Health care systems need to consistently reevaluate whether the biosimilars they utilize are the most cost-effective, Neal Dave, PharmD, the executive director of pharmacy at Texas Oncology, explains.
In this interview with The Center for Biosimilars®, Neal Dave, PharmD, the executive director of pharmacy at Texas Oncology, discusses some of the issues that clinics face when prescribing biosimilars, including pricing, payer policy, and inventory challenges.
Dave says switching to biosimilars helped Texas Oncology reduce save 20% on a small group of drugs for which biosimilars were available. He mentions a pilot program at Texas Oncology where they used biosimilars for 3 drugs for 3 months. Across the board, the health system was able to save $4 million monthly.
Asked about the incentives for manufacturers to develop more oncology biosimilars amid increasing competition, Dave says that companies may have to find another way to compete rather than developing a new biosimilar for a reference product with 3 or more competitors.
However, he argues that pricing a product significantly lower in a market that already has a lot of competition is the best way to compete in such a market.
Clinics are challenged when they have to stock multiple biosimilars for the same reference product, and payers’ preferences do not always align with the clinic’s interests, he says. Although giving a patient the wrong biosimilar should not produce any clinical differences, on an administrative level, it can cause billing issues and result in additional costs for the practice. Dave says that, to help prevent these issues from occurring, clinics should be the ones to determine which biosimilars to use.
Dave reevaluates his pharmacy practices regularly because drug prices and biosimilar utilization change on a quarterly basis. These reevaluations will occur during pharmacy and therapeutics committee meetings, and those discussions are needed to figure out what can be done to improve biosimilar utilization, and consequently, cost savings.
Finally, Dave discusses the importance of clinics regularly reevaluating the prices of the biosimilars they’re using, because a biosimilar that enters the market as the most cost-efficient option may not stay that way forever. He stresses that clinics need to ensure that as prices change that they are continuing the use the most cost-effective option to prevent increasing the cost of care.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
Review Confirms Clinical Safety of Sandoz Denosumab Biosimilar vs Originator
December 11th 2024Sandoz's biosimilar denosumab (Jubbonti/Wyost) has demonstrated analytical, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical equivalence to reference denosumab (Prolia/Xgeva), supporting its approval and extrapolation to all approved indications.
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.
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.
Pertuzumab Biosimilar Shows Promise in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Treatment
December 9th 2024The proposed pertuzumab biosimilar QL1209 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to reference pertuzumab (Perjeta) in neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive, ER/PR-negative early or locally advanced breast cancer, offering a cost-effective alternative with comparable clinical outcomes.