Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, reflects on data concerning the potential for adalimumab biosimilars to gain significant market share.
Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, comments on concerning data from Cardinal Health and Spherix Global Insights regarding the potential growth of the US adalimumab market, including providers’ views on interchangeability and payers’ influence on utilization.
Transcript
In March, a Cardinal Health report found that over 60% of providers intend to only prescribe adalimumab biosimilars that have an interchangeability designation, indicating that providers consider interchangeability to be a significant safety identifier, despite this not being what the label means. Why do you think providers feels this way, and what more is needed to clarify the meaning of interchangeability?
Well, providers have been swayed over a number of years from a variety of different directions. Initially, the originators swayed providers by putting doubt into their mind regarding how similar a biosimilar really is. And in particular, as you mentioned earlier, in the absence of trials within inflammatory bowel disease, so there's been a sense of doubt that has been placed for many years.
But the reality is that it's not going to be up to the provider. Because if a third-party payer decides to provide a biosimilar at a substantially lower cost to the patient, they're not likely going to pay the difference for what the biosimilar would cost them, which is usually nothing. Remember, patients are usually paying about $5 a month for adalimumab nowadays. If the patients actually have to pay for the drug, there's going to be a substantial cost difference.
Research from Spherix Global Insights found that despite high awareness of adalimumab biosimilars options, uptake has been low so far. What more needs to be done to improve provider willingness to prescribe these agents?
It's not the willingness to prescribe, it's that the originator has negotiated pricing that is still favorable to third-party payers. Hence, the need to accept a biosimilar has been less than anticipated. But as we've seen, this will change over time as there is greater and greater acceptance and the multiple biosimilars will ultimately bring the cost of adalimumab down.
Biosimilars Gastroenterology Roundup for November 2024—Podcast Edition
December 1st 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss market changes in the adalimumab space; calls for PBM transparency and biosimilar access reforms grew; new data for biosimilars in gastroenterology conditions; and all the takeaways from this year's Global Biosimilars Week.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
Eye on Pharma: Golimumab Biosimilar Update; Korea Approves Denosumab; Xbrane, Intas Collaboration
December 10th 2024Alvotech and Advanz Pharma have submitted a European marketing application for their golimumab biosimilar to treat inflammatory diseases, while Celltrion secured Korean approval for denosumab biosimilars, and Intas Pharmaceuticals partnered with Xbrane Biopharma on a nivolumab biosimilar.