Search

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

Background: To encourage the rational prescribing of biologics, payers across Europe have experimented with the implementation of benefit-sharing programs. Benefit-sharing programs are incentive programs that promote the use of 'best-value' off-patent biologics and biosimilars by driving changes in prescribing practices. The aim of these programs is to generate savings that can be shared among stakeholders involved (e.g. health authorities/payers, health care professionals, hospital managers/administration) and are generally used to improve the quality of health care and to increase patients' access to innovative services and medicines. However, the scarcity of information concerning the design, implementation and outcomes of benefit-sharing programs limits the transfer of knowledge to institutions aiming to adopt these types of incentive schemes in the future. Objective: The aim of our study was to map benefit-sharing experiences across Europe, to compare their design and implementation characteristics and to assess the impact of the different benefit-sharing strategies on the use of 'best-value' biologics. Method: Our approach was based on a literature review and on semi-structured interviews with payers/insurers, regulators, health care professionals and industry representatives. Results: Our analysis revealed variable design characteristics for benefit-sharing programs, depending on the organization of the health care system, the specific timeframe, the care setting and the policy environment. All these aspects can influence the robustness of benefit-sharing initiatives and their potential to stay in effect over time. We also noted a generalized lack of transparency regarding the distribution of savings and how they are reinvested. This lack of transparency has raised questions on how to optimally implement benefit-sharing in the future. Conclusions: To realize the full potential of benefit-sharing programs, we identify the importance of (i) setting up and timely monitoring success indicators for these programs; (ii) including quality of care and access to care parameters as success indicators; (iii) establishing clear pathways for the transparent redistribution/reinvestment of savings and (iv) transparently communicating with patients about the outcomes of benefit-sharing programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors discuss how to address the interchangeability of biosimilars in the pharmaceutical industry. Also cited are how biosimilars reduced costs and boosted patient access to essential biological therapies, how biosimilars enhanced the accessibility and affordability of biological medicines for patients and the healthcare systems, and the dichotomy to the quick adoption of innovative medicines.

Background: Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching. Objective: This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe. Method: The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe. Results: Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards. Conclusions: This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the benefits biosimilars offer in terms of cost savings and patient access, healthcare professionals and patients have been reluctant to use them. Next to insufficient understanding of and trust in biosimilars, healthcare professionals and patients have questions about switching and the nocebo effect when using biosimilars in clinical practice. In addition, clear motivation to use biosimilars may be lacking among these stakeholders. Objective: This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar use on both a clinical and a practical level based on insights from healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patients (or their representatives), and regulators across Europe. Methods: We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with experts from five stakeholder groups across Europe: physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, regulators, and patients/representatives. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and transcripts analysed according to the thematic framework method. Results: Based on the insights and considerations of the experts interviewed, we identified a number of recommendations to improve the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Regarding switch implementation, the experts voiced support for the following actions: (1) disseminate evidence from and experience with (multiple) switching; (2) provide clear, one-voice regulatory guidance about the interchangeability of biosimilars and their reference product; (3) apply a multi-stakeholder implementation and communication protocol to guide switching in clinical practice; (4) apply a pragmatic approach when taking switch decisions; and (5) avoid mandated switching, allowing stakeholder communication and alignment. When discussing approaches to increase the willingness of stakeholders to use biosimilars, we concluded that actions should be centred on (1) communicating the benefits provided by biosimilars and the introduction of market competition, (2) increasing awareness among stakeholders about medicine prices and their societal responsibility to use medicines in a cost-effective manner, (3) transparent reporting about the allocation of savings, (4) sharing biosimilar usage data among hospitals and prescribers to allow peer-to-peer benchmarking, and (5) applying a balanced combination of tangible and non-tangible incentives that can be tailored to offset the time and effort expended by stakeholders when switching to a biosimilar. Conclusions: This study proposes a number of strategic, practical, and overarching recommendations to support healthcare professionals and inform decision makers to improve the clinical use of biosimilars and the willingness of stakeholders to use them. The proposed solutions to fully realise the potential of biosimilars for healthcare systems and patients include developing practical switch guidance, being transparent about the gains from biosimilar use (and how savings are allocated), and developing a combination of non-tangible and tangible incentives for involved stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biosimilar medicines have shown similarity with the originator biologic and offer a similar clinical outcome generally at a lower cost. This paper identifies benefits of off-patent biologics and biosimilars, and illustrates these benefits with empirical data from Europe. We provide a narrative review of published literature on values and benefits of biosimilars in Europe. The results describe cost savings as the key driver stemming from the lower price of biosimilars, than that of originator products, and from price competition between biosimilar(s), originator, and next-generation products. Cost savings may then translate into a number of other associated benefits. The lower price of biosimilars and similar effectiveness to the originator biologics improve cost effectiveness, implying that reimbursement can be granted or extended to other patient groups, or that the biologic therapy can be moved to an earlier line of treatment. Cost savings from biosimilars can be used to increase patient access to therapy or to increase the number of healthcare professionals. Finally, competition between off-patent biologics and biosimilars may stimulate an innovation in the formulation and development of next-generation biologics. Our paper illustrates that the benefit of off-patent biologics and biosimilars is not restricted to cost savings, but that these medicines may contribute to an expansion of medical treatment options for patients, hence concomitantly contributing to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system. This review provides a broader view for clinical and economic decision makers and healthcare professionals on the added benefits of off-patent biologics and their use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifteen years of experience with biosimilar evaluation in Europe and advancement in the science behind biological medicines, provides a timely moment to open up debate as to whether the requirements for biosimilar approval could be further tailored. Further optimizing of data requirements to truly decisional information will allow to continuously deliver on the promise of biosimilars, providing benefits for patients and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Interchangeability of Biosimilars: Overcoming the Final Hurdles" by Liese Barbier and Arnold G. Vulto, which appeared in the November 2, 2021 online issue of the magazine.

In Europe, a long history of cooperation over transboundary rivers—most notably the Rhine and Danube rivers—exists. To help foster cooperation and communication vis-à-vis transboundary ground water, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), as part of its ground water program, conducted a survey on transboundary aquifers in Europe. The survey produced 25 responses from 37 countries and identified 89 transboundary aquifers. Respondents reported on the degree of ground water use within their own boundaries, transboundary aspects (agreements, joint commissions, etc.) of ground water, and transboundary aquifers themselves. The inventory proved useful, but a number of problems were identified: different map scales and symbols, difficulty in identifying transboundary aquifers, inconsistent labeling of aquifers, and data discrepancies. The UNECE ground water program also drafted guidelines for monitoring and assessment of transboundary ground water. These guidelines are not legally binding but have been adopted by 25 countries, deal mainly with monitoring and assessment, and are being implemented through a number of pilot projects. Other organizations—the United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Association of Hydrogeologists, and the European Union—are all supporting the investigation of transboundary aquifers in an effort to facilitate data sharing and coordinated management of these valuable resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackground: In Japan, glycyrrhizin therapy is widely used for chronic hepatitis C and reportedly reduces the progression of liver disease to hepatocellular carcinoma. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of glycyrrhizin on serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), hepatitis C virus (HCV)-RNA and its safety in European patients. Methods: Fifty-seven patients with chronic hepatitis C, non-responders or unlikely to respond (genotype 1/cirrhosis) to interferon therapy, were randomized to one of the four dose groups: 240, 160 or 80 mg glycyrrhizin or placebo (0 mg glycyrrhizin). Medication was administered intravenously thrice weekly for 4 weeks; follow up also lasted for 4 weeks. Results: Within 2 days of start of therapy, serum ALT had dropped 15% below baseline in the three dosage groups (P < 0.02). The mean ALT decrease at the end of active treatment was 26%, significantly higher than the placebo group (6%). A clear dose–response effect was not observed (29, 26, 23% ALT decrease for 240, 160 and 80 mg, respectively). Normalization of ALT at the end of treatment occurred in 10% (four of 41). The effect on ALT disappeared after cessation of therapy. During treatment, viral clearance was not observed: the mean decrease in plasma HCV-RNA after active treatment was 4.1 × 106 genome equivalents/mL (95% confidence interval, 0–8.2 × 106; P > 0.1). No major side-effects were noted. None of the patients withdrew from the study because of intolerance. Conclusions: Glycyrrhizin up to 240 mg, thrice weekly, lowers serum ALT during treatment, but has no effect on HCV-RNA levels. The drug appears to be safe and is well tolerated. In view of the reported long-term effect of glycyrrhizin, further controlled investigation of the Japanese mode of administration (six times weekly) for induction appears of interest. © 1999 Blackwell Science Asia Pty Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Europe, off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are largely procured by means of tender procedures. The organization and design of tenders may play a key role in the evolving biosimilar market, and currently, it is not fully elucidated how tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are designed and if approaches are aligned with sustaining market competition and societal savings for healthcare systems over the long term. This study aims to (i) explore the design and implementation of tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe, (ii) identify learnings for sustainable tender approaches from purchasers and suppliers, and (iii) formulate recommendations in support of competitive and sustainable tender practices in the off-patent biologicals market. Methods: A mixed methods design was applied. A quantitative web-survey was conducted with hospital pharmacists and purchasers (N = 60, of which 47 completed the survey in full), and qualitative expert-interviews with purchasers and suppliers (N = 28) were carried out. Results: The web survey results showed that the organization and design of tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, and the experience of hospital pharmacists and purchasers with this, considerably varies on several elements across European countries. From the qualitative interviews, signals emerged across the board that some of the current tender approaches might negatively affect market dynamics for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars. The focus on generating short-term savings and existence of originator favouring tender practices were identified as elements that may limit timely competition from and market opportunity for biosimilar suppliers. The need to optimize tender processes, considering a more long-term strategic and sustainable view, was expressed. In addition, challenges appear to exist with differentiating between products beyond price, showing the need and opportunity to guide stakeholders with the (appropriate) inclusion of award criteria beyond price. Due to the variety in tender organization in Europe, a 'one size fits all' tendering framework is not possible. However, on an overarching level, it was argued that tender procedures must aim to (i) ensure market plurality and (ii) include award criteria beyond price (warranted that criteria are objectively and transparently defined, scored and competitively rewarded). Depending on the market (maturity), additional actions may be needed. Conclusions: Findings suggest the need to adjust tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, considering a more long-term strategic and market sustainable view. Five main avenues for optimization were identified: (i) safeguarding a transparent, equal opportunity setting for all suppliers with an appropriate use of award criteria; (ii) fostering a timely opening of tender procedures, ensuring on-set competition; (iii) ensuring and stimulating adherence to laws on public procurement; (iv) securing an efficient process, improving plannability and ensuring timely product supply and (v) safeguarding long-term sustainable competition by stimulating market plurality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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., Methods: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders., Results: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe ( N  = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature., Conclusions: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

More than ten years after the first biosimilars were authorized for use in the European Union, Belgium still experiences limited competition from biosimilars, as exemplified by low market shares. Achieving high biosimilar market shares is not necessarily a goal in itself, as cost savings are also realized by mandatory price reductions on originator medicines in Belgium. However, we believe that biosimilars play a role in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the off-patent biologicals market. It is therefore crucial to list what has been done and what is needed to support the Belgian government in establishing a policy framework for a competitive off-patent biologicals market. We provide a comprehensive overview of the Belgian biosimilar market, including existing hurdles for biosimilar use in Belgium. Based on these hurdles and supplemented with learnings from other European countries, we propose practical recommendations that can be implemented to overcome them. Several Belgian stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on these recommendations. Specifically, we suggest to evolve towards a long-term consistent, integrated policy framework via i) the creation of a proactive and transparent climate supporting a level playing field for both biosimilar and reference product, including public dissemination of how savings at the level of the Belgian healthcare system are used, ii) investment in educational activities, including raising awareness of societal responsibility, iii) enforcement of the practical implementation of public procurement law, and iv) the development of incentives for physicians, who are key stakeholders in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market.

As patents on many high-selling biological medicines are expiring, non-innovator versions, such as biosimilars, may enter this multi-billion dollar market. This study aims to map patents and patent applications for innovator as well as biosimilar monoclonal antibodies in Europe, and investigates legal challenges associated with patenting the innovator product and alleged infringing activities, focusing on consequences for biosimilar developers. Via an exploratory literature review in PubMed and a database analysis in Darts-ip, Derwent Innovation, and Espacenet, an overview of basic patents and exclusivity rights for some of the best-selling biologicals is given, supplemented with a detailed analysis of patents taken during the medicine's life cycle via three specific case studies (trastuzumab, bevacizumab, cetuximab). Case law was used to determine which patents were viewed by biosimilar developers as blocking market entry. For the selected monoclonal antibodies, the key protection instruments appeared to be the basic patent and the additional protection provided by a supplementary protection certificate. We observed that additional patents filed after the basic patent are hard to obtain and often insufficient in blocking market entry of biosimilars, but can in some cases be a substantial hurdle for biosimilar developers to overcome in patent litigation cases or to invent around, creating uncertainty on the launch date of a biosimilar on the market. These hurdles, however, seem to be surmountable, given that many cases were won by biosimilar developers. Also, biosimilars can be protected by filing new patents and these mainly pertain to new formulations.