Lesley G Shane

Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey

Objective To understand the levels of awareness, usage, and knowledge of biosimilars among patients, caregivers, and the general population in the US and the European Union; perceptions of biosimilars compared to originator biologics; perceived benefits and drawbacks of clinical trials; and whether advocacy groups impact patients’ willingness to try a biosimilar. Methods An international survey was conducted which contained up to 56 closed-ended (requiring yes/no or ranking answers) and open-ended questions, depending on the population assigned. The survey was divided into distinct sections, including medication-class awareness, usage, and knowledge about biologic and biosimilar therapies; perceptions of clinical trials; and involvement in advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted in adults categorized as: 1) diagnosed: patients with inflammatory bowel disease including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; 2) diagnosed advocacy: individuals with these diseases who participated in patient support groups; 3) caregiver: has a loved one with these conditions and is involved in medical decisions; 4) general population: aged 18–64 years, without these conditions. Statistical analyses among groups within a region (US or EU) used column proportions test with a 95% confidence interval. Results In all, 3,198 individuals responded. Awareness about biologic therapies was significantly higher in diagnosed, diagnosed advocacy, and caregiver groups (45%–78%) versus general population (27%; P<0.05). Across all groups, awareness of biosimilars was low; only 6% of the general population reported at least a general impression of biosimilars. Awareness was significantly higher in the diagnosed advocacy group (20%–30%; P<0.05). Gaps in knowledge about biosimilars included safety, efficacy, and access to these agents. Respondents had generally positive perceptions of clinical trials, although barriers to participation were identified. Conclusion An immediate need exists for patient education about biosimilars and clinical trials to ensure educated and informed decisions are made about biosimilar use.

Drug tendering: drug supply and shortage implications for the uptake of biosimilars

Due to the continued increase in global spending on health care, payers have introduced a number of programs, policies, and agreements on pharmaceutical pricing in order to control costs. While incentives to increase generic drug use have achieved significant savings, other cost-containment measures are required. Tendering is a formal procedure to purchase medications using competitive bidding for a particular contract. Although useful for cost containment, tendering can lead to decreased competition in a given market. Consequently, drug shortages can occur, resulting in changes to treatment plans to products that may have lower efficacy and/or an increased risk of adverse effects. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that tendering does not negatively impact patient care or the health care system. A large and expanding portion of total pharmaceutical expenditure is for biologic therapies. These agents have revolutionized the treatment of many diseases, including cancer and inflammatory conditions; however, patient access to biologic drugs can be limited due to availability, insurance coverage, and cost. As branded biologic therapies reach the end of patent- and data-protection periods, biosimilars are being approved as lower-cost alternatives. Biosimilars are products that are highly similar to the originator product with no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety, purity, or potency. As more biosimilars receive regulatory approval and adoption increases, these therapies are expected to have an impact on global health care spending and should result in overall savings. However, the use of tendering to maximize the potential benefits of biosimilars has varied across the world. Therefore, the objectives of this review are to examine the drug-tendering process and its implications on drug supply and drug shortages, as well as to describe biosimilars and how tendering may influence their uptake.

Biosimilars: Practical Considerations for Pharmacists:

Objective: To review the scientific and regulatory aspects of biosimilar development and practical considerations for the use of biosimilars that are relevant to pharmacists. Data Sources: Literature searches of PubMed and congress abstracts for publications pertaining to biosimilars were conducted from January 2016 to January 2017. Individual drug company web pages and governmental, regulatory, and other agency websites were also reviewed. Study Selection/Data Extraction: Published articles, regulatory guidelines, and other sources covering biologic/biosimilar development and approval, reporting results of biosimilar studies or survey research, and/or identifying biosimilars in development or approved for use in Europe or the United States were reviewed and included. Data Synthesis: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of serious diseases, including hematological or autoimmune disorders and cancers. A biosimilar is highly similar to a licensed biologic (ie, reference or originator) and has no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. Unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics are large, complex proteins that cannot be exactly replicated, so the concept of a generic equivalent cannot be applied to biologics. Regulatory agencies have provided a framework for biosimilar approval, but there are many practical considerations for pharmacists, including interchangeability, substitution, naming, indication extrapolation, product labeling, therapeutic drug monitoring, manufacturer attributes, logistics of product use, and reimbursement. Conclusions: Pharmacists will play a key role in managing the introduction of biosimilars into health care systems. Understanding the principles of biosimilar development and evolving regulatory guidelines relevant to their use will allow pharmacists to make informed decisions regarding formulary inclusion and educate patients and other health care providers about biosimilars.

Low-molecular-weight heparins for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A systematic literature review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness:

Background Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Importantly, patients with cancer, who have metastatic disease, renal insufficiency, or are receiving anticancer therapy, have an even higher risk of a recurrent event. Similarly, the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism is higher than the risk of an initial event. To reduce the risk, extended duration of prophylaxis for up to six months with low-molecular-weight heparins such as dalteparin, enoxaparin, nadroparin, and tinzaparin is recommended by international guidelines. In this paper, the clinical and economic literature is reviewed to provide evidenced based recommendations based on clinical benefit and economic value. Methods A systematic review of major databases was conducted from January 1996 to October 2016 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the four distinct low-molecular-weight heparins against a vitamin K antagonists control group for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer. This was then followed by the application of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidance to assess the quality of all trials that met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the cost-effectiveness literature supporting the value proposition of each product was reviewed. Results Six randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. There were one, two, and three trials that compared dalteparin, tinzaparin, and enoxaparin to a vitamin K antagonists control group. However, there were no trials for nadroparin in the setting of secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. In addition, only the dalteparin and one of the tinzaparin trials were of high quality and adequately powered. Of the two studies, only the dalteparin trial reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of venous thromboembolism absolute risk reduction when compared to a vitamin K antagonists control group (HR = 0.48; p = 0.002). In addition, there was robust pharmacoeconomic data from Canada, the Netherlands, France, and Austria supporting the cost-effectiveness of dalteparin for this indication. There were no such studies for any of the other agents. Conclusions The totality of high-quality clinical and cost-effectiveness data supports the use of dalteparin over other low-molecular-weight heparins for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Dalteparin versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer and renal impairment: a Canadian pharmacoeconomic analysis

Background Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the risk is further elevated after a primary VTE. To reduce the risk of recurrent events, extended prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is available for use. However, in a large randomized trial (Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]; Lee et al), extended duration dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrent VTE by 52% compared to VKA (p=0.002). A recent subgroup analysis of patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs. 17%; p=0.011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin as an alternative to VKA, a patient-level cost utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian perspective. Methods Resource use data captured during the CLOT trial were extracted and linked to 2015 Canadian unit cost estimates. Health state utilities were then measured using the Time-Trade-Off technique in 24 randomly selected members of the general Canadian public to estimate the gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results For the entire CLOT trial population (n=676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher mean costs compared to the VKA group (

Economic Analysis Comparing Dalteparin to Vitamin K Antagonists to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Having Renal Impairment

Can5,771 vs.

Patient Understanding and Attitudes About Biosimilars: An International Cross-Sectional Survey.

Can2,569; p<0.001). However, the utility assessment revealed that 21 of 24 respondents (88%) selected dalteparin over VKA, with an associated gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.18) QALYs. When the incremental cost of dalteparin was combined with the QALY gain, dalteparin had a cost of

Monoclonal Antibody and Fusion Protein Biosimilars Across Therapeutic Areas: A Systematic Review of Published Evidence

Can23,100 (95% CI:

Dalteparin or vitamin K antagonists to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: a patient-level economic analysis for France and Austria

Can19,200–

Assessing the Value of Biosimilars: A Review of the Role of Budget Impact Analysis

Can25,800) per QALY gained. The analysis in patients with renal impairment suggested even better economic value with the cost per QALY gained being <