Biosimilar Market Research Articles

Evaluating biosimilars: safety, efficacy, and regulatory considerations in clinical studies.

Biosimilars are a rapidly growing area of clinical research, yet they encounter significant challenges, especially in emerging markets where regulatory and clinical hurdles differ markedly from those in established regions like Europe and the US. This commentary addresses these unique challenges and offers new perspectives on the global adoption of biosimilars. It emphasizes the crucial role of real world evidence in supporting biosimilar approvals, an aspect often underrepresented in current literature. The commentary also provides a comparative analysis of the regulatory frameworks in China and Europe, highlighting how these differences shape biosimilar development and market approval processes. By focusing on the issues of indication extrapolation and immunogenicity, this commentary highlights the necessity of continuous real-world data collection to ensure the safety and efficacy of biosimilars across multiple indications. Our analysis enhances the understanding of biosimilar research and supports their broader adoption as safe, effective, and accessible healthcare solutions globally.

BIOSIMILAR MEDICINAL PRODUCTS – LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS AND MARKET ENTRY

Biosimilar drugs, structurally identical and manufactured similarly to original biologic drugs, offer potential cost reductions in therapeutic practice, albeit with variations in adoption across European countries. This review synthesizes findings from literature examining legislative decisions and their effects on biosimilar market entry in Europe. Drawing from scientific articles and official documents, the review reveals that biologics constitute 36% of European drug expenditure, with the market valued at €78.6 billion in 2021 and growing annually at 10.5% over the past five years. Approximately 15% of new active substances centrally approved by the EMA in 2020 were biologics. The European biosimilars market is projected to reach €8.8 billion in 2021. Various measures are being implemented to boost biosimilar uptake, including pricing strategies, reimbursement policies, and substitution practices. Access, measured in terms of availability and time to entry, is still difficult in a number of countries, but legislative measures are helping biosimilars enter European markets more quickly.

Evidence That Regulatory And Market Forces Are Driving Adoption Of Biosimilars.

Biosimilars present a key opportunity to contain the growing cost of biologic drug spending and to make essential medications more affordable. However, the lackluster performance of the US biosimilar market in its first decade was met with disappointment and concern for its future viability. To evaluate the evolution of the biosimilar market, we reviewed key distinctions in medication classes and the financial stakeholders involved in each. Within this context, we examined recent evidence that suggests that the maturing postapproval biosimilar marketplace is flourishing. The entry of biosimilars for adalimumab offers a case study demonstrating these recent market and policy dynamics. Building on recent gains, policy makers could take additional steps to accelerate biosimilar adoption through both payment and regulatory policy levers.

Recommendations for Interchangeability in a Growing Biosimilar Market in Latin America.

Biosimilars offer significant advantages for improving access to biologic treatments in Latin America. However, their uptake has been slow due to misconceptions, regulatory uncertainties, and inadequate pharmacovigilance. To address these issues, Americas Health Foundation convened a multidisciplinary panel of regional experts in biosimilar use and interchangeability from Latin America. The panel assessed the current landscape and recommended steps to enhance access. Key recommendations include strengthening biosimilar regulations, ensuring transparent enforcement, implementing robust pharmacovigilance, and promoting collaboration among stakeholders to educate about the safety, efficacy, and economic advantages of biosimilars and their interchangeability. By embracing biosimilars and interchangeability, Latin American countries can expand patient access, foster competition, diversify treatment sources, and enhance the sustainability of their healthcare systems. However, achieving these goals requires addressing knowledge gaps and biases among healthcare providers, patients, regulators, and government agencies. This can be accomplished through clear communication and the use of real-world evidence.

US Commercial Plans Increase Choice Of Biosimilar And Originator Products; Market Net Prices Decrease.

Biosimilars drugs are almost identical copies of original biologic products. Early biosimilars had slower adoption and savings than expected; however, biosimilars launched in recent years have had more success. With several biosimilar launches planned in the next few years, it is important to understand how the state of the market might foretell significant market savings in the future. To do so, we explored how the introduction of biosimilars affected originator-biosimilar markets during the period 2017-22. We found that after biosimilar availability, payers increasingly allowed choice of preferred products. By 2022, 76percent of commercial payers' coverage policies listed two or more products (originator or biosimilar) as first-line options. Biosimilar market shares exceeded those of originators a mean of three years after first biosimilar launch, and originator-biosimilar market average sales price declined substantially. Taken together, these findings provide evidence of a functioning competitive market.

Budget impact analysis of including biosimilar adalimumab on formulary: A United States payer perspective.

The biosimilar market is growing rapidly, as evidenced by 41 approvals and 37 launches to date. As adalimumab biosimilars launch in the United States, competition among biosimilar and reference adalimumab will likely increase across multiple reference indications, including rheumatology, dermatology, and gastrointestinal diseases, which may lead to decreased payer costs. To evaluate the costs of adding biosimilar adalimumab to a US commercial plan by exploring various utilization and price differential scenarios. A 3-year budget impact model for a US commercial plan of 1 million people was developed to assess switching from reference adalimumab or any self-injectable reference tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor to biosimilar adalimumab. Pharmacy and medical costs were analyzed through high- and low-conversion scenarios from reference adalimumab and the TNF inhibitor class. Price reductions of 5% to 60% relative to reference adalimumab based on previous biosimilar launches were also explored. Short-term medical costs were evaluated as additional simple and complex office visits, with scenarios of half of switch patients having 1 visit up to all switch patients having 10 visits. In a target population of 1,863 patients, switching from reference adalimumab to biosimilar adalimumab had cumulative cost savings of $5,756,073 with slow conversion (10%-20% over 3 years) and $28,780,365 with fast conversion (50%-100% over 3 years). Similar results were seen when switching from any other self-injectable reference TNF inhibitor. Cost savings more than $1 million were seen with a 10% conversion from reference adalimumab and a 15% price reduction from reference adalimumab. Additional office visit scenarios had a negligible impact on budget, with no changes in per-member-per-month costs until all switch patients had 10 additional complex visits, in which per-member-per-month costs increased by $0.02. In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, use of biosimilar adalimumab in commercial plans can lead to significant cost savings for payers because of increased competition. Greater and faster biosimilar conversion rates from reference adalimumab and other reference TNF inhibitors resulted in decreased costs. Additionally, even with short-term medical expenditures, cost savings were still realized when switching to biosimilar adalimumab.

Stakeholder perspectives on the sustainability of the United States biosimilars market.

Biologic therapies play a critical role in modern medical practice but also present challenges for payers, patients, and other stakeholders because of their high cost. Biosimilars can mitigate the cost pressures of reference biologic therapy because they are typically priced at least 25% lower, providing a means to administer cutting-edge biologic therapy while also managing cost of care. In fact, the US health care system has saved an estimated $23.6 billion from use of biosimilars. However, the market is still in a nascent phase of development, and early cost-saving successes are not guaranteed to persist unless sustainable market conditions are established. To better understand the perspectives of stakeholders about opportunities and threats to the sustainability of the US biosimilar market, a multistakeholder roundtable discussion was convened in December of 2023 and included health care payers, providers, self-insured employers, a manufacturer, and a biosimilar research and advocacy organization. The objective of this commentary, authored by the roundtable participants, is to posit specific opportunities and threats that stakeholders should consider to better facilitate sustainable biosimilar market conditions in the United States. We highlight key points, including (1) biosimilar price volatility with large quarter-on-quarter declines for most products; (2) perverse economic incentives that encourage providers to use more expensive reference products because reimbursement dynamics make them more profitable; (3) complex rebate structures that create barriers to biosimilar access; and (4) ongoing changes to the legal and regulatory environment, including evidence requirements to gain "interchangeable" status. We conclude with an overview of potential policy solutions to address the sustainability opportunities and threats. The authors welcome the opportunity to advance this dialogue toward action and encourage additional stakeholders to join the effort. We are optimistic that, through informed decision-making and compromise, we can collectively achieve a robust and sustainable US biosimilars market that appropriately benefits all stakeholders.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective

Objectives Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested. Results Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries. Conclusion This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Biosimilar underutilization alone does not foretell a broken biologics market.

Biosimilars offer the potential for cost savings and expanded access to biologic products; however, there are concerns regarding the rate of biosimilar uptake. We assessed the relationship between biosimilar and originator pricing, coverage, and market share by describing four case studies that fall into two categories: (1) sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred; biosimilar(s) non-preferred), defined as steep average sales price (ASP) reductions for originator products (decline in net prices by at least 50% following the introduction of biosimilar competition by 2022) and (2) non-sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred alongside biosimilar products), defined as moderate ASP reductions for originator products with (net prices did not decline by at least 50% of its pre-biosimilar competition value). We found that originators with sole preferred coverage strategies maintained formulary preference and market share relative to originators with non-sole preferred coverage strategies. Regardless of strategy, the market-weighted ASP for all four product families (originator and biosimilars) declined significantly in the years following the introduction of biosimilars, suggesting that biosimilar uptake alone may not be a complete measure of whether the biosimilar market is facilitating competition and lowering prices.

EE437 Evaluating Various Predictors Suspected of Influencing Biosimilar Market Share in the U.S.

EE437 Evaluating Various Predictors Suspected of Influencing Biosimilar Market Share in the U.S.

Lessons From Insulin: Policy Prescriptions for Affordable Diabetes and Obesity Medications.

Escalating insulin prices have prompted public scrutiny of the practices of drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, health insurers, and pharmacies involved in production and distribution of medications. As a result, a series of policies have been proposed or enacted to improve insulin affordability and foster greater equity in access. These policies have implications for other diabetes and obesity therapeutics. Recent legislation, at both the state and federal level, has capped insulin out-of-pocket payments for some patients. Other legislation has targeted drug manufacturers directly in requiring rebates on drugs with price increases beyond inflation rates, an approach that may restrain price hikes for existing medications. In addition, government negotiation of drug pricing, a contentious issue, has gained traction, with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 permitting limited negotiation for certain high expenditure drugs without generic or biosimilar competition, including some insulin products and other diabetes medications. However, concerns persist that this may inadvertently encourage higher launch prices for new medications. Addressing barriers to competition has also been a priority such as through increased enforcement against anticompetitive practices (e.g., "product hopping") and reduced regulatory requirements for biosimilar development and market entry. A novel approach involves public production, exemplified by California's CalRx program, which aims to provide biosimilar insulins at significantly reduced prices. Achieving affordable and equitable access to insulin and other diabetes and obesity medications requires a multifaceted approach, involving state and federal intervention, ongoing policy evaluation and refinement, and critical examination of corporate influences in health care.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe – part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment

ABSTRACT Introduction Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. Areas covered An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. Expert Opinion The panel’s market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: ‘Invest,’ ‘Expand’ and ‘Harvest.’ Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During ‘Expand’ and ‘Harvest’ stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

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.

Biosimilars engage in low levels of direct-to-physician marketing relative to reference biologics.

Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce US spending on biologic drugs, but uptake of these competitor products varies. We used Open Payments data from 2014 to 2022 to proxy for direct-to-physician marketing and compared levels of activity between biologic and biosimilar drug manufacturers. Our analysis focused on 6 reference biologics that recently faced competition in the years immediately before and after the launch of the first biosimilar. We used Medicare Part B dosage units to measure market penetration of biosimilars and its relationship with biosimilar marketing activity. Last, we conducted a sensitivity test, comparing payments for primarily office- or hospital-based physicians, using affiliations constructed from Medicare Carrier claims. Reference biologic manufacturers greatly reduced the amount of direct-to-physician marketing in the post-launch period. Biosimilar manufacturers generally engaged in low levels of activity relative to the historic performance of reference biologics. These trends were consistent across office- and hospital-based physicians. The intensity of biosimilars' direct-to-physician marketing also had no apparent relationship with achieved market penetration. Our findings demonstrate that persistently high market shares of reference biologics cannot be explained by ongoing direct-to-physician marketing activities. At the same time, while such activities could educate physicians or induce switching, biosimilar entrants engaged in little direct-to-physician marketing.

Are Manufacturing Patents to Blame for Biosimilar Market Launch Delays?

ObjectivesBiosimilar market launch delays are likely costing healthcare systems billions of dollars and preventing patients accessing affordable biologic therapies sooner. Many claim these delays are mostly caused by originator biologics’ large patent portfolios asserted during litigation against biosimilar developers, particularly that the manufacturing patents filed after the originator is approved is an important driver of these delays. Our objective was to investigate the accuracy of these claims. MethodsWe reviewed US Court document submissions for litigation data, including the details of patents asserted against biosimilar owners, and collated biosimilar market launch dates from publicly available databases. ResultsWe find that, although approximately half of all patents asserted in litigation were manufacturing patents, a greater proportion of composition, active pharmaceutical ingredient, and treatment patents are associated with longer market launch delays, whereas a greater proportion of manufacturing patents are associated with shorter market launch delays. ConclusionsOur results suggest that manufacturing patents were having less of an impact on market launch delays than other types of patents. Our findings have implications for both biosimilar and originator developers, as well as patent policy and its association with healthcare accessibility.

EE576 Costs Saving Generated by Anti-TNF Biosimilars Market Penetration in France: An Analysis Based on French Health Insurance Open Data

EE576 Costs Saving Generated by Anti-TNF Biosimilars Market Penetration in France: An Analysis Based on French Health Insurance Open Data

Ancillary Product Patents to Extend Biologic Patent Life

This study examines all patents associated with biologic litigation to understand how manufacturers use ancillary product patents to delay biosimilar market entry.

Biosimilars in Dermatology Review

Background Safe and effective biosimilar medications have the potential to significantly increase access to these valuable drugs. The two current biosimilars available in dermatology in the United States (US) are infliximab and rituximab which were Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2018 respectively. There has been significant interest in this topic as a number of biosimilar versions of adalimumab will be available in 2023. Objective This review will discuss biosimilar basics and the experience with biosimilars used in dermatology in the US, Asia, and Europe. Methods All articles in Ovid/Medline from 2015 to Feb 2023 on biosimilars were reviewed with a particular emphasis on medications used in dermatology. Other reports from pharmaceutical manufacturers and blogs following the development of the biosimilar industry provided key insights. Results Biosimilars have been able to produce significant savings and market share increases, particularly in Europe, where there has been a longer experience. The specifics depend on drug prescribing practices and incentives in the individual country. This degree of savings and market share increases have not been realized with the current biosimilars available in the US. Conclusion While biosimilars have resulted in significant savings compared to originator drugs, it is clear that prescribing incentives and physician education are crucial in achieving these savings. To what degree biosimilar market share will increase in the US remains to be determined.

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

ObjectivesBiological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study...

Assessment of structural and functional similarity of biosimilar products: Bevacizumab as a case study

The antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab is a blockbuster therapeutic pharmaceutical product that is used to treat many different types of cancer including kidney, colon, rectum, lung, and breast cancer. As a result, multiple biosimilars have been approved across the various regulatory jurisdictions in India (>20 in number till date). The rapidly growing market and acceptance of biosimilars was the motivation to perform comparability study of bevacizumab biosimilars that are presently available in the Indian market. A comprehensive analytical and functional biosimilarity assessment has been performed to examine and compare innovator product of bevacizumab (Avastin-innovator product, Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd) and six biosimilars that are being marketed in India (Abevmy from Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Bevazza from Lupin Ltd, Bryxta from Zydus Cadila, Krabeva from Biocon, Ivzumab from RPG Life Sciences Ltd, and Advamab from Alkem Laboratories Ltd). Physiochemical characterization of drug products was performed with respect to their primary structure (intact mass, reduced mass, peptide mapping by LC-MS), higher order structure (secondary structure by FTIR, Far-UV-CD, and tertiary structure by Near-UV-CD, intrinsic fluorescence spectroscopy), impurity profile (SE-HPLC, SEC-MALS, extrinsic fluorescence: size heterogenicity, degradation, stability; DLS: hydrodynamic radius; WCX-HPLC: charge variants analysis) and post-translational modifications by measuring reduced glycans through fluorescence dye analysis. Functional characterization was performed by SPR and cell proliferation assay. Further, chemometrics based quantitative evaluation of biosimilarity has been performed by combining the data obtained from analytical characterization platform. The analysis of the analytical, functional and chemometric results revealed significant levels of similarity, with biosimilar4 being the sole exception. Despite being within product specifications, Biosimilar4 displayed significant deviations with respect to critical quality attributes, including a lower proportion of monomer content, a larger percentage of basic charge variant species, and a lower proportion of aglycosylated glycoform.