The Lazio region of Italy had one of the lowest uptakes of biosimilars in the country. In response, specific guidance was issued for the region in November 2015.
Current national and international guidelines recommend the prophylactic administration of recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim, lenograstim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim, for patients with cancer who are at greater (20% or higher) risk of potentially life-threatening febrile neutropenia (FN) while receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSFs are also recommended for patients with additional risk factors, such as comorbidities or advanced age, even if their risk of FN is under 20%.
The high cost of biological medications such as G-CSFs is a major concern for national healthcare systems operating under limited resources. Less expensive filgrastim biosimilars have been available in the European Union since 2008, and in Italy, biosimilar filgrastim products represented 30.2% of the consumption of and 15.3% of the expenditure for the entire G-CSF therapeutic class in 2015.
However, the Lazio region of Italy had one of the lowest uptakes of biosimilars in the country. In response, specific guidance was issued for the region in November 2015. The guidance aimed to improve the appropriate prescribing of G-CSFs. The guidance considered all G-CSFs (biosimilar and reference) as therapeutically equivalent for the prevention of chemotherapy-related FN. As part of the process, a specific program was established to monitor implementation of the guidance using the existing Electronic Therapeutic Plan Registry (ETPR).
Francesco Trotta, PhD, of the Lazio Regional Health Service, and colleagues, used the ETPR to study prescribing patterns for G-CSFs in a large, real-world population in the region. The ETPR was established for clinical research purposes, and includes information on the indication of use (prevention of chemotherapy-related FN) and clinical settings (treatment-naïve and experienced patients). Their study, published in BioDrugs, shows that it is possible to change attitudes towards the prescribing of less expensive biosimilar G-CSFs for FN prevention when the prescriber’s decision-making processes are supported by evidence that includes regulatory and clinical information as well as an analysis of clinical practice data.
The researchers evaluated temporal trends regarding G-CSF products and compared the frequency of therapeutic plans (TPs) for each G-CSF during the pre- and post-intervention periods. A total of 7082 TPs, corresponding to 6592 patients, were eligible for analysis.
The researchers found that the frequency of TPs prescribed after intervention indicated a significant increase in the use of a filgrastim biosimilar (14.4% difference; P<.001) and significant decreases in the use of lenograstim (-6.0% difference; P<.001) and pegfilgrastim (-7.8% difference; P<.001). The temporal trends analysis showed an increase in TPs using a filgrastim biosimilar, rising from 34.4% in July 2015 to 49.8% in June 2016 (P<.0001), and a decrease in TPs using lenograstim and pegfilgrastim during the same period. Analyses in both naïve and experienced settings resulted in similar findings.
The impact of the guidance is estimated to save €500,000 per year, or almost 5% of the total yearly expenditure on G-CSFs in the Lazio region of Italy.
This study indicates that a decision-making process supported by evidence that includes both regulatory and clinical information, together with analysis of clinical practice data, can alter attitudes regarding the use of G-CSFs. “In particular, we were able to shift prescriptions towards less expensive drugs in the FN setting,” the authors said. Furthermore, the analysis also shows that pharmaceutical policy decisions should be continuously monitored over time to evaluate their impact in clinical practice.
Spanish Real-World Study: Adalimumab Biosimilar MSB11022 Safe, Effective in IBD
May 18th 2024A real-world study in Spain on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients found no meaningful changes in clinical or biochemical markers or differences in effectiveness between the adalimumab originator and the biosimilar MSB11022 (Idacio; Fresenius Kabi) in adalimumab-naïve patients.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.