A recent survey shows that some patients have greater concerns about automatic substitution of biosimilar products than they do about the high cost of biologic drugs.
A recent survey shows that some patients have greater concerns about automatic substitution of biosimilar products than they do about the high cost of biologic drugs.
The survey, conducted by the Canadian group Consumer Advocare Network from May to June 2017, assessed the views of 588 patients, half of whom were currently taking a biologic medicine. The patients had been diagnosed with diseases including arthritis, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, cancers, and rare diseases. The survey found the following:
“The bottom line is that patients want to be sure that the biologic medicines they are taking have been tested for their condition, they have a choice as to which biologic is prescribed, and what they are prescribed is what they get,” Consumer Advocare Network said in its press release announcing the survey results.
Automatic substitution is the norm in Canada, where lower-cost products may be automatically substituted for reference products. In the United States, however, 33 states and Puerto Rico have taken legislative action concerning biosimilar substitution, with most states prohibiting automatic substitution and protecting the physician-patient relationship by ensuring communication concerning substitution of a biosimilar for a reference drug.
Despite patients’ concerns about being moved to biosimilars against their will, and despite legislative action seeking to leave choices concerning the use of biosimilars in the hands of physicians, other factors—such as formulary design—could push patients from reference products to biosimilars.
This week, Express Scripts, a leading pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), released its 2018 National Preferred Formulary. This updated formulary introduces several drug exclusions, including replacing filgrastim (Neupogen) with its competitors, TBO-filgrastim (Granix) and the biosimilar fligrastim-sndz (Zarxio).
The company notes that it is also considering changes to drugs treating inflammatory conditions, and that it could expand the list of excluded products to include such treatments when it releases its final 2018 list on or before September 15, 2017. It remains to be seen whether Merck and Samsung Bioepis’ newly launched infliximab biosimilar, Renflexis (introduced at a 35% discount to the reference Remicade), could push the originator product off formularies, leaving patients and providers with fewer, yet cheaper, options for biologic treatment.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
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.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.