Search

Introduction: Biologics have shown marked success over the past decades in disease areas as cancer, immunology and diabetes. However, elevated costs of innovative biologic medicines have led to an inequity in accessibility across the world. While 85% of the world's population lives in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC), 80% of the sales of monoclonal antibodies are attributed to Western countries, highlighting the pronounced market imbalance., Areas Covered: This perspective paper draws some analogies as well as differences between biosimilars and generics, aims to address the unmet need for treatment with biologics in LMICs by reviewing possible causes, economic and social, of low access, displaying the disparity between LMICs and HIC, and suggets countermeasures for this unmet medical need in LMICs., Expert Opinion: It is up to all stakeholders to capitalize on the opportunity that biosimilars provide, mostly by committing to transparent collaboration, to make biotherapeutics accessible to all, regardless of region or country of residence.

Introduction: Little is known about the status and the future potential of biosimilars in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region., Areas Covered: This perspective provides insights into the current regulatory landscape of some MENA countries, currently available biosimilars, the potential of biosimilars in the next decade, and challenges to overcome., Expert Opinion: Given the economic and demographic heterogeneity across the MENA countries, biosimilars could reduce significant economic unmet needs in these countries. In the next decade, biosimilars may witness higher approval rates and market share over their originators in the MENA countries. We argue that the regulatory bodies in the MENA countries should adopt the new policies of the FDA, the EMA, and the WHO, that aim to ease the biosimilar approval process. These policies are to adopt technology in the process of approval; engage health technology assessment bodies in price assessment; provide educational materials to increase awareness among providers, patients, and payers. Further, MENA countries should upgrade the external-reference pricing systems to more sophisticated ones that consider the heterogeneity in economics and needs.

Aims: This study estimated, for Saudi Arabia, the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference Neupogen and Neulastim to one of two filgrastim biosimilars (Nivestim, Zarzio); the budget-neutral expanded access to supportive care with biosimilar filgrastim and therapeutic care to ado-trastuzumab emtansine thus afforded; and the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide supportive or therapeutic treatment to one patient., Materials and Methods: Replicating prior studies, we modeled the cost-efficiencies gained from converting varying proportions of a hypothetical panel of 4,000 patients undergoing six cycles of cancer treatment from Neupogen or Neulastim to one of the two biosimilar G-CSF formulations, using national cost inputs. Cost-savings in USD were used to estimate the additional doses of biosimilar G-CSF and expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine on a budget-neutral basis, and NNC to purchase one additional dose of supportive or therapeutic treatment., Results: Savings from conversion from reference to a biosimilar filgrastim were $3,086,400 (Nivestim) and $3,460,800 (Zarzio). With reference pegfilgrastim, savings from conversion were $11,712,240 (Nivestim) and $12,086,640 (Zarzio). Biosimilar conversion from reference to biosimilar filgrastim enabled expanded access to ado-trastuzumab emtansine ranging from 61 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 191 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For supportive care, biosimilar conversion enabled expanded access ranging from 8,244 patients (5 days, Nivestim) to 25,882 patients (14 days, Zarzio). For biosimilar conversion from daily filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine decreased as days of injections increased [5 days: 395 (Nivestim), 352 (Zarzio); 14 days: 141(Nivestim), 126 (Zarzio)]. Alternately, for biosimilar conversion from single-injection pegfilgrastim to daily biosimilar filgrastim, the NNC for treatment with ado-trastuzumab emtansine rose as days of injections increased, being highest under the 14-day scenario (146, Nivestim; 130, Zarzio)., Conclusion: This simulation study demonstrated significant potential cost-savings from biosimilar conversion. These savings provide budget-neutral increased access to supportive and therapeutic cancer care.

Aim: To assess the cost-efficiency and expanded access of three rituximab biosimilars versus the reference rituximab from the perspective of the Jordanian national health payer., Methods: A 1-year cost-efficiency and expanded access model of conversion from reference rituximab (Mabthera) to the approved biosimilars (Truxima, Rixathon, and Tromax) to assess five metrics: total annual cost to treat a hypothetical patient; head-to-head cost comparison; changes in patients' access to rituximab; number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide an additional 10 patients access to a rituximab treatment; and relative amount of Jordanian Dinar (JOD) spent on rituximab options. The model included rituximab doses at 100 mg/10 ml and 500 mg/50 ml and considered both cost-saving and cost-wastage scenarios. Costs of treatments were based on the fiscal year 2022 tender prices received by the Joint Procurement Department (JPD)., Results: Rixathon was associated with the lowest average annual cost per patient (JOD2,860) across all six indications among all rituximab comparators, followed by Truxima (JOD4,240), Tromax (JOD4,365) and reference Mabthera (JOD11,431). The highest percentage of patient access to rituximab treatment (321%) was achieved when switching patients from Mabthera to Rixathon in the RA and PV indications. At four patients, Rixathon was associated with the lowest NNC to provide an additional 10 patients access to rituximab treatment. For each JOD1 spent on Rixathon, an additional JOD3.21 must be spent on Mabthera, an additional JOD0.55 on Tromax, and an additional JOD0.53 on Truxima., Conclusion: Rituximab biosimilars were associated with cost savings in all approved indications in Jordan compared to reference rituximab. Rixathon was associated with the lowest annual cost, the highest percentage of expanded patient access for all six indications, and the lowest NNC providing 10 additional patients with access.

Aim: To estimate cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) and TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab) in breast cancer (BC) patients. Methods: Simulation modeling in panels of 20,000 BC and 5000 HER2+ (HER2+ BC) patients, varying treatment duration (one-six cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional AC and TCH treatment that could be provided. Results: In 20,000 patients, cost-savings of $1,083 per-patient per-cycle translate to $21,652,064 (one cycle) to $129,912,397 (six cycles). Savings range from $5,413,016 to $32,478,097, respectively, in the 5000-patient HER2+ BC panel. Conclusion: Conversion to pegfilgrastim-cbqv could save up to $130 million and provide more than 220,000 additional cycles of antineoplastic treatment on a budget-neutral basis to BC patients.

Aim: To estimate the cost-savings from conversion to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv that can be reallocated to provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods: Simulation modeling in a panel of 2500 FOLFIRINOX-treated patients, using varying treatment duration (1-12 cycles) and conversion rates (10-100%), to estimate cost-savings and additional FOLFIRINOX treatment that could be budget neutral. Results: In a 2500-patient panel at 100% conversion, savings of US$6,907.41 per converted patient over 12 cycles of prophylaxis translate to US$17.3 million and could provide 72,273 additional FOLFIRINOX doses or 6023 full 6-month regimens. Conclusion: Conversion to biosimilar CIN/FN prophylaxis can generate significant cost-savings and provide budget-neutral expanded access to FOLFIRINOX treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Aims: To investigate the cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab-dkst versus reference intravenous (trastuzumab-IV) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (trastuzumab-SC) (with/without pertuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Methods: Economic simulation modeling in a panel of 1,000 MBC patients to estimate: 1) cost-savings by conversion from trastuzumab-IV or trastuzumab-SC to trastuzumab-dkst at 10-100% conversion rates in 3 weight groups: first quartile (Q 1 :62.2 kg), median (73.1 kg), third quartile (Q 3 :88.6 kg), and 2) budget-neutral expanded access to trastuzumab-dkst from cost-savings., Results: In monotherapy, conversion (%) from trastuzumab-IV generates one-year cost-savings from $2,272,189 (Q 1 ;10%) to $31,506,804 (Q 3 ;100%) and from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy savings range from $2,071,277 (Q 3 ;10%) to $35,775,475 (Q 1 ;100%). In combination with pertuzumab, trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient in all patient weights with one-year savings over trastuzumab-IV up to $32,662,714 (Q 3 ;100%) and over trastuzumab-SC up to $35,322,461 (Q 1 ;100%). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-IV monotherapy could provide between 3,087 (Q 1 ;10%) and 30,911 (Q 3 ;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses-enough to treat 58 to 583 patients for one year. Conversion from trastuzumab-SC monotherapy could provide between 1,559 (Q 3 ;10%) and 48,598 (Q 1 ;100%) additional trastuzumab-dkst doses or 38 to 918 additional one-year treatments with trastuzumab-dkst. In combination with pertuzumab, conversion from trastuzumab-IV could provide from 311 (Q 1 ;10%) to 3,939 (Q 3 ;100%) maintenance doses (pertuzumab + trastuzumab-dkst) or 17 to 210 additional one-year regimens (all agents). Savings from conversion from trastuzumab-SC could expand access to 226 (Q 3 ;10%) to 4,782 (Q 1 ;100%) additional maintenance doses or 12 to 254 one-year regimens., Conclusions: This first cost-efficiency and expanded access study of biosimilar therapeutic cancer agents shows that trastuzumab-dkst is cost-efficient over trastuzumab-IV and trastuzumab-SC across all patient weights in both monotherapy and combination with pertuzumab and paclitaxel. These cost savings could provide more patients with trastuzumab-dkst treatment on a budget-neutral basis.

Aims: In this pharmacoeconomic simulation, we: (1) modeled the cost-efficiency of converting patients from reference pegfilgrastim to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) from the US payer perspective, (2) simulated how savings enable, on a budget-neutral basis, expanded access to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, and (3) estimated the number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv., Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 patients, we modeled cost-savings utilizing: two reference formulations (pre-filled syringe [PFS] and on-body injector [OBI]), three medication cost inputs (average sales price [ASP], wholesale acquisition cost [WAC], and an age-proportionate blended ASP/WAC rate), administration cost for injection (PFS) and device application (OBI), conversion rates of 10-100%, and 1-6 cycles of prophylaxis. Cost-savings were used to estimate additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv that could be purchased and the NNC to purchase one additional dose., Results: Using ASP and 10% conversion from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv, savings range from $326,744 (1 cycle) to $2.0M (6 cycles) which could provide 93-556 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv, respectively; the NNC to purchase one additional dose of pegfilgrastim-cbqv ranges from 21.6 (1 cycle) down to 3.6 patients (6 cycles). The WAC model saves $41.1M per cycle and $246.7M over 6 cycles at 100% conversion from reference PFS which could provide 9,709-58,253 additional pegfilgrastim-cbqv doses; the NNC ranges from 2.1 (1 cycle) to 0.3 (6 cycles). Using the blended ASP/WAC rate, converting 50% from reference OBI to pegfilgrastim-cbqv would save $10.2M per cycle and $60.9M over 6 cycles providing 2,638-15,829 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv; NNCs are 3.8 (1 cycle) and 0.6 patients (6 cycles)., Conclusions: Converting 20,000 patients from reference to pegfilgrastim-cbqv over 6 cycles can generate savings up to $246.7M, enough to purchase up to 58,253 additional doses of pegfilgrastim-cbqv. This simulation provides economic justification for prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-cbqv.

Aims: For this economic analysis, we aimed to model: (1) the cost-efficiency of prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) compared to reference pegfilgrastim, and (2) the expanded access to CIN/FN prophylaxis and anti-neoplastic treatment that could be achieved with biosimilar cost-savings on a budget-neutral basis. Methods: In a hypothetical panel of 20,000 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis and using the average sales price (ASP) for the second quarter of 2019 for reference pegfilgrastim, we: conducted an ex ante simulation from the payer perspective of the cost-savings of 10-100% conversion from reference to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez using drug price discounting ranging from 10-35%; estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez enabled by these cost-savings; and estimated the budget-neutral expanded access to anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab. The simulations were replicated using fourth quarter 2019 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for reference pegfilgrastim and biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez in a post facto analysis. Results: In ASP simulations, cost-savings of using pegfilgrastim-bmez over reference pegfilgrastim in a 20,000 patient panel range from $1.3 M (at 15% price discount) to $3 M (35%) at 10% conversion rate and from $6.4 M to $14.9 M, respectively, at 50% conversion. These savings could provide prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 352 (15% discount) to 1,076 patients (35%) at 10% conversion or 1,764-5,384, respectively, at 50% conversion. Alternatively, savings could be reallocated for anti-neoplastic treatment with pembrolizumab to 3 (15% discount) to 9 (35%) patients at 10% conversion or 19-45, respectively, at 50% conversion. When utilizing WAC, cost-savings range from $4.6 M (10% conversion) to $23.1 M (50%) which could provide pegfilgrastim-bmez to an additional 1,174 (10% conversion) to 5,873 patients (50%). Conclusions: Prophylaxis with biosimilar pegfilgrastim-bmez increases the value of cancer care by generating significant cost-savings that could be reallocated to provide expanded access to CIN/FN prevention and anti-neoplastic therapy on a budget-neutral basis.

Background: Guidelines recommend febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis following myelotoxic chemotherapy with either daily injections of filgrastim (Neupogen ® ) or biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarzio/Zarxio ® ), single-injection pegfilgrastim (Neulasta ® ), or pegfilgrastim administered through an on-body injector (PEG-OBI; Neulasta ® Onpro ® ). PEG-OBI failure rates up to 6.9% have been reported, putting patients at incremental risk for FN and FN-related hospitalization. Our objective was to estimate, from a US payer perspective, the incremental costs of FN hospitalizations and the total incremental costs associated with PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying device failure rates over assured FN prophylaxis with daily injections of filgrastim or filgrastim-sndz or a single injection of pegfilgrastim. Methods: Cost simulations comparing prophylaxis with PEG-OBI at failure rates of 1-10% versus assured prophylaxis in cycle 1 of chemotherapy were performed for panels of 10,000 patients with lung cancer treated with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (1 analysis) or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with CHOP or CNOP (2 analyses). Daily injection scenarios were 4.3, 5, and 11 injections for lung cancer and 5, 6.5, and 11 for NHL. The analyses are from the US payer perspective. Results: For lung cancer, the total incremental cost of PEG-OBI prophylaxis at varying failure rates and durations ranged from $6,691,969‒$31,765,299 over filgrastim and $18,901,969‒$36,538,299 over filgrastim-sndz. For NHL, in scenario 1, the total incremental costs ranged from $6,794,984‒$30,361,345 over filgrastim and $19,004,984‒$35,911,345 over filgrastim-sndz; in scenario 2, the incremental costs ranged from $7,003,657‒$32,448,067 over filgrastim and $19,213,657‒$37,998,067 over filgrastim-sndz. Conclusions: In this simulation, the incremental costs of FN-related hospitalization due to PEG-OBI failure in cycle 1 compared to assured prophylaxis with reference pegfilgrastim, reference filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim-sndz varied depending upon the PEG-OBI failure rate and the alternative G-CSF prophylaxis option. Biosimilar filgrastim-sndz offers the greatest cost-efficiency.

Aim: This study aimed to report patterns of biosimilar filgrastim prophylaxis and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with hematological malignancies or solid tumors., Patients & Methods: MONITOR-GCSF is a real-world study of 1447 cancer patients receiving CIN/FN prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (solid tumors: 77.2%; hematological malignancies: 22.8%)., Results: Differences in prophylaxis intensity and day of initiation relative to guideline recommendations were observed. In hematology patients, higher rates of CIN and FN occurred at cycle level, and rate of FN was higher at patient level (9.1 vs 5.0% in solid tumor patients)., Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support in hematology and solid tumor patients is important to prevent CIN/FN and related hospitalizations and chemotherapy disturbances.

Aim: Biosimilar medicines offer significant cost-savings potential over their reference products, which can be re-allocated to provide access to other cancer treatments on a budget-neutral basis., Methods: Simulation study using cost data for the USA under consideration of several prophylaxis patterns., Results: Potential savings from conversion from reference filgrastim to biosimilar filgrastim-sndz are significant. These savings expand budget-neutral access to novel immunotherapies (obinutuzumab; pembrolizumab) or supportive care (filgrastim-sndz)., Conclusion: The combination of biosimilar savings and expanded access increases the value of cancer care as the same supportive care is provided at lower cost, additional cancer care is enabled at no additional cost, and more patients will have access to cancer care.

Aims: Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis., Methods: A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1-14 days' time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC)., Results: Using ASP + CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1 day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1 day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1 day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1 day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1 day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC + CPT were even greater under all scenarios., Conclusions: Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.

Background: Myelotoxic chemotherapy is associated with chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). The MONITOR-GCSF study evaluated biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) prophylaxis patterns, associated outcomes, and determinants. We performed stratified analyses comparing elderly and non-elderly patients., Methods: Comparative (elderly/non-elderly) analysis of demographics and clinical status, prophylaxis, associated CIN/FN outcomes (CIN grade 4 [CIN4], FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations and chemodisturbances, composite), and, per hierarchical modeling, determinants thereof evaluated at the patient- and cycle-level., Results: There were no significant differences between both cohorts in prophylaxis initiation/duration and associated outcomes, but proportionately more elderly patients were correctly-prophylacted and fewer over-prophylacted. Common determinants of poor CIN/FN outcomes included concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis, impaired performance status, and any grade CIN in a previous cycle, whereas common determinants of good outcomes included over-prophylaxis and prophylaxis initiation within 24-72h. In the elderly, female gender, liver/renal/cardiovascular disease, secondary prophylaxis, and under-prophylaxis were associated with poorer outcomes. In the non-elderly, CIN4 at baseline or in a prior cycle was associated with poorer CIN/FN outcomes, and higher biosimilar filgrastim dose and, perhaps counter-intuitively, under-prophylaxis with better outcomes., Conclusion: Adequate GCSF support is essential for all patients, but especially for elderly patients with serious chronic disease, certainly, if concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated and if a CIN4 episode occurred in a prior cycle. The potential impact of impaired performance status, especially ECOG≥2 at chemotherapy start or a worsening to such during chemotherapy; under-prophylaxis, including inadequate secondary prophylaxis, should be considered in elderly patients. Timely GCSF initiation and over-prophylaxis is associated with lower rates of adverse CIN/FN events in elderly and non-elderly patients, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (chemotherapy-induced (CIN)/febrile neutropenia (FN)) prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®)., Methods: MONITOR-GCSF is an international (12 countries), multi-center (140), prospective (max. six cycles), observational, open-label, pharmaco-epidemiologic study of cancer patients (n = 1447) treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy across a total of 6,213 cycles and receiving prophylaxis with Zarzio®. Data were analyzed using both the patient and cycle as unit of analysis., Results: Most (72.3 %) received primary prophylaxis; dosed mainly (53.2 %) at 30 MIU but differentiated by weight, chemotoxicity, and tumor type; and mainly (53.2 %) initiated in the 24-72h post-chemotherapy window but differentiated by prophylaxis type, tumor type, and chemotoxicity and for modal/median duration of 5 days. Relative to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines, 56.6 % were correctly prophylacted, 17.4 % under-prophylacted, and 26.0 % over-prophylacted. The following incidence rates were recorded: CIN grade 4 13.2 % of patients and 3.9 % of cycles, FN 5.9 % of patients and 1.4 % of cycles, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations 6.1 % of patients and 1.5 % of cycles, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbances 9.5 % of patients and 2.8 % of cycles, and composite outcomes index 22.3 % of patients and 6.7 % of cycles. Rates varied by type of prophylaxis and tumor, chemotoxicity, initiation day, and prophylaxis duration. There were 1834 musculoskeletal events with 24.7 % of patients reporting bone pain of any grade (mostly mild to moderate), and 148 adverse drug reactions, including 4 serious, were recorded in 76 patients., Conclusions: The clinical and safety outcomes are well within the range of historically reported data for originator filgrastim underscoring the clinical effectiveness and safety of biosimilar filgrastim in daily clinical practice.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA), under a strictly regulated pathway, has approved several biosimilar products since 2005, including biosimilar versions of the erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) epoetin alfa since 2007. Subsequent to these approvals, the use of biosimilar epoetin alfa in the management of renal anemia has grown steadily throughout Europe. With the enactment of the US Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, a US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval process for biosimilars was legalized. Thus, biosimilar erythropoietin products are expected to be available for prescription in the USA by mid-decade, presumably at a price that is competitive with the originator brand-name reference products. In this paper, we describe the status of originator and biosimilar ESAs, review the clinical development and regulatory approval of biosimilar erythropoietins in Europe, and summarize relevant efficacy and safety information of biosimilar erythropoietins in relation to their reference products to provide a background for US nephrologists as they appraise biosimilar erythropoietins as treatment options for renal anemia. Key lessons learned from Europe are that (a) EMA-approved biosimilar erythropoietins have comparable efficacy and safety profiles to their reference product erythropoietin; (b) pharmacovigilance preapproval and postapproval are critical, especially with regard to immunogenicity and vascular thromboembolic events; (c) strict preapproval and postapproval requirements must guide the regulatory pathway for biosimilars; and (d) high-quality manufacturing and production processes must be established to ensure quality biosimilar products. The availability of biosimilar erythropoietins in the USA will provide nephrologists with alternative effective, and potentially more affordable, treatment options for patients with renal anemia.

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to simulate for the European Union G5 countries the potential cost savings of converting patients from originator granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) filgrastim and pegfilgrastim to a biosimilar filgrastim, to evaluate how reallocating these savings could increase patient access to antineoplastic therapy, and to estimate the number of patients needed to convert to provide antineoplastic treatment to one patient., Methods: Three models were built: (1) to estimate the costs of using originator G-CSFs and the savings generated from switching to a biosimilar G-CSF, (2) to estimate the incremental number of patients who could be provided antineoplastic therapy-rituximab or trastuzumab-in a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, and (3) to calculate the number of patients needed to convert to provide access to anticancer therapy. Scenarios were developed in which the rate of conversion was varied to estimate the effect on total cost savings. This study took the perspective of the payer in the European Union., Findings: The savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim ranged from €785 (day 4) to €2747 (day 14) and increased with longer duration of therapy. By contrast, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim decreased over time, ranging from €6199 (day 4) to €471 (day 14). In a hypothetical panel of 10,000 patients with cancer, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over the originator filgrastim and the expanded access to antineoplastic therapy improved over time, irrespective of conversion rates. Conversely, in the same hypothetical panel, the savings associated with the biosimilar filgrastim over pegfilgrastim reduced over time, irrespective of conversion rates, along with the expanded access to antineoplastic treatment. Under conversion of the originator filgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 4 to 14 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 11 to 38 patients. Under conversion of pegfilgrastim to the biosimilar filgrastim, the number needed to convert to expand access to rituximab ranged from 2 to 24 patients, and the number needed to convert to expand access to trastuzumab ranged from 5 to 63 patients., Implications: Use of biosimilar G-CSFs for supportive cancer care could yield potential cost savings and improve patient access to antineoplastic therapy in a budget neutral way-a financial effect with an ethical perspective., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: A 'biosimilar', or 'similar biological medicinal product', is a biologic agent that is similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an authorized reference biological medicine. Since the expiration of the filgrastim patent in Europe, three agents have received marketing authorization from the EMA: Tevagrastim, Zarzio and Nivestim. Tevagrastim has also been approved as a biologic by the FDA as tbo-filgrastim., Areas Covered: Using the EMA dossiers (all three agents), the FDA dossier (Tevagrastim), and journal publications, this article reviews clinical safety data for these products with emphasis on serious/severe adverse events and special consideration of immunogenicity, bone pain, splenomegaly, allergic reactions, acute respiratory distress syndrome and mortality., Expert Opinion: All three agents have similar safety profiles. None were statistically higher on safety parameters to what is known about originator filgrastim (Neupogen). What is known about filgrastim in general regarding safety can be extended to biosimilar filgrastim. Safety profiles may become more differentiated once long-term product-specific safety data are available. Large-sample, long-term, observational studies of real-world practice will provide the heterogeneity and statistical power to demonstrate product-specific safety profiles. Current evidence indicates that statistically no one product is less and no one product is more safe.

Introduction: A "biosimilar" or "similar biological medicinal product" is a biological agent that is similar in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an authorized reference biological medicine. Since the expiration of the epoetin alfa patent in Europe, three agents have received marketing authorization from the European Medicines Agency: Binocrit (epoetin alfa; aka Abseamed and Epoetin Alfa Hexal), Retacrit (epoetin zeta; aka Silapo), and Eporatio (epoetin theta; aka Biopoin and Ratioepo)., Areas Covered: Using the EMA dossiers and journal publications, this article reviews clinical safety data for these products, with emphasis on serious/severe adverse events and a special consideration of immunogenicity, venous thromboembolism, and mortality., Expert Opinion: A review of the available safety evidence shows that all three agents discussed have similar safety profiles. None were statistically higher on safety parameters to what is known about ESA as a class, when stratified by population. As with ESAs in general, immunogenicity, venous thromboembolism, and mortality are all concerns. What is known about ESAs regarding safety can be extended to biosimilar erythropoietins. Since biosimilars are unique, complex biological molecules, safety profiles may evolve from common to differentiated, once long-term product-specific safety data are available. Large-sample, long-term, observational studies of real-world practice will provide the heterogeneity and statistical power to demonstrate product-specific effectiveness and safety profiles. Statistically, out of the commercially available formulations of the three products reviewed, no single product is less or more safe.

Objectives: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg., Methods: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries., Results: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®., Conclusion: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.