefit of patients, clinicians and payers.

Treatment retention of infliximab and etanercept originators versus their corresponding biosimilars: Nordic collaborative observational study of 2334 biologics naïve patients with spondyloarthritis

ObjectiveAlthough clinical trials support equivalence of originator products and biosimilars for etanercept and infliximab, real-world studies among biologics-naïve patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) are lacking. The objectives were to compare treatment retention in biologics-naïve patients with SpA starting either the originator product or a biosimilar of infliximab and etanercept, and to explore the baseline characteristics of these patients.MethodsPatients with SpA (ankylosing spondylitis/non-radiographical axial SpA/undifferentiated SpA), starting infliximab or etanercept as their first-ever biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug during January 2014–June 2017 were identified in five Nordic biologics–rheumatology registers. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from each registry; comorbidity data were identified through linkage to national health registers. Country-specific data were pooled, and data on infliximab and etanercept were analysed separately. Comparisons of treatment retention between originators and biosimilars were assessed through survival probability curves, retention rates (2 years for infliximab/1 year for etanercept) and Hazard Ratios (HR).ResultsWe included 1319 patients starting infliximab (24% originator/76% biosimilar), and 1015 patients starting etanercept (49% originator/51% biosimilar). Baseline characteristics were largely similar for the patients treated with the originators compared with the corresponding biosimilars. Survival probability curves were highly similar for the originator and its biosimilar, as were retention rates: infliximab 2-year retention originator, 44% (95% CI 38% to 50%)/biosimilar, 46% (95% CI: 42% to 51%); and etanercept 1-year retention originator, 66% (95% CI 61% to 70%)/biosimilar, 73% (95% CI 68% to 78%). HRs were not statistically significant.ConclusionThis observational study of biologics-naïve patients with SpA from five Nordic countries showed similar baseline characteristics and very similar retention rates in patients treated with originators versus biosimilars, for both infliximab and etanercept, indicating comparable effectiveness in clinical practice.