Few biologics in the US have multiple biosimilar competitors, but originator biologics respond quickly to competition by increasing rebates and lowering net prices, despite short approval-to-launch timelines for biosimilars.
Originator biologic companies in the US may respond aggressively to biosimilar competition by significantly increasing rebates—by as much as 89%—and reducing net prices by up to 51%, demonstrating a strong effort to retain market share, according to a recent study.1
The study, published in Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, sheds light on the largely unexplored dynamics of US biologic markets with multiple biosimilar competitors. Additionally, it identified approval-level barriers as a key factor limiting biosimilar availability, emphasizing the need for policy interventions to enhance competition and maximize potential cost savings in the health care system.
Researchers conducted the analysis to better understand the competitive dynamics of the biologic market, particularly in the context of multiple biosimilar competitors. A common talking point in the biosimilar space is that significant price erosion will be achieved after 5 biosimilar competitors enter the market.2 This stems from the steep price reductions seen in the EU filgrastim market, which currently includes 7 biosimilars competing against the originator product (Neupogen).2,3
The present study used data from the US Brand RX Net Pricing Tool from SSR Health, a private company that uses filings from publicly traded pharmaceutical companies to estimate drug pricing data.1 Data covering 2015 to 2022 were used to analyze net prices and wholesale acquisition costs of originator biologics and their biosimilars. The analysis focused on 4 originator biologics—trastuzumab (Herceptin), pegfilgrastim (Neopogen), rituximab (Rituxan), and infliximab (Remicade)—after excluding bevacizumab (Avastin) due to unavailable pricing data.
The study employed descriptive statistics and interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of biosimilar market entries on drug pricing and rebates. The analysis specifically looked at price changes per course of treatment and calculated rebate ratios.
As of December 31, 2022, trastuzumab had the most approved biosimilars (n = 5), followed by bevacizumab (n = 4), pegfilgrastim(n = 4), infliximab (n = 3), and rituximab (n = 3). The average time between biosimilar approval and market launch was 9 months, with notable variation in launch timing between competitors.
Key insights for each biologic included:
The authors said that their results highlight the impact of biosimilar market entries on pricing, with significant reductions in net prices and increases in rebate discounts across all biologics studied.
“Regarding patient and insurer savings, it appears that a strategy encouraging the approval and launch of 1 or 2 biosimilars across as many drug markets as possible may be more effective in generating cost savings than a strategy focused on supporting the launch of multiple biosimilars (e.g., 3 or more) in a smaller selection of markets,” commented lead author Morgane Mouslim, a policy analyst advanced at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, in a statement to The Center for Biosimilars®.
The authors warned that rebate strategies may hinder biosimilar market penetration by maintaining favorable formulary positions for originator biologics. If originators can retain market share, biosimilars may struggle to sustain production, leading to reduced competition.
The study also highlights the importance of understanding net prices, which are influenced by rebates rather than list prices. This insight is crucial for accurately assessing the impact of biosimilar competition on originator prices. However, since rebates do not necessarily benefit patients directly, it remains uncertain whether patients experience cost savings.
Several limitations were identified, including the use of publicly traded company pricing data, excluding most privately produced biosimilars and focusing only on originator pricing, missing data for 1 reference biologic, and the inability to assess the impact of interchangeable biosimilars on pricing. Further research on market share and interchangeability is needed.
References
1. Mouslim M, Socal MP, Trujillo AJ. Dynamics of biological markets with multiple biosimilar competitors in the United States. Expert Opin Biol Ther. Published online October 9, 2024. doi:10.1080/14712598.2024.2412648
2. Diaz JI. The second wave of biosimilars: new scenarios, new rules. biosimilar development. December 15, 2020. Accessed November 22, 2024. https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/the-second-wave-of-biosimilars-new-scenarios-new-rules-0001
3. Biosimilar approvals. The Center for Biosimilars. Updated November 18, 2024. Accessed November 22, 2024. https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/biosimilar-approvals
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.
Can Global Policies to Boost Biosimilar Adoption Work in the US?
November 17th 2024On this special episode of Not So Different honoring Global Biosimilars Week, Craig Burton, executive director of the Biosimilars Council, explores how global policies—from incentives to health equity strategies—could boost biosimilar adoption in the US.
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.