Sonia T. Oskouei, PharmD, BCMAS, DPLA, vice president of Biosimilars at Cardinal Health, discusses motivating factors that affect use of biosimilars in oncology.
Oncology providers are, in general, highly sensitive to costs of biologics, so expanding payer coverage of these agents to include lower-cost options is likely to drive adoption of biosimilars in oncology, said Sonia T. Oskouei, PharmD, BCMAS, DPLA, vice president of Biosimilars at Cardinal Health.
“From our surveys we know that the top 2 reasons oncologists are likely to prescribe a biosimilar are if it provides costs savings to the patient or practice or if the insurance company mandates a switch,” Oskouei said at this year's Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) 47th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit. Her presentation covered motives and biases that influence the prescribing behavior of oncologists.
A 2017 Cardinal Health survey identified fear of monetary loss as the chief bias influencing physician decision making in oncology, with 23.9% of respondents in agreement. These same physicians identified a strong bias toward following established guidelines from such nationally recognized entities as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (22.0%). Lack of clinical response and the predictability of outcomes were 2 other factors that oncologists identified (16.5%) as influencing their likelihood to prescribe biosimilars.
"A Consistent Theme"
“The responses really haven’t changed that much since 2017. This is a consistent theme when it comes to biosimilar utilization—the correlation to cost savings,” Oskouei said.
Whereas physicians may gravitate toward biosimilar use to save money, value-based care programs, such as alternative payment models (Oncology Care Model, Oncology Care First, Merit-based Incentive Payment System) are accelerating that trend, she said. “Biosimilars are really valuable tools for providers practicing in the value-based care initiative. These are ways to allow cost savings and efficiencies in delivering high-value cancer care and expanding the use of biologic treatment.”
In fact, loss aversion is a very powerful motivator in the oncology sector. Asked in 2017 how often fear of not being reimbursed influences their prescribing habits, 37.1% of oncologists answered “very often," and 25.8%, “moderately often.”
“The fear of monetary loss has double the impact of any potential equivalent gains, studies have shown, so it makes sense that this would be a primary driver of potential bias,” Oskouei said.
Familiarity with biosimilars plays a large role in acceptance and use, she said. Oncologists were first introduced to biosimilars via supportive care products, which as indirect treatments for cancer present a lower-stakes risk for oncologists. Their positive experience with these products may have contributed to their acceptance of therapeutic oncology biosimilars, she said.
However, familiarity also may mean a dependence on peer experience with and willingness to adopt biosimilars. For example, in a 2017 survey, 64% of oncologists agreed that they expected to be early adopters of biosimilars, but 33% said they would wait for other academic and community leaders to adopt biosimilars before prescribing them themselves, and the remaining 4% said they would not use biosimilars unless mandated to do so by payers.
“They’re trying to develop that familiarity and see peers utilize biosimilars and build more confidence in the outcomes before adopting,” Oskouei said.
Oncologists’ confidence in biosimilars may be biased by the statements about them written by the FDA and other authorities, she added. For example, the statement “Biosimilars are not inferior to reference products in terms of safety and efficacy” is less convincing than “Biosimilars are as safe and effective as the reference products."
Indeed, the FDA has considered rephrasing biosimilar language to get around the bias that such cautious language induces.
Differences in the language used to present biosimilar is known as “framing,” and these differences have the potential to influence decisions about the use of these agents, Oskouei said.
“A lot of educational efforts and programs have helped address the potential framing bias with biosimilars,” which has turned up in literature from not only the FDA but also health care industry sources, she said.
When it comes to biosimilar uptake, a lot depends on physician education, but other agents and drug developments also play a role. Originator manufacturers are continuously innovating, developing new formulations of existing treatments, new methods of delivery, and also new medicinal products entirely, Oskouei said.
“We can’t just look at the originator biologic and the biosimilars in silo when making treatment decisions, because there are continued advancements and novel dosage forms that can compete with biosimilar utilization. Conversely, there’s also the discussion around obsolescence when it comes to biosimilars and their originator biologics,” she said. “The key message is that it’s really going to continue to be a very dynamic market.”
Reference
Oskouei ST. Biosimilar adoption in oncology: how attitudes have changed and what’s ahead? Presented at: ACCC 47th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit; March 1-5, 2021. Accessed March 5, 2021. https://www.accc-cancer.org/home/attend/accc-47th-annual-meeting-cancer-center-business-summit/agenda#undefined5
Webinar Addresses Solutions to Improve Adalimumab Biosimilar Uptake
March 18th 2024Government policies, including those related to prescribing incentives and interchangeability, need to be reworked to encourage biosimilar adoption and create meaningful savings for health systems, according to speakers at a recent webinar.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Coherus Biosciences Cites Biosimilars as Main Drivers of 2023 Revenue Growth
March 14th 2024In its earnings report for the fourth quarter and full year of 2023, Coherus Biosciences detailed its rising revenue growth, which it partly attributed to increased sales for its pegfilgrastim and ranibizumab biosimilars.
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.
Filgrastim Biosimilars in Europe: 15 Years of Real-World Evidence for Zarxio
March 13th 2024A review looking back at the last 15 years of experience with the first filgrastim biosimilar (Zarxio) provides a detailed overview on how filgrastim biosimilars came to be and the evidence behind why oncologists have come to accept them as standard practice.
HLX02, Pertuzumab, Chemotherapy Combination Effective, Safe in Advanced HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
March 12th 2024A study found combining trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy was effective and safe for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who progressed after prior trastuzumab therapy.