How will the 35% price discount by Merck/Samsung Bioepis on their infliximab biosimilar, compared with the reference, influence stakeholder uptake?
Infliximab-abda (Renflexis), biosimilar to Janssen Biotech tumor necrosis factor inhibitor infliximab (Remicade), is being introduced into the US market at a list price of $753.39, which represents a 35% discount off the current list price of Remicade. Merck and Samsung Bioepis have made a bold move by introducing the second biosimilar to Remicade at a significant discount.
Remicade and its 2 biosimilars, infliximab-abda and infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) are long term treatments that are, for the most part, administered under the medical benefit.
Celltrion’s and Pfizer’s Inflectra has struggled to capture market share from Remicade due to factors such as offering a low discount (15%) off the originator’s list price and not being able to overcome effective contracting strategies and additional discounts provided by Janssen. Remicade erosion was targeted to be somewhere between 10%-15% and the erosion has been only about 5% in Q2 2017, which is less severe than expected.
In order to successfully capture more of Remicade’s US market share and $4.84 B in annual sales, Merck and Samsung Bioepsis have offered a 35% discount off the list price of Remicade. This discount, which is more than double Inflectra’s discount, will influence commercial insurers to evaluate the opportunity and then perhaps implement medical benefit (as well as pharmacy benefit) formulary changes to prefer Renflexis over Remicade. Additionally, this discount may encourage organizations that administer these drugs (ie, health systems) to begin utilizing and stocking up on Renflexis. Under the current Medicare Part B coding and reimbursement policy for biosimilars, providers will likely profit from a good portion of the 20% price difference between Renflexis and Inflectra, which share the same billing code.
The introduction of a second biosimilar, and future biosimilars, to Remicade along with a favorable management by insurers and utilization by organizations administering these drugs will help advance price competition, increase market share for biosimilars, and improve access for patients in the United States. We will see over the course of 2017 and 2018 whether the discount offered by Merck and Samsung was enough to influence insurers to prefer the biosimilar over the innovator.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
BioRationality: Commemorating the 15th Anniversary of the BPCIA
April 8th 2025Affirming that analytical characterization is often sufficient for biosimilar approval, minimizing unnecessary clinical testing, and enhancing FDA-led education to counter stakeholder misconceptions are key recommendations put forth in this opinion piece by Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.