Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly

Stajszczyk, Marcin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-024-00663-4

IF: 7.744

2024-06-12

BioDrugs

Abstract:To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market.

oncology,pharmacology & pharmacy,immunology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Elif Car,Arnold G. Vulto,Mark Van Houdenhoven,Isabelle Huys,Steven Simoens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1151764

IF: 5.6

2023-04-22

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract: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.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept

Helen Mooney,Matthew Martin,Liam Bendicksen,Aaron S Kesselheim,Benjamin N Rome,Hussain S Lalani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.23209

2024-03-01

Abstract:As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) navigates the process of negotiating drug prices, it plans to compare the cost, safety, and effectiveness of each drug with its therapeutic alternatives. How CMS selects therapeutic alternatives is a consequential decision, and there remains uncertainty about their methodology. To understand the challenges CMS will face in selecting therapeutic alternatives, we developed a methodology that leverages clinical guidelines by US medical professional associations to identify potential therapeutic alternatives for etanercept, one of the first 10 drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation. For each of etanercept's 5 US Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, we identified all drugs with the same mechanism of action as etanercept and considered drugs with different mechanisms if they were recommended in place of etanercept at the same treatment stage, or if there was no strong comparative safety or effectiveness evidence that the drug differed from etanercept. We identified 22 potential therapeutic alternatives to etanercept, including 4 drugs with the same mechanism, 10 biologics with different mechanisms, and 8 small-molecule drugs. We faced several challenges in selecting therapeutic alternatives using clinical guidelines, such as how to reconcile strong recommendations that were based on weak evidence and how to consider combination therapies. This exercise demonstrates the complex considerations that CMS will face as it negotiates drug prices based on therapies' cost, safety, and effectiveness relative to therapeutic alternatives.
Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost‐savings

Claire T. Deakin,Geoffrey O. Littlejohn,Hedley Griffiths,Sabina Ciciriello,Catherine O'Sullivan,Tegan Smith,Peter Youssef,Paul Bird,the OPAL consortium

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.16296

2023-11-29

Internal Medicine Journal

Abstract:Background and Aims This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first‐line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost‐savings associated with this approach in Australia. Methods Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real‐world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first‐recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost‐savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise. Results Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7–36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0–33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost‐savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study. Conclusion Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government.

medicine, general & internal
Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of costs of rheumatoid arthritis therapy with selected biological treatment

Krzysztof Kowalik,Małgorzata Węgierska,Tacjana Barczyńska,Sławomir Jeka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2018.80710

2018-01-01

Reumatologia/Rheumatology

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Among autoimmune diseases, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most common chronic inflammatory disease of the joints. Its pathogenesis is still not fully understood, but the gained knowledge has contributed to the development of modern treatment. The introduction of biological therapy for RA has been a breakthrough in the standard approach to the treatment of this disease.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study material was retrospectively collected in the Rheumatology and Systemic Tissue Diseases Clinic and Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic in dr. Jan Biziel University Hospital No. 2 in Bydgoszcz. Patients were divided into 3 groups: patients receiving infliximab - 43 patients, etanercept - 27 patients and adalimumab - 34 patients. In the study, the pharmacoeconomic analysis included direct and indirect medical costs. Direct medical costs analyzed in the study included costs for the purchase of medications, diagnostic and imaging costs, and medical consultations and hospitalization costs. The analysis included all direct medical costs incurred by the hospital and the patient, as well as indirect costs outside the healthcare sector - that is, the Polish Social Insurance Institution benefits (disability benefits, rehabilitation benefits, sickness absences). Direct medical costs are also presented from the perspective of the payer - The Polish National Health Fund - taking into account the cost and percentage share of medical expenses.RESULTS: The analysis concerned resources used since the beginning of treatment with a given biological medication for 24 months or earlier if disease remission occurred.A cost-benefit analysis was carried out in the study using biosimilar medications present on the market in relation to the treatment regimens. Considering the total cost, if only Inflectra were used in therapy, PLN 18 151.98 per patient could be saved, and in the case of Remsima, PLN 16 385.14. In less than 19 months, to use infliximab for 43 patients, PLN 780 475.80 more would have to be spent than in the case of the biosimilar medication Inflectra, and PLN 704 561 in the case of Remsima.The highest total cost is generated by treatment with adalimumab, followed by etanercept, and infliximab. Of the costs analyzed, a significant majority was for biological treatment.CONCLUSIONS: Given the Polish financial conditions, the best solution now is to reduce the prices of biological medications. This is possible through the introduction of biosimilar medications that, when placed on the market, reduce the price of the original medication, as is currently the case with Remicade and Enbrel. The introduction of Inflectra and Remsima, as well as Benepali and Erelzi, has reduced the price base of original medications to similar levels of treatment with biosimilar medications. The wider use of biological treatment would also reduce indirect costs.
Access to biologics and JAK inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: nation-level study

Marcin Stajszczyk,Brygida Kwiatkowska,Zbigniew M Żuber,Bogdan Batko,Zbigniew M. Żuber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.16655

2024-01-02

Polish Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars represents an opportunity for improved accessibility to highly effective drugs.OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess access to the biologic antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a ten year timeframe in Poland.PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database was done.RESULTS: By 2022, 11,102, 6,602 and 4,400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs/JAKis, respectively. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased to 3.2%, 8.7% and 3.5% from the previous 0.8%, 1.4% and 0.8%, among RA, PsA and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable TNF inhibitors (TNFis) are still predominant among innovative therapeutics, but a market share decline from 87% to 46% was observed. Respective to less costly TNFis, the increase in the number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis, was almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from the €7,315 to €2,886. Despite the recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding COVID-19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations.CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, biosimilars-related savings contributed more so to improvement of higher priced innovative drugs availability, rather than less costly TNFis. Data-driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

medicine, general & internal
Learnings from cross-border biosimilar pricing policies in Europe

Steven Simoens,Teresa Barcina Lacosta,András Inotai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2334343

2024-03-29

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:KEYWORDS: Biologics rank among the most expensive medicines on the market and represent about one-third of the total pharmaceutical spending [ Citation 1 ]. To contain expenditures associated with biologics, which is especially relevant in the oncology space, policy-makers have taken an interest to foster the uptake of lower-priced biosimilars [ Citation 2 , Citation 3 ]. Numerous analyses have shown that the market presence of biosimilars triggers list- and real price reductions in both non-innovator and innovator products, either through price competition or mandatory price cuts. Estimates indicate that global list price savings from biosimilars could reach USD 300 billion by 2025 [ Citation 4 ]. In practice, further savings are realized arising from confidential discounts, although actual numbers may vary between molecules and markets.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Utilization Pattern Of Etanercept And Its Cost Implications In Moderate To Severe Psoriasis In A Managed Care Population

Eric Q. Wu,Steve R. Feldman,Lei Chen,Anna Kaltenboeck,Andrew P. Yu,Shiraz R. Gupta,David Laitinen,Mary K. Willian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007990802551057

2008-01-01

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract:Objective: To describe the utilization patterns, particularly dosage-escalation patterns, and economic implications of etanercept in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in a real-world setting.Methods: Patients with psoriasis receiving etanercept were identified from the Integrated Health Care Information Services database and were observed for 12 months or until etanercept discontinuation (defined as gap of >60 days between prescriptions). Patients were excluded if they had other autoimmune conditions or received TNF antagonists within 6 months of the index date. Ratios of patients with dosage increase to total sample were calculated. Among patients continuing treatment for 1 year, etanercept dosage and drug costs (measured by average wholesale price) were compared for patients with and without dosage increase using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.Results: 55.2% of patients discontinued during the study year; 51.6% of patients initiated at 100 mg/week; and 34.8% who initiated at 50 mg/week required dosage increases. Among patients continuously treated for 1 year, dosage increase resulted in incremental annual drug costs of $8 440 and $9 313 for 100 and 50 mg/week, respectively (both p<0.0001). The annual dosage of etanercept in excess of the labeled amount translated into $2 040 and $3 032 greater etanercept costs per patient in the 100 and 50 mg/week groups, respectively.Conclusion: In this analysis, 33-50% of patients with psoriasis required dosage increases during their first year of etanercept therapy, resulting in increased annual treatment costs as compared with expected costs imputed from label indications. Because of patient selection criteria, the findings may not be representative of the entire population of patients with psoriasis.
The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures

Evelien Moorkens,Brian Godman,Isabelle Huys,Iris Hoxha,Admir Malaj,Simon Keuerleber,Silvia Stockinger,Sarah Mörtenhuber,Maria Dimitrova,Konstantin Tachkov,Luka Vončina,Vera Vlahović Palčevski,Gnosia Achniotou,Juraj Slabý,Leona Popelková,Kateřina Kohoutová,Dorthe Bartels,Ott Laius,Jaana E Martikainen,Gisbert W Selke,Vasileios Kourafalos,Einar Magnússon,Rannveig Einarsdóttir,Roisín Adams,Roberta Joppi,Eleonora Allocati,Arianit Jakupi,Anita Viksna,Ieva Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov,Patricia Vella Bonanno,Vincent Suttorp,Øyvind Melien,Robert Plisko,Ileana Mardare,Dmitry Meshkov,Tanja Novakovic,Jurij Fürst,Corinne Zara,Vanda Marković-Peković,Nataša Grubiša,Gustaf Befrits,Robert Puckett,Arnold G Vulto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.591134

2021-01-08

Abstract: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.
The impact of an 'evergreening' strategy nearing patent expiration on the uptake of biosimilars and public healthcare costs: a case study on the introduction of a second administration form of trastuzumab in The Netherlands

Kemp, Ron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01648-w

2024-01-09

The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract:In this paper, we explore dynamic market share and public healthcare costs of trastuzumab's evergreening (subcutaneous) variant during introduction of trastuzumab's competitive biosimilar variants in the Netherlands. We used a time series design to assess dynamic market share of trastuzumab's evergreening variant after introducing trastuzumab's biosimilar variants, focusing on the number of treatments and patients. The public healthcare costs of this evergreening strategy were estimated using administrative claims data. Our results show that the original trastuzumab was completely replaced by the subcutaneous and biosimilar variants. The uptake of the subcutaneous form peaked at 50% market share but after the introduction of biosimilars progressively reduced to a market share of 20%, resulting in a more competitive market structure. The public healthcare costs for trastuzumab significantly decreased after the introduction of the biosimilars. After the introduction of the biosimilars, a substantial price drop is visible, with the subcutaneous version, still under patent, also falling sharply in price but less strongly than the iv/biosimilar version. As the costs are publicly funded, we recommend a more explicit societal debate to consider if the potential benefits of subcutaneous Herceptin ® (and other similar medicines) are worth the additional costs, and at which price it should be reimbursed as the part of the benefit package.

health policy & services,economics
Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar etanercept compared to the reference formulation original etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study

Valentyna Pekhenko,Vlad Udovitskiy,Olena Barbukho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039060

2024-07-26

Abstract:Background: The objective of this phase III clinical randomized trial was to establish the therapeutic equivalence of biosimilar etanercept (bio-etanercept) with original etanercept (O-etanercept) for patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: The study (NCT04079374) enrolled patients with moderate to high disease activity rheumatoid arthritis. Enrolled patients were randomized 1:1 into 2 treatment groups, 1 receiving bio-etanercept (study drug) and the other receiving O-etanercept (comparator) at a dose of 25mg twice weekly, for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of patients with an ACR20 response after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety (adverse reaction/adverse event) and immunogenicity of both drugs were evaluated. Results: Among 156 patients (79 in the bio-etanercept group and 77 in the O-etanercept group) who completed 24-week treatment and 4-week follow-up, 82.3% (65 patients) and 90.9% (70 patients) achieved an ACR20 response in the bio-etanercept and O-etanercept groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .16). No significant differences in the occurrence of adverse reactions/adverse events were found between the 2 groups regardless of severity (P = .63 for mild, P = .43 for moderate and P > .99 for severe). The development of antibodies in the bio-etanercept group was observed in 4 (5.1%; visit 6), 4 (5.0%; visit 9), and 3 (3.8%; visit 11) patients, and in 5 (6.4%), 5 (6.5%), and 3 (4.1%) patients in the O-etanercept group. The differences between the 2 groups were not significant (P > .99). Conclusions: This study showed that bio-etanercept was equivalent to the reference formulation.
Comparative Price Analysis of Biological Products for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Manoela Manova,Alexandra Savova,Maria Vasileva,Silvia Terezova,Maria Kamusheva,Daniela Grekova,Valentina Petkova,Guenka Petrova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01070

IF: 5.6

2018-09-20

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Biological products for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis usually are cost effective for healthcare systems in Europe, but they are huge financial burden due to the high number of patients and the significant budget impact. The expected saving from introduction on the market of biosimilars are significant and are linked to better access and affordability. The aim of this study was to conduct comparative price analysis of biological products for rheumatoid arthritis therapy among seventeen EU countries. The point of view is that of the Bulgarian pricing and reimbursement system and the chosen countries are those from external reference basket for prices comparison at manufacturing level. All authorized biological products by EMA with therapeutic indication rheumatoid arthritis were selected. The access for treatment is evaluated as the availability of the product on the market and the prices level. We assessed the availability of all trade names in the price lists of the observed countries. The prices data was obtained from the official web pages of the responsible institutions up to date December 2017. The results show that four out of all six INNs have authorized biosimilars in EMA. Despite its earlier authorization biosimilar adalimumab is not present in any of the price lists of countries. From all eighteen countries only in Lithuania and Estonia there were no published prices of any of the selected medicinal products. Countries with higher number of biosimilar prices are Spain and France. Differences in manufacturers' prices of reference biological products in selected countries in comparison with the lowest manufacturer price are higher with 22 to 69% while the retail prices between 62 and 95%. Differences are mostly notable for rituximab, and less notable for tocilizumab. Manufacturers' and retail prices of biosimilar products were established only for three INNs (etanercept, rituximab, and infliximab). Manufacturers' prices differ between 26 and 75%, while retail prices differ between 40 and 92% for biosimilars. Comparison of the differences between manufacturer prices of reference biological product and biosimilars shows 36% difference for etanercept, 39% for rituximab, and 31% for infliximab, while at retail level the differences are 11, 86, and 143%, respectively. The limitation of the study is that the prices are the official ones without discounts due to confidentiality and the real prices may be lower. The second limitation is that the methodology for pricing differs in the countries and this could also influence the prices on both levels (manufacturer and retail). Introduction of biosimilars on the national markets led to significant decrease in reimbursed prices paid by public funds and thus might benefit the patients' access to biological therapy. The decrease of prices after biosimilars entrance on the market is not as notable as for commodity generics.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Physicochemical Characterization of Altebrel™, a Proposed Etanercept Biosimilar

Ramin Fazel,Fereidoun Mahboudi,Ehsan Seyedjafari,Soroush Sardari,Behrouz Vaziri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30498/IJB.2019.99581

2019-12-01

Abstract:Background: Etanercept is prescribed for the rapid and effective treatment of chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. Due to the expiration of etanercept patents and worldwide demand for comparable and more affordable substitutes, several biosimilars of etanercept have been approved in different countries and new ones are in the process of approval. Objectives: In the present study, Altebrel™ as an etanercept proposed biosimilar was investigated in a side by side comparison using various orthogonal analytical methods. Materials and methods: Three batches of the Altebrel™ and Enbrel® samples were used for the study. Several physicochemical properties of samples were compared according to international guidelines, incliding; sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), Capillary electrophoresis sodium dodecyl sulfate (CE-SDS), size exclusion high performance liquid chromatography (SE-HPLC), hydrophobic interaction chromatography high performance liquid chromatography (HIC-HPLC) and its biological activity was evaluated using surface plasmon resonance affinity analysis and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) neutralization biological assay. Amino acid analysis was applied to check the primary sequence and far-UV circular dichroism (CD) spectroscopy investigated the secondary structure. Results: The obtained results indicated a high degree of similarity between Altebrel™ and Enbrel®. Results of SDS-PAGE, CE-SDS, HIC-HPLC and SE-HPLC implied a comparable pattern of size variants for all samples. Based on the data achieved via in vitro bioactivity assays and SPR analysis, the functional property of Altebrel™ was proved comparable to that of the reference product. Moreover, amino acid analysis indicated similar primary structure and circular dichroism study implied a similar secondary structure for Altebrel™ and Enbrel®. Conclusion: Overall, our data provide analytical evidence for structural and in vitro functional similarity between Altebrel™ and Enbrel®.
Etanercept originator versus etanercept biosimilar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as a first biologic: results from the BSRBR-RA

Lianne Kearsley-Fleet,Aasiyah Rokad,Man-Fung Tsoi,Sizheng Steven Zhao,Mark Lunt,Kimme L Hyrich,Kath D Watson,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kead127

2023-03-21

Rheumatology

Abstract:Abstract Objectives Etanercept biosimilars show comparable efficacy to their originators among biologic-naïve patients with RA in randomized controlled trials. Nationwide guidelines have obligated prescribing of etanercept biosimilars from 2016, resulting in significant cost savings. This analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of etanercept originator vs etanercept biosimilar amongst biologic-naïve RA patients treated in routine clinical practice in the UK. Methods Biologic-naïve RA patients starting etanercept in the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register in Rhematoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) cohort study from 2010 were included. Data collected at start of therapy includes patient demographics and disease activity. Follow-up data includes changes in disease activity and anti-rheumatic therapy. Six- and 12-month primary outcomes include DAS for 28-joints (DAS28) remission, EULAR response and minimal clinically important difference in function. Etanercept drug survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression, including reasons for treatment withdrawal. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Propensity-decile adjustment was used to account for confounding by indication. Results A total of 1806 biologic-naïve RA patients started etanercept: 1009 originator, 797 biosimilar. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients achieving DAS28 remission and EULAR response were similar between treatments. During follow-up, 19% of originator patients switched onto etanercept biosimilar. Patients were censored at time of switch. Patients on originator were no more likely to stop therapy vs biosimilar; 71% of originator and 76% of biosimilar patients remained on therapy at 1 year. Conclusions In one of the largest analyses of patients with RA, biologic-naïve RA patients treated with etanercept originator showed similar outcomes vs biosimilar using real-world data. Drug survival, and disease activity after 6 and 12 months of therapy, was similar between cohorts.

rheumatology
Real-world use of an etanercept biosimilar including selective versus automatic substitution in inflammatory arthritis patients: a UK-based electronic health records study

Roxanne Cooksey,Sinead Brophy,Jonathan Kennedy,Michael Seaborne,Ernest Choy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkac056

2022-01-01

Rheumatology Advances in Practice

Abstract:Abstract Objective Biosimilars are approved as an alternative treatment to their originators. We compared the clinical outcomes of etanercept (ETN) biosimilar compared with ETN originator in real-world practice, from two local health boards in Wales with different policies on switching: automatic vs selective. Methods Data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank in Wales were used to create a retrospective cohort study using linked primary and secondary care data. Patients aged ≥18 years with diagnosis codes for RA, PsA or AS were included. Outcomes included treatment failure and DAS-28 score (for RA). The local health board with a policy of automatic switching (i.e. clinician/nurse involvement not mandated) is labelled as automatic switch area, and the other, which required clinician/nurse supervision, as selective switch. Results Of 8925 individuals with inflammatory arthritis, 13.3% (365) received ETN biosimilar and 31.5% (863) ETN originator. The treatment discontinuation rate was similar for ETN biosimilar and originator by Kaplan–Meier analysis. More biosimilar failure patients were treated in the automatic switch area (15 vs 4.8%). In the automatic switch area, 28.8% (75 of 260) of patients switched automatically from ETN originator to biosimilar compared with 10.5% (11 of 105) in the selective switch area. ETN biosimilar reduced DAS-28 by 1.6 ± 1.8 in the selective switch area vs 0.4 ± 0.6 in the automatic switch area. Conclusion The ETN biosimilar was well tolerated. Fewer people were switched using selective policy, but this was associated with lower failure rates. Automatic switch policy led to more patients being switched and did not lead to significant worsening of disease.
Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19

Hui-Han Chen,Tatenda Yemeke,Sachiko Ozawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304851

IF: 3.7

2024-06-06

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions. Methods: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market. Results: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively. Conclusions: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.
Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe – part 1: a historical perspective

Jorge Mestre,Marcin Czech,Josef S. Smolen,Paul Cornes,Matti S. Aapro,Silvio Danese,Stephen Deitch,Hannah Tyldsley,Will Foster,Pooja Shah,Mark Latymer,Arnold G. Vulto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2297926

2024-01-11

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:Introduction Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis

Alexander C. Egilman,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Jerry Avorn,Adam J. N. Raymakers,Benjamin N. Rome

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.6236

IF: 11.816

2024-02-21

JAMA Dermatology

Abstract:Importance The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures EFs were constructed based on each biologic’s efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

dermatology
Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU

Doni Bloomfield,Aaron S Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.133

Abstract:The US has found it hard to establish competition in the market for biologics, which are therapeutics derived from living cells. In the case of small-molecule drugs, the emergence of direct competition from generic drugs at the end of the exclusivity period has provided the impetus for price competition, leading to lower spending. In 2010, to spur competition in the biologics market, Congress created a simplified pathway for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve comparable versions of biologic drugs called biosimilars. Biosimilar competition in the US has nonetheless remained weaker than in European peer countries. For example, as of August 2020, there were 52 biosimilars available in Germany, and only 15 in the US.1 An important contributor to this "biosimilar gap" has been the fact that biosimilars to biologic blockbusters such as adalimumab (Humira) and etanercept (Enbrel) were only (or will only become) commercially available in the US several years after receiving FDA approval, while they were available in Europe years earlier.2 Through the end of 2021, it took biosimilars a median of 301 days between receiving FDA approval and becoming available for use.3 In one recent study, the median length of time between when a biologic drug was approved and when its first biosimilar was made available to US patients was 21.5 years.4 This paucity of competition has contributed to high US spending on biologics. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2022 41% of US drug expenditures was spent on biologics, which represented 16% of US prescriptions.5.
Drug survival analysis of etanercept compared with monoclonal antibody tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: a propensity score-matched analysis from the Czech ATTRA registry

Š Tichý,L Nekvindová,J Baranová,J Vencovský,K Pavelka,P Horák,J Závada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2024.2381746

2024-08-06

Abstract:Objectives: To compare the drug survival of etanercept to monoclonal tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Methods: Patients initiating first line biological therapy with tumour necrosis factor-α were propensity score matched and compared for drug survival with a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: We matched 657 to 657 patients in rheumatoid arthritis, the median survival time on etanercept was 44.6 months vs. 36.8 months on monoclonal antibody tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, with a hazard ratio of 0.94, p = 0.416 We matched 187 to 356 patients in ankylosing spondylitis, the median survival time on etanercept was 75.1 compared to 68.0 months, hazard ratio of 0.78, p = 0.087 We matched 81 to 160 psoriatic arthritis patients, the median survival time on etanercept was 35.8. compared to 65.7 months, hazard ratio 1.61, p = 0.011. Patients treated with etanercept had significantly worse psoriasis scoring during follow up. Conclusions: We found comparable survival in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. In psoriatic arthritis, we found significantly shorter survival on etanercept, possibly due to worse response of skin and nail manifestations.
New Alternatives for Autoimmune Disease Treatments: Physicochemical and Clinical Comparability of Biosimilar Etanercept

Mariana P. Miranda-Hernández,Carlos A. López-Morales,Francisco C. Perdomo-Abúndez,Rodolfo D. Salazar-Flores,Nancy D. Ramírez-Ibanez,Nestor O. Pérez,Aarón Molina-Pérez,Jorge Revilla-Beltri,Luis F. Flores-Ortiz,Emilio Medina-Rivero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9697080

IF: 4.4929

2016-01-01

Journal of Immunology Research

Abstract:Etanercept is a recombinant fusion protein approved for the treatment of TNF- α mediated diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Herein, we present an evaluation of the physicochemical and biological properties of a biosimilar etanercept and its reference product followed by a clinical study in patients diagnosed with RA intended to demonstrate comparability of their immunomodulatory activity. Identity analyses showed a total correspondence of the primary and higher-order structure between the two products. In regard to intrinsic heterogeneity, both products showed to be highly heterogenous; however the biosimilar etanercept exhibited similar charge and glycan heterogeneity intervals compared to the reference product. Apoptosis inhibition assay also showed that, despite the high degree of heterogeneity exhibited by both products, no significant differences exist in their in vitro activity. Finally, the clinical assessment conducted in RA-diagnosed patients did not show significant differences in the evaluated pharmacodynamic markers of both products. Collectively, the results from the comparability exercise provide convincing evidence that the evaluated biosimilar etanercept can be considered an effective alternative for the treatment of RA.

immunology

Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly

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

Identifying therapeutic alternatives in Medicare drug price negotiation: The case of etanercept

Comparative effectiveness of etanercept originator and biosimilar for treating rheumatoid arthritis: implications for cost‐savings

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of costs of rheumatoid arthritis therapy with selected biological treatment

Access to biologics and JAK inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: nation-level study

Learnings from cross-border biosimilar pricing policies in Europe

Utilization Pattern Of Etanercept And Its Cost Implications In Moderate To Severe Psoriasis In A Managed Care Population

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

The impact of an 'evergreening' strategy nearing patent expiration on the uptake of biosimilars and public healthcare costs: a case study on the introduction of a second administration form of trastuzumab in The Netherlands

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of the biosimilar etanercept compared to the reference formulation original etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An open-label, randomized, comparative, multicenter study

Comparative Price Analysis of Biological Products for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Physicochemical Characterization of Altebrel™, a Proposed Etanercept Biosimilar

Etanercept originator versus etanercept biosimilar for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis as a first biologic: results from the BSRBR-RA

Real-world use of an etanercept biosimilar including selective versus automatic substitution in inflammatory arthritis patients: a UK-based electronic health records study

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe – part 1: a historical perspective

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis

Patent Claim Scope and Biosimilar Competition in the US and EU

Drug survival analysis of etanercept compared with monoclonal antibody tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: a propensity score-matched analysis from the Czech ATTRA registry

New Alternatives for Autoimmune Disease Treatments: Physicochemical and Clinical Comparability of Biosimilar Etanercept