open access

Vol 12, No 4 (2016)
Review paper
Published online: 2016-12-22
Get Citation

Recent changes on the biopharmaceutical market after the introduction of biosimilar G-CSF products

Joanna Zielińska, Włodzimierz Bialik
DOI: 10.5603/OCP.2016.0006
·
Oncol Clin Pract 2016;12(4):144-152.

open access

Vol 12, No 4 (2016)
REVIEW ARTICLES
Published online: 2016-12-22

Abstract

The biologic medicine market is the fastest growing segment of the global pharmaceutical market. However, the high price of biologic medicines is a challenge for the constrained budget of healthcare systems. The introduction of biosimilars — copies of therapeutic biologics — has ensured a high degree of competition on the market and consequently has expanded patient access to advanced therapies and has evolved the overall patient treatment costs. One of the first medicines that was approved in Europe based on the abbreviated registration process was a biosimilar version of filgrastim. In this review we investigate the impact of biosimilar G-CSF products on the market. The influence of the competition on the price change and the cost of therapy were analysed. Our findings reveal that the impact of biosimilars on the healthcare system is multi-factored and therefore difficult to predict. A competitive environment induces the price reduction even for second-generation products. However, at the same time, no correlation between the biosimilar market share and the discount was noticed. It seems that the observed changes reflect the mix of economic conditions including the situation on the national market before introduction of biosimilars, local adoption of treatment practices influenced by the pricing system, and the payer’s decision on drug reimbursement.

Abstract

The biologic medicine market is the fastest growing segment of the global pharmaceutical market. However, the high price of biologic medicines is a challenge for the constrained budget of healthcare systems. The introduction of biosimilars — copies of therapeutic biologics — has ensured a high degree of competition on the market and consequently has expanded patient access to advanced therapies and has evolved the overall patient treatment costs. One of the first medicines that was approved in Europe based on the abbreviated registration process was a biosimilar version of filgrastim. In this review we investigate the impact of biosimilar G-CSF products on the market. The influence of the competition on the price change and the cost of therapy were analysed. Our findings reveal that the impact of biosimilars on the healthcare system is multi-factored and therefore difficult to predict. A competitive environment induces the price reduction even for second-generation products. However, at the same time, no correlation between the biosimilar market share and the discount was noticed. It seems that the observed changes reflect the mix of economic conditions including the situation on the national market before introduction of biosimilars, local adoption of treatment practices influenced by the pricing system, and the payer’s decision on drug reimbursement.

Get Citation

Keywords

filgrastim, biosimilar medicine, G-CSF, oncology, G-CSF market

About this article
Title

Recent changes on the biopharmaceutical market after the introduction of biosimilar G-CSF products

Journal

Oncology in Clinical Practice

Issue

Vol 12, No 4 (2016)

Article type

Review paper

Pages

144-152

Published online

2016-12-22

DOI

10.5603/OCP.2016.0006

Bibliographic record

Oncol Clin Pract 2016;12(4):144-152.

Keywords

filgrastim
biosimilar medicine
G-CSF
oncology
G-CSF market

Authors

Joanna Zielińska
Włodzimierz Bialik

References (45)
  1. The global use of medicines: Outlook through 2016. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics 2012. http://www.imshealth. com/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Reports/The%20Global%20Use%20 of%20Medicines%20Outlook%20Through%202016/Medicines_Outlook_Through_2016_Report.pdf (2012).
  2. Long D. The business of biosimilars. HDMA Distribution Management Conference and Expo. https://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwibzJGkr7bLAhWqC5oKHQtCBxYQFggmM AA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthcaredistribution.org%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fpdfs%2Feducation%2F2015-dmc-presentations%2Ft ue-f3-biosimilars-biz.ashx%3Fla%3Den&usg=AFQjCNFKbI8Ky9SY9XHSigejN_OBdtavXA&cad=rja. (03.2015).
  3. Blackstone EA, Fuhr JP. The economics of biosimilars. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013; 6: 469–478.
  4. Welte K, Platzer E, Lu L, et al. Purification and biochemical characterization of human pluripotent hematopoietic colony-stimulating factor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1985; 82(5): 1526–1530.
  5. Pisani J, Bonduelle Y. Opportunities and barriers in the biosimilar market: Evolution or revolution for generics companies? Pharmaceutical strategy consultants at pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP. http://www.slideshare.net/genericpharma/opportunitiesandbarriersinthebiosimilarmarketevolutionorrevolutionforgenericscompanies110114081144phpapp02. (2006).
  6. The impact of biosimilar competition. IMS Health. http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwial9Po3JXLAhVomHIKHXZ4B0cQFggg MAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2FDocsRoom%2Fdocuments%2F14547%2Fattachments%2F1%2Ftranslations%2Fen%2 Frenditions%2Fnative&usg=AFQjCNE5J1vs8YkJ16T2zfNjBNVELl_ oQg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.bGs (2015).
  7. Rovira J, Espín J, García L, Olry de Labry A. The impact of biosimilars’ entry in the EU market. EmiNet. http://www. google.pl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0ahUKEwjB9qi5sLbLAhXKa5oKHbjkASUQFggkMAA&url=http%3A %2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2FDocsRoom%2Fdocuments%2F7651%2F attachments%2F1%2Ftranslations%2Fen%2Frenditions%2Fpdf&usg =AFQjCNHF1O5abRKi-Vgl-q8PzEEMd0hOsg. (2011).
  8. Lenograstim given CPMP panel backing. The Pharma Letter. http://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/lenograstim-given-cpmp-panel-backing. (1993).
  9. Marketing Authorization Received for RPR’s Granocyte(R) in Fourteen Additional Countries. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/marketing-authorization-received-for-rprsgranocyter-in-fourteen-additional-countries-74929607.html.
  10. MacConnachie AM. Colony stimulating factors: G-CSFs--filgrastim (Neupogen) and lenograstim (Granocyte). Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 1998; 14(1): 49–50.
  11. Höglund M. Glycosylated and non-glycosylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF)--what is the difference? Med Oncol. 1998; 15(4): 229–233.
  12. Mattii L, Azzarà A, Fazzi R, et al. Glycosylated or non-glycosylated G-CSF differently influence human granulocyte functions through RhoA. Leuk Res. 2005; 29(11): 1285–1292.
  13. Mattii L, Battolla B, Azzarà A, et al. Glycosylation interference on RhoA activation: focus on G-CSF. Leuk Res. 2011; 35(2): 265–267.
  14. Azzarà A, Carulli G, Rizzuti-Gullaci A, et al. Lenograstim and filgrastim effects on neutrophil motility in patients undergoing chemotherapy: evaluation by computer-assisted image analysis. Am J Hematol. 2001; 66(4): 306–307.
  15. Sourgens H, Lefrère F. A systematic review of available clinical evidence - filgrastim compared with lenograstim. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 49(8): 510–518.
  16. Fischer JC, Frick M, Wassmuth R, et al. Superior mobilisation of haematopoietic progenitor cells with glycosylated G-CSF in male but not female unrelated stem cell donors. Br J Haematol. 2005; 130(5): 740–746.
  17. Uddin S, Russell P, Farrell M, et al. Use of biosimilar filgrastim compared with lenograstim in autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplant and in sibling allogeneic transplant. Ther Adv Hematol. 2015; 6(2): 53–60.
  18. Kim InH, Park SK, Suh OK, et al. Comparison of lenograstim and filgrastim on haematological effects after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation with high-dose chemotherapy. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003; 19(8): 753–759.
  19. Orciuolo E, Buda G, Marturano E, et al. Lenograstim reduces the incidence of febrile episodes, when compared with filgrastim, in multiple myeloma patients undergoing stem cell mobilization. Leuk Res. 2011; 35(7): 899–903.
  20. Annual Report Amgen. https://www.zonebourse. com/AMGEN-INC-4847/pdf/165403/Amgen,%20Inc._Rapport-annuel. pdf (1999).
  21. Simmons LC, Reilly D, Klimowski L, et al. Expression of full-length immunoglobulins in Escherichia coli: rapid and efficient production of aglycosylated antibodies. J Immunol Methods. 2002; 263(1-2): 133–147.
  22. Sarı N, Dalva K, Ilhan IE. Comparison of filgrastim and lenograstim in pediatric solid tumors. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2013; 30(7): 655–661.
  23. Rubino C, Laplanche A, Patte C, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor after induction chemotherapy in children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90(10): 750–755.
  24. Neymark N. Assessing the economic value of anticancer therapies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1998: 211–247.
  25. Danova M, Chiroli S, Rosti G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients. Tumori. 2009; 95(2): 219–226.
  26. Lyman GH, Lalla A, Barron RL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States. Clin Ther. 2009; 31(5): 1092–1104.
  27. Whyte S, Cooper KL, Stevenson MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia in breast cancer in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2011; 14(4): 465–474.
  28. Fust K, Li X, Maschio M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133(3): 446–453.
  29. FDA approves new treatment for severe neutropenia in certain cancer patients. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm317392.htm. (2012).
  30. Sandoz launches ZarxioTM (filgrastim-sndz), the first biosimilar in the United States. https://www.novartis. com/news/media-releases/sandoz-launches-zarxiotm-filgrastim-sndz-first-biosimilar-united-states (2015).
  31. Assessment report for Tevagrastim. http://www.ema. europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/000827/WC500036667.pdf.
  32. Advisory Committee Briefing Material: Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D Inc., Tbo-filgrastim. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/MedicalImagingDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM350157.pdf.
  33. CHMP Assessment report for Nivestim. http://www. ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001142/WC500093664.pdf. (2016).
  34. CHMP Assessment report for Zarzio. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/000917/WC500046528.pdf.
  35. CHMP Assessment report for Grastofil. http://www. ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002150/WC500154066.pdf.
  36. Battelle Technology Partnership Practice: Biopharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials: Impact on State Economies. http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/biopharmaceutical-industry-sponsored-clinical-trials-impact-on-state-economies.pdf (2015).
  37. Phase 3 Clinical Trial Costs Exceed $26,000 per Patient. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/phase-3- -clinical-trial-costs-exceed-26000-per-patient-56447427.html. (2006).
  38. FDA summary review (application number 125553Orig1s000) for Zarxio. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/125553Orig1s000SumR.pdf..
  39. FDA Clinical review. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/ucm094446.pdf. (03.26.98).
  40. Assessment report for Lonquex. http://www.ema. europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/002556/WC500148382.pdf.
  41. Hoggatt J, Tate TA, Pelus LM. Role of lipegfilgrastim in the management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015; 10: 2647–2652.
  42. Apotex pegfilgrastim biosimilar under FDA review. http://www.gabionline.net/Biosimilars/News/Apotex-pegfilgrastim-biosimilar-under-FDA-review..
  43. Medicines use and spending shifts: A Review of the Use of Medicines in the U.S. in 2014. IMS Health 2015. http://www. redaccionmedica.com/contenido/images/IIHI_Use_of_Medicines_Report_2015.pdf..
  44. Smoyer KE, Jones CA, Lane P. Uptake of filgrastim ‘Biosimilars’ in the United States: Analysis of a Medical Transcription Database of Patient Office Visits. http://www.ispor.org/research_pdfs/51/pdffiles/PCN345.pdf (2015).
  45. Assessing biosimilar uptake and competition in European markets. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. https://www.imshealth.com/files/web/IMSH%20Institute/Healthcare%20Briefs/Assessing_biosimilar_uptake_and_competition_in_European_markets.pdf. (2014).

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl