OSU College of Pharmacy Videos Promote ASBM Biosimilars CE Course

June 1, 2022

On May 31st, the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy released a series of promotional videos for its 7-hour continuing education (CE) program on biosimilars. The videos consist of an overview of the educational program featuring all the presenters, as well as a biographical sketch of each presenter.

The program was developed in partnership with ASBM and covers a broad variety of biosimilar topics. ASBM The program is fully ACPE-accredited and available to pharmacists nationwide.The course consists of seven modules, of which the first three are currently available. Additional modules will be added in the coming weeks.

  • Introduction to Biologics and Biosimilars (Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP, FFIP)
  • Biosimilar Substitution and Interchangeability (Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP, FFIP)
  • Biosimilar Pharmacovigilance (Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP, FFIP)
  • The Biosimilar Market (Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP, FFIP)
  • Physician Perspectives on Biosimilars (Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF)
  • Patient Advocate Perspectives on Biosimilars (Andrew Spiegel, JD)
  • Biosimilars: Payer and PBM Practices (Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR

The course is presented by the University’s Office of Continuing Professional Development and may be accessed here (registration required).

View the course outline here.

Watch the course overview video:

 

Watch the biographical video for Professor Schneider:

Watch the biographical video for Dr. McKibbin:

Watch the biographical video for Dr. Feldman:

Watch the biographical video for Mr. Spiegel:

 

 

acpelogo

 

The College of Pharmacy at The Ohio State University is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. This program is approved for 3.0 contact hours (0.3 CEU) under the ACPE universal program numbers 0633-0000-22-019-H01-P, 0633-0000-22-020-H01-P and 0633-0000-22-021-H01-P. Participants must view the program content and complete the post presentation quiz and evaluation to receive CE credit for the program. Questions about pharmacists’ participation in the program and continuing education credit should be addressed to: Ashley Knackstedt at: cop-cpd@osu.edu; (614)-688-4420.


ASBM & GaBI Webinar “Key Factors for Successful Uptake of Biosimilars in Europe and US”

June 1, 2022

asbm-2022-webinar-1-banner-v22f03au


On June 29th, ASBM and the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) hosted a webinar entitled “Key Factors for Successful Uptake of Biosimilars: Europe and the US: measures taken for improving biosimilar uptake and the potential role of healthcare providers and patients”. The event featured a keynote presentation by former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Eric David Hargan.

Other speakers at the two-hour event included:

  • Michael S Reilly, Esq, Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines
  • Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF, Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology/Digestive Disease National Coalition
  • Professor Philip J Schneider, MS, FASHP, FASPEN, FFIP, Ohio State University College of Pharmacy
  • Chad Pettit, MBA, Global Biosimilars Commercial Lead, Amgen
  • Andrew Spiegel, Esq, Global Colon Cancer Association

The event concluded with a panel discussion and Q&A session between participants, hosted by federal health policy expert Steven Stranne, MD, JD.

You can watch the replay of the webinar here, and the speaker presentations are available here.

View the Webinar Agenda here. 

 

The discussion will continue at the next webinar on “Non-medical switching of biologicals/biosimilars: Canada, Europe, the US” on July 20, 2022.


ASBM & GaBI Webinar “Key Factors for Successful Uptake of Biosimilars in Europe and US”

June 1, 2022

asbm-2022-webinar-1-banner-v22f03au


On June 29th, ASBM and the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI) hosted a webinar entitled “Key Factors for Successful Uptake of Biosimilars: Europe and the US: measures taken for improving biosimilar uptake and the potential role of healthcare providers and patients”. The event featured a keynote presentation by former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Eric David Hargan.

Other speakers at the two-hour event included:

  • Michael S Reilly, Esq, Executive Director, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines
  • Ralph McKibbin, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF, Pennsylvania Society of Gastroenterology/Digestive Disease National Coalition
  • Professor Philip J Schneider, MS, FASHP, FASPEN, FFIP, Ohio State University College of Pharmacy
  • Chad Pettit, MBA, Global Biosimilars Commercial Lead, Amgen
  • Andrew Spiegel, Esq, Global Colon Cancer Association

The event concluded with a panel discussion and Q&A session between participants, hosted by federal health policy expert Steven Stranne, MD, JD.

You can watch the replay of the webinar here, and the speaker presentations are available here.

View the Webinar Agenda here. 

 

The discussion will continue at the next webinar on “Non-medical switching of biologicals/biosimilars: Canada, Europe, the US” on July 20, 2022.


FDA/University of Maryland Biosimilars Workshop Online

May 24, 2022

On April 13th, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and The University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science (M-CERSI) held an educational webinar entitled “Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions-Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology”.

In the workshop, leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology shared their experience with biosimilars, their perspectives on how to improve the efficiency of biosimilar evaluations, and how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology.

The slides and videos for the workshop are now available for viewing online here. 


April 2022 Newsletter

May 5, 2022

ASBM Submits Comments on Health Canada’s Biosimilar Handbook for HCPs

 

On April 29th, ASBM submitted comments to Health Canada as part of a stakeholder consultation on its draft Handbook for healthcare professionals on biosimilar biologic drugs. ASBM’s comments focused on the Handbook’s mixed messaging surrounding biosimilar equivalence and switching, including language which implies inaccurately that Canada’s policies are consistent with those of regulators in US and Europe. From the comments:

 

In fact, many of the automatic- and forced-substitution policies increasingly being implemented in Canada stand in stark contrast to the substitution practices in Europe and the United States.

 

In nearly every European county, for example, automatic substitution of biologic medicines at the pharmacy level is banned. Forced substitution is also extremely rare, and in nearly every country, physicians are free to choose between multiple reimbursed products. …An ASBM survey of 403 Canadian physicians, all of whom prescribe biologics, revealed that 64% are not comfortable with a third-party switching a patient to a biosimilar for non-medical (i.e. cost) reasons.

 

In the United States, automatic substitution is permitted only for biosimilars which have provided additional data to FDA demonstrating no loss of efficacy or additional risks following repeated switching between the biosimilar and reference product…82% of the 403 Canadian physicians surveyed believe such studies should be conducted that measure the effects of switching on patient safety and product efficacy, prior to automatic substitution being permitted.

 

We suggest softening or clarifying language in the Handbook that implies interchangeability of reference products, emphasizing the importance of prescriber responsibility for determining the choice of a biologic for their particular patient, and acknowledging more accurately the regulations in other countries, particularly the EU and USA.

 

ASBM’ s comments also touch on pharmacovigilance concerns related to Canada’s lack of distinct non-proprietary names for biologic medicines:

 

The handbook text correctly and appropriately emphasizes the importance of pharmacovigilance programs and clear product identification when dealing with multiple similar biologic products all sharing a non-proprietary name…[yet] the Canadian physician survey revealed that brand name is not consistently used in reporting and the DIN number is not widely used by clinicians:

  • Prescribers record only the non-proprietary name 20% of the time when prescribing, which lead to incomplete patient records and the potential for inadvertent or inappropriate substitution.
  • In adverse event reporting, 26% of physicians record only the non-proprietary name.

We suggest Health Canada make reference to the importance of distinguishable non-proprietary names and the current problems of relying solely on brand names and the DIN for documentation in medical records and adverse drug event reports.

 

Read ASBM’s comment letter here in full. 

 

Canadian PMPRB Responds to Patient Concerns

 

On April 14, 2022, the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Canadian Minister of Health, issued a statement announcing the Government’s intention related to the coming-into-force of the Amendments to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) Regulations. The Minister’s statement advised that Health Canada will proceed with changing the new basket of comparator countries and will not proceed with any of the other amendments. This is what patient groups have been advocating for since 2018, as the Gastrointestinal Society reports.

 

In February 2020, ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society jointly submitted formal comments on the PMPRB draft guidelines during the board’s stakeholder consultation on the guidelines. From the comments:

 

We are keenly aware of the importance to the patients we represent of increasing access to new and innovative life-improving and life-extending therapies by ensuring affordability of these medicines.
However, pricing policies alone do not guarantee access; other factors contribute as well. Ensuring that new medicines available to patients in other advanced countries are launched in Canada as well is among these key factors.
It is our view that while well-intentioned, the new Draft Guidelines have a strong potential to upset this critical balance, by disincentivizing manufacturer investment in product launches and dissuading applications for subsequent indications in Canada, thereby jeopardizing, rather than promoting, patient access to such therapies.
Read ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society’s joint comments here. 

 

 

ASBM to Present U.S. Physician Survey Data at DIA Global Annual Meeting

 

On June 20th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD will present a poster entitled “Physician Perspectives on Biosimilar Substitution and Reimbursement Practices” at the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. The poster is based on the findings of ASBM’s September 2021 survey of 401 U.S. physicians. While topline findings have been shared privately in meetings with regulators, the full survey data has not yet been released.

 

Survey respondents were drawn from twelve specialties in which biologics are routinely prescribed (e.g. dermatology, gastroenterology, nephrology, neurology, oncology, rheumatology, etc.) All respondents prescribe biologics in their practice. Topics examined include:

  • Confidence in the safety and efficacy of biosimilars
  • Willingness to prescribe biosimilars to a new patient
  • Comfort level with physician-instituted non-medical switching
  • Comfort level with third-party-initiated non-medical switching
  • Implications of an FDA designation of “interchangeable”
  • Importance of treatment decision authority
  • Importance of payer reimbursement of multiple products in a class
  • Importance of reimbursement coverage decisions including factors other than price
  • Perspectives on different biosimilar substitution and access scenarios
  • Implications of FDA biologic naming conventions

Dr. McKibbin will present the survey findings on June 20th between 12:00-1:15pm at the professional poster exhibit area at the McCormick Center West Convention Hall. The meeting runs from June 19th through the 23rd.

 

Register for the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting here. 

 

 

ASBM Presents at WHO’s 74th INN Consultation

 

On April 5th, ASBM participated in the World Health Organization’s 74th Consultation on International Non-proprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances, held in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the eighteenth INN Consultation in which ASBM has participated. ASBM was represented by Executive Director Michael Reilly, Esq., and Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP.

 

The proceedings at the Consultation are bound by confidentiality pending the WHO’s publication of the Executive Summary. ASBM will share the Executive Summary when it is published in the coming months.

 

 

 

FDA/University of Maryland Biosimilars Workshop Online

 

On April 13th, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and The University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science (M-CERSI) held an educational webinar entitled “Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions-Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology”.

 

In the workshop, leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology shared their experience with biosimilars, their perspectives on how to improve the efficiency of biosimilar evaluations, and how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology.

 

The slides and videos for the workshop are now available for viewing online here. 

 

ASBM Letter Opposes MN Bill That Could Raise Costs for Patients

 

On April 7th, ASBM sent a letter to Minnesota lawmakers opposing a bill which could potentially increase costs for patients who receive biologic medicines. The bill, HF 1516, was introduced last session but not ultimately adopted. ASBM led a coalition of patient organizations that raised concerns with the bill last spring. From the letter:

 

It is our view that HF 1516/SF 990, while intended to promote competition and lower prices, may result in unintended negative consequences- such as actually increasing, rather than lowering, drug costs for Minnesota patients…

 

In effect, this bill requires a pharmacy benefit manager or health carrier that covers ANY biologic product in a given class, to reimburse ALL products in that class, regardless of its actual cost to the payer. The availability of biosimilars currently places downward pressure on net prices by forcing reference product manufacturers to discount their products heavily in order to compete. By requiring health plans to cover all approved products in a class (regardless of net cost), it effectively creates an incentive for all manufacturers to raise their prices.

 

While we strongly support legislation that is written with the goal of realizing cost savings through competition between multiple biologic products, we believe that HF 1516/SF 990 undermines this objective by removing current incentives to compete on price and will ultimately reduce rather than promote affordability of biologics.

 

Read ASBM’s full letter on HF 1516 here. 

 

 

 

UPCOMING ASBM EVENTS

 

ASBM/GCCA Biosimilars Training Program (ON-DEMAND)

LearnBiosimilars.org – May 12, 2022 – May 12, 2023

 

BIO International Convention

San Diego, CA – June 13-16, 2022

 

DIA Global Annual Meeting 2022

Chicago, Illinois – June 19-23, 2022


ASBM to Present U.S. Physician Survey Data at DIA Global Annual Meeting

May 5, 2022

On June 20th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD will present a poster entitled “Physician Perspectives on Biosimilar Substitution and Reimbursement Practices” at the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. The poster is based on the findings of ASBM’s September 2021 survey of 401 U.S. physicians. While topline findings have been shared privately in meetings with regulators, the full survey data has not yet been released.

Survey respondents were drawn from twelve specialties in which biologics are routinely prescribed (e.g. dermatology, gastroenterology, nephrology, neurology, oncology, rheumatology, etc.) All respondents prescribe biologics in their practice. Topics examined include:

  • Confidence in the safety and efficacy of biosimilars
  • Willingness to prescribe biosimilars to a new patient
  • Comfort level with physician-instituted non-medical switching
  • Comfort level with third-party-initiated non-medical switching
  • Implications of an FDA designation of “interchangeable”
  • Importance of treatment decision authority
  • Importance of payer reimbursement of multiple products in a class
  • Importance of reimbursement coverage decisions including factors other than price
  • Perspectives on different biosimilar substitution and access scenarios
  • Implications of FDA biologic naming conventions

Dr. McKibbin will present the survey findings on June 20th between 12:00-1:15pm at the professional poster exhibit area at the McCormick Center West Convention Hall. The meeting runs from June 19th through the 23rd.

Register for the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting here. 


ASBM to Present U.S. Physician Survey Data at DIA Global Annual Meeting

May 5, 2022

On June 20th, ASBM Chairman Ralph McKibbin, MD will present a poster entitled “Physician Perspectives on Biosimilar Substitution and Reimbursement Practices” at the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL. The poster is based on the findings of ASBM’s September 2021 survey of 401 U.S. physicians. While topline findings have been shared privately in meetings with regulators, the full survey data has not yet been released.

Survey respondents were drawn from twelve specialties in which biologics are routinely prescribed (e.g. dermatology, gastroenterology, nephrology, neurology, oncology, rheumatology, etc.) All respondents prescribe biologics in their practice. Topics examined include:

  • Confidence in the safety and efficacy of biosimilars
  • Willingness to prescribe biosimilars to a new patient
  • Comfort level with physician-instituted non-medical switching
  • Comfort level with third-party-initiated non-medical switching
  • Implications of an FDA designation of “interchangeable”
  • Importance of treatment decision authority
  • Importance of payer reimbursement of multiple products in a class
  • Importance of reimbursement coverage decisions including factors other than price
  • Perspectives on different biosimilar substitution and access scenarios
  • Implications of FDA biologic naming conventions

Dr. McKibbin will present the survey findings on June 20th between 12:00-1:15pm at the professional poster exhibit area at the McCormick Center West Convention Hall. The meeting runs from June 19th through the 23rd.

Register for the 2022 DIA Global Annual Meeting here. 


ASBM Submits Comments on Health Canada’s Biosimilar Handbook for HCPs

April 29, 2022

On April 29th, ASBM submitted comments to Health Canada as part of a stakeholder consultation on its draft Handbook for healthcare professionals on biosimilar biologic drugs. One key area of focus for ASBM’s comments was mixed messaging surrounding biosimilar equivalence and switching, including language which implies, inaccurately, that Canada’s policies were consistent with those of regulators in the U.S. and Europe. From the comments:

In fact, many of the automatic- and forced-substitution policies increasingly being implemented in Canada stand in stark contrast to the substitution practices in Europe and the United States.

In nearly every European county, for example, automatic substitution of biologic medicines at the pharmacy level is banned. Forced substitution is also extremely rare, and in nearly every country, physicians are free to choose between multiple reimbursed products. …A 2017 survey of 403 Canadian physicians, all of whom prescribe biologics, revealed that 64% are not comfortable with a third-party switching a patient to a biosimilar for non-medical (i.e. cost) reasons.

In the United States, automatic substitution is permitted only for biosimilars which have provided additional data to FDA demonstrating no loss of efficacy or additional risks following repeated switching between the biosimilar and reference product…82% of the 403 Canadian physicians surveyed believe such studies should be conducted that measure the effects of switching on patient safety and product efficacy, prior to automatic substitution being permitted.

We suggest softening or clarifying language in the Handbook that implies interchangeability of reference products, emphasizing the importance of prescriber responsibility for determining the choice of a biologic for their particular patient, and acknowledging more accurately the regulations in other countries, particularly the EU and USA.

ASBM’ s comments also touch on pharmacovigilance concerns related to Canada’s lack of distinct non-proprietary names for biologic medicines:

The handbook text correctly and appropriately emphasizes the importance of pharmacovigilance programs and clear product identification when dealing with multiple similar biologic products all sharing a non-proprietary name…[yet] the 2017 Canadian physician survey revealed that brand name is not consistently used in reporting and the DIN number is not widely used by clinicians:

  • Prescribers record only the non-proprietary name 20% of the time when prescribing, which lead to incomplete patient records and the potential for inadvertent or inappropriate substitution.
  • In adverse event reporting, 26% of physicians record only the non-proprietary name.

We suggest Health Canada make reference to the importance of distinguishable non-proprietary names and the current problems of relying solely on brand names and the DIN for documentation in medical records and adverse drug event reports.

Read ASBM’s comment letter here in full. 


ASBM Submits Comments on Health Canada’s Biosimilar Handbook for HCPs

April 29, 2022

On April 29th, ASBM submitted comments to Health Canada as part of a stakeholder consultation on its draft Handbook for healthcare professionals on biosimilar biologic drugs. One key area of focus for ASBM’s comments was mixed messaging surrounding biosimilar equivalence and switching, including language which implies, inaccurately, that Canada’s policies were consistent with those of regulators in the U.S. and Europe. From the comments:

In fact, many of the automatic- and forced-substitution policies increasingly being implemented in Canada stand in stark contrast to the substitution practices in Europe and the United States.

In nearly every European county, for example, automatic substitution of biologic medicines at the pharmacy level is banned. Forced substitution is also extremely rare, and in nearly every country, physicians are free to choose between multiple reimbursed products. …A 2017 survey of 403 Canadian physicians, all of whom prescribe biologics, revealed that 64% are not comfortable with a third-party switching a patient to a biosimilar for non-medical (i.e. cost) reasons.

In the United States, automatic substitution is permitted only for biosimilars which have provided additional data to FDA demonstrating no loss of efficacy or additional risks following repeated switching between the biosimilar and reference product…82% of the 403 Canadian physicians surveyed believe such studies should be conducted that measure the effects of switching on patient safety and product efficacy, prior to automatic substitution being permitted.

We suggest softening or clarifying language in the Handbook that implies interchangeability of reference products, emphasizing the importance of prescriber responsibility for determining the choice of a biologic for their particular patient, and acknowledging more accurately the regulations in other countries, particularly the EU and USA.

ASBM’ s comments also touch on pharmacovigilance concerns related to Canada’s lack of distinct non-proprietary names for biologic medicines:

The handbook text correctly and appropriately emphasizes the importance of pharmacovigilance programs and clear product identification when dealing with multiple similar biologic products all sharing a non-proprietary name…[yet] the 2017 Canadian physician survey revealed that brand name is not consistently used in reporting and the DIN number is not widely used by clinicians:

  • Prescribers record only the non-proprietary name 20% of the time when prescribing, which lead to incomplete patient records and the potential for inadvertent or inappropriate substitution.
  • In adverse event reporting, 26% of physicians record only the non-proprietary name.

We suggest Health Canada make reference to the importance of distinguishable non-proprietary names and the current problems of relying solely on brand names and the DIN for documentation in medical records and adverse drug event reports.

Read ASBM’s comment letter here in full. 


Canadian PMPRB Responds to Patient Concerns

April 24, 2022

On April 14, 2022, the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Canadian Minister of Health, issued a statement announcing the Government’s intention related to the coming-into-force of the Amendments to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) Regulations. The Minister’s statement advised that Health Canada will proceed with changing the new basket of comparator countries and will not proceed with any of the other amendments. This is what patient groups have been advocating for since 2018, as the Gastrointestinal Society reports.

In February 2020, ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society jointly submitted formal comments on the PMPRB draft guidelines during the board’s stakeholder consultation on the guidelines. From the comments:
We are keenly aware of the importance to the patients we represent of increasing access to new and innovative life-improving and life-extending therapies by ensuring affordability of these medicines.
However, pricing policies alone do not guarantee access; other factors contribute as well. Ensuring that new medicines available to patients in other advanced countries are launched in Canada as well is among these key factors.
It is our view that while well-intentioned, the new Draft Guidelines have a strong potential to upset this critical balance, by disincentivizing manufacturer investment in product launches and dissuading applications for subsequent indications in Canada, thereby jeopardizing, rather than promoting, patient access to such therapies.
 
Read ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society’s joint comments here. 

 


logo logo logo