ASBM Whitepaper: US Biosimilar Market on Pace With Europe

November 9, 2020

This month, the Journal of the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI Journal) published a whitepaper entitled “US biosimilars marketplace on pace with Europe”. The article is co-authored by ASBM’s Executive Director Michael Reilly and its Chair, Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR.

The paper explores in detail the considerable successes of the U.S. biosimilar pathway in its first 10 years, including the approval of 28 biosimilars and launch of 18 of these in just over five years’ time. In addition, the paper examines how competition between multiple biosimilars are increasingly leading to lower prices and greater biosimilar market share. From the paper:

In the US, biosimilars have gained significant share in the majority of therapeutic areas in which they have been introduced, ranging on average from 20% to 25% within the first year of launch, with some projected to reach greater than 50% within the first 2 years. As expected, first-to-market biosimilars tend to capture a greater portion of the segment compared to later entrants. Filgrastim biosimilars have been on the market the longest at 5 years and have achieved a 72% share, while bevacizumab and trastuzumab biosimilars have approximately 40% share. Rituximab and infliximab have had the most limited adoption, with approximately 20% market share.

The paper will also be published in Issue 4 of its 2020 print edition. 


Read the article now at Gabi’s website here.  

 


October 2020

November 5, 2020

ASBM Launches New Microsite on Forced Switching in Canada
On October 28th, ASBM launched a new microsite focused on the issue of forced biosimilar substitution in Canada- the forcing of patients off their physician-prescribed biologics and onto preferred government-chosen products.

 

www.NoForcedSwitching.ca

 

This controversial practice is rare among the advanced countries of the world, and has raised concerns among patient and physician organizations worldwide. In nearly every European country, for example, patients and physicians are free to choose the most suitable product, and while new patients are encouraged to try the lowest cost medicine first, the treatment decision ultimately rests with the physician and patient. All products are reimbursed, and automatic or forced substitution is not practiced.

 

The microsite contains a variety of materials, including:

  • National and province-specific news stories about how provinces have implemented, or are considering such policies.
  • Statements from physician societies and patient advocacy organizations raising concerns with the practice
  • Fact sheets contrasting the forced-substitution policies of British Columbia and Alberta with the pro-competition policies of European countries
  • Surveys showing strong physician opposition to third-party non-medical substitutions from physicians in Europe and Canada
  • A whitepaper showing how European countries achieve biosimilar savings by preserving- not limiting- physician and patient choice
  • Shareable social media graphics
  • The ability for Canadians to quickly send a message to your Health Minister expressing your opposition to forced substitution in their province

 

We encourage you to take a moment to visit: www.noforcedswitching.ca

 

 

Reminder: Comment Period Open for MHRA Guidance on the Licensing of Biosimilar Products (UK) Closes November 15th

 

The United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has opened a six-week consultation period on new guidanceintended to help developers of biosimilars more clearly understand the requirements for biosimilar products in the UK.

 

The new guidance is based on current EMA biosimilar guidance, with additional details about:
  • UK reference products
  • the lack of requirement for in vivo studies in animals
  • the changes in the requirement for a comparative efficacy trial in most cases
The consultation aims to get feedback from relevant stakeholders regarding the clarity and wording of the guidance, including any perceived contradictions or omissions.
Comments are being accepted until November 15, 2020. MHRA are hoping to finalise the guidance by the end of the year.
Read the new guidance here.
Submit your comments on the guidance here
 

Public Webinar on Final PMPRB Guidelines November 20th

 

Canada’s PMPRB will be hosting a public webinar to discuss its’ recently-recently-finalized drug pricing Guidelines and address questions. Originally scheduled to take place on November 10th, the webinar has been re-scheduled to November 20th, from 1:30PM to 2:30PM (EST).

 

ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society jointly submitted formal comments on the PMPRB draft guidelines during the stakeholder consultation. 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.

 

Originally scheduled to take effect on July 1, earlier this summer the implementation of the changes was delayed until 2021.

 

The link for the webinar can be accessed from the PMPRB’s  Guidelines Home Page. No registration is required to join the webinar.

 

 

 

ASBM Whitepaper on US Biosimilar Market to be Published in Winter 2020 GaBI Journal

Next month, the Journal of the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI Journal) will publish Issue 4 of its 2020 print edition. The issue will contain a whitepaper entitled “US biosimilars marketplace on pace with Europe”. The article is co-authored by ASBM’s Executive Director Michael Reilly and its Chair, Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR.

The paper will explores in detail the considerable successes of the U.S. biosimilar pathway in its first 10 years, including the approval of 28 biosimilars and launch of 18 of these in just over five years’ time. In addition, the paper will examine how competition between multiple biosimilars are increasingly leading to lower prices and greater biosimilar market share. From the paper:

 

In the US, biosimilars have gained significant share in the majority of therapeutic areas in which they have been introduced, ranging on average from 20% to 25% within the first year of launch, with some projected to reach greater than 50% within the first 2 years. As expected, first-to-market biosimilars tend to capture a greater portion of the segment compared to later entrants. Filgrastim biosimilars have been on the market the longest at 5 years and have achieved a 72% share, while bevacizumab and trastuzumab biosimilars have approximately 40% share. Rituximab and infliximab have had the most limited adoption, with approximately 20% market share.

 

The paper may be viewed online at Gabi’s website here.  

 

 

 

Reminder: National Policy & Advocacy Virtual Summit on Biologics November 18

 

On November 18, the Biologic Prescribers Collaborative, along with the Institute for Patient Access and the Alliance for Patient Access will co-host its fifth annual National Policy & Virtual Summit on Biologics.

 

The event will run 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, November 18.

 

Click here to register for the event.

 

 

 

ASBM Presents at WHO’s 71st INN Consultation 

 

On October 20th, ASBM presented to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) 71st Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances, held in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the fifteenth INN Consultation at which ASBM has presented.

ASBM was represented by Executive Director Michael Reilly, Esq., and Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP. Due to coronavirus-related travel restrictions in place at the time of the consultation, the presentation was made online.

 

Since 2013, ASBM has worked extensively on the issue of international harmonization of biologic nomenclature, most recently by hosting a series of meetings with FDA, Health Canada, and the WHO. Dr. Schneider also gave a presentation on the value of distinct biologic naming and the status of harmonization efforts at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in June.  In 2014, the WHO proposed that all biologics sharing an INN be assigned a unique four-letter suffix called a “biological qualifier” or BQ. While initially supported by many national regulatory authorities including the FDA, Health Canada, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the BQ proposal has not yet been implemented. In 2015 the FDA adopted its own BQ-like suffix system, and until recently was in conversations with Canada about harmonizing nomenclature systems regionally.
While the discussions in the Open Session at which ASBM presented are bound by confidentiality agreements pending the publication of an Executive Summary by the INN Programme,  the Executive Summary from the 70th INN Consultation – held on April 21, 2020 and in which ASBM also participated – may be viewed here. From the Executive Summary:

The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the leadership that WHO has in global health, and ASBM believes that this leadership is critical also for the naming of biosimilars, as it has repeatedly stated, especially as the number of biosimilars is increasing each year. It is also important to recognise that the biological qualifier (BQ) is still valid and that broad support for the BQ remains. The US FDA is supportive of unique identifiers for biologics and has instigated its own random 4-letter suffix. Health Canada (HC) has been a past supporter and is willing to harmonise, similarly the Australian TGA. The ASBM noted that many other countries including Denmark, Japan and Jordan also support the BQ, while physicians are also supportive. However, despite this support, countries have developed their own system but would have used a WHO system if WHO had moved ahead with the BQ.

 

ASBM surveys have consistently shown strong support for distinct naming among physicians worldwide. 66% percent of U.S. physicians surveyed support distinct naming for all biologics, including biosimilars, as do 68% of Canadian and 79% of Australian physicians. Among physicians in Latin America, 94% believe the WHO’s BQ proposal would be helpful in ensuring their patients receive the correct medicine.

 

Read more about ASBM’s work with the WHO’s INN Group here

 

 

 

UPCOMING EVENTS

 

DIA Latin America Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management Strategies Workshop
Virtual – Nov 11-12, 2020

 

National Policy & Advocacy Virtual Summit on Biologics

Virtual – November 18, 2020

 

Saudi Gastroenterology Association Conference

Virtual – November 22, 29, 2020

 

 


October 2020

November 5, 2020

ASBM Launches New Microsite on Forced Switching in Canada
On October 28th, ASBM launched a new microsite focused on the issue of forced biosimilar substitution in Canada- the forcing of patients off their physician-prescribed biologics and onto preferred government-chosen products.

 

www.NoForcedSwitching.ca

 

This controversial practice is rare among the advanced countries of the world, and has raised concerns among patient and physician organizations worldwide. In nearly every European country, for example, patients and physicians are free to choose the most suitable product, and while new patients are encouraged to try the lowest cost medicine first, the treatment decision ultimately rests with the physician and patient. All products are reimbursed, and automatic or forced substitution is not practiced.

 

The microsite contains a variety of materials, including:

  • National and province-specific news stories about how provinces have implemented, or are considering such policies.
  • Statements from physician societies and patient advocacy organizations raising concerns with the practice
  • Fact sheets contrasting the forced-substitution policies of British Columbia and Alberta with the pro-competition policies of European countries
  • Surveys showing strong physician opposition to third-party non-medical substitutions from physicians in Europe and Canada
  • A whitepaper showing how European countries achieve biosimilar savings by preserving- not limiting- physician and patient choice
  • Shareable social media graphics
  • The ability for Canadians to quickly send a message to your Health Minister expressing your opposition to forced substitution in their province

 

We encourage you to take a moment to visit: www.noforcedswitching.ca

 

 

Reminder: Comment Period Open for MHRA Guidance on the Licensing of Biosimilar Products (UK) Closes November 15th

 

The United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has opened a six-week consultation period on new guidanceintended to help developers of biosimilars more clearly understand the requirements for biosimilar products in the UK.

 

The new guidance is based on current EMA biosimilar guidance, with additional details about:
  • UK reference products
  • the lack of requirement for in vivo studies in animals
  • the changes in the requirement for a comparative efficacy trial in most cases
The consultation aims to get feedback from relevant stakeholders regarding the clarity and wording of the guidance, including any perceived contradictions or omissions.
Comments are being accepted until November 15, 2020. MHRA are hoping to finalise the guidance by the end of the year.
Read the new guidance here.
Submit your comments on the guidance here
 

Public Webinar on Final PMPRB Guidelines November 20th

 

Canada’s PMPRB will be hosting a public webinar to discuss its’ recently-recently-finalized drug pricing Guidelines and address questions. Originally scheduled to take place on November 10th, the webinar has been re-scheduled to November 20th, from 1:30PM to 2:30PM (EST).

 

ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society jointly submitted formal comments on the PMPRB draft guidelines during the stakeholder consultation. 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.

 

Originally scheduled to take effect on July 1, earlier this summer the implementation of the changes was delayed until 2021.

 

The link for the webinar can be accessed from the PMPRB’s  Guidelines Home Page. No registration is required to join the webinar.

 

 

 

ASBM Whitepaper on US Biosimilar Market to be Published in Winter 2020 GaBI Journal

Next month, the Journal of the Generics and Biosimilars Initiative (GaBI Journal) will publish Issue 4 of its 2020 print edition. The issue will contain a whitepaper entitled “US biosimilars marketplace on pace with Europe”. The article is co-authored by ASBM’s Executive Director Michael Reilly and its Chair, Madelaine Feldman, MD, FACR.

The paper will explores in detail the considerable successes of the U.S. biosimilar pathway in its first 10 years, including the approval of 28 biosimilars and launch of 18 of these in just over five years’ time. In addition, the paper will examine how competition between multiple biosimilars are increasingly leading to lower prices and greater biosimilar market share. From the paper:

 

In the US, biosimilars have gained significant share in the majority of therapeutic areas in which they have been introduced, ranging on average from 20% to 25% within the first year of launch, with some projected to reach greater than 50% within the first 2 years. As expected, first-to-market biosimilars tend to capture a greater portion of the segment compared to later entrants. Filgrastim biosimilars have been on the market the longest at 5 years and have achieved a 72% share, while bevacizumab and trastuzumab biosimilars have approximately 40% share. Rituximab and infliximab have had the most limited adoption, with approximately 20% market share.

 

The paper may be viewed online at Gabi’s website here.  

 

 

 

Reminder: National Policy & Advocacy Virtual Summit on Biologics November 18

 

On November 18, the Biologic Prescribers Collaborative, along with the Institute for Patient Access and the Alliance for Patient Access will co-host its fifth annual National Policy & Virtual Summit on Biologics.

 

The event will run 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, November 18.

 

Click here to register for the event.

 

 

 

ASBM Presents at WHO’s 71st INN Consultation 

 

On October 20th, ASBM presented to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) 71st Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances, held in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the fifteenth INN Consultation at which ASBM has presented.

ASBM was represented by Executive Director Michael Reilly, Esq., and Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP. Due to coronavirus-related travel restrictions in place at the time of the consultation, the presentation was made online.

 

Since 2013, ASBM has worked extensively on the issue of international harmonization of biologic nomenclature, most recently by hosting a series of meetings with FDA, Health Canada, and the WHO. Dr. Schneider also gave a presentation on the value of distinct biologic naming and the status of harmonization efforts at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in June.  In 2014, the WHO proposed that all biologics sharing an INN be assigned a unique four-letter suffix called a “biological qualifier” or BQ. While initially supported by many national regulatory authorities including the FDA, Health Canada, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the BQ proposal has not yet been implemented. In 2015 the FDA adopted its own BQ-like suffix system, and until recently was in conversations with Canada about harmonizing nomenclature systems regionally.
While the discussions in the Open Session at which ASBM presented are bound by confidentiality agreements pending the publication of an Executive Summary by the INN Programme,  the Executive Summary from the 70th INN Consultation – held on April 21, 2020 and in which ASBM also participated – may be viewed here. From the Executive Summary:

The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the leadership that WHO has in global health, and ASBM believes that this leadership is critical also for the naming of biosimilars, as it has repeatedly stated, especially as the number of biosimilars is increasing each year. It is also important to recognise that the biological qualifier (BQ) is still valid and that broad support for the BQ remains. The US FDA is supportive of unique identifiers for biologics and has instigated its own random 4-letter suffix. Health Canada (HC) has been a past supporter and is willing to harmonise, similarly the Australian TGA. The ASBM noted that many other countries including Denmark, Japan and Jordan also support the BQ, while physicians are also supportive. However, despite this support, countries have developed their own system but would have used a WHO system if WHO had moved ahead with the BQ.

 

ASBM surveys have consistently shown strong support for distinct naming among physicians worldwide. 66% percent of U.S. physicians surveyed support distinct naming for all biologics, including biosimilars, as do 68% of Canadian and 79% of Australian physicians. Among physicians in Latin America, 94% believe the WHO’s BQ proposal would be helpful in ensuring their patients receive the correct medicine.

 

Read more about ASBM’s work with the WHO’s INN Group here

 

 

 

UPCOMING EVENTS

 

DIA Latin America Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management Strategies Workshop
Virtual – Nov 11-12, 2020

 

National Policy & Advocacy Virtual Summit on Biologics

Virtual – November 18, 2020

 

Saudi Gastroenterology Association Conference

Virtual – November 22, 29, 2020

 

 


ASBM Presents at WHO’s 71st INN Consultation 

October 30, 2020

On October 20th, ASBM presented to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) 71st Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances, held in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the fifteenth INN Consultation at which ASBM has presented.

ASBM was represented by Executive Director Michael Reilly, Esq., and Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP. Due to coronavirus-related travel restrictions in place at the time of the consultation, the presentation was made online.

Since 2013, ASBM has worked extensively on the issue of international harmonization of biologic nomenclature, most recently by hosting a series of meetings with FDA, Health Canada, and the WHO. Dr. Schneider also gave a presentation on the value of distinct biologic naming and the status of harmonization efforts at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in June.  In 2014, the WHO proposed that all biologics sharing an INN be assigned a unique four-letter suffix called a “biological qualifier” or BQ. While initially supported by many national regulatory authorities including the FDA, Health Canada, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the BQ proposal has not yet been implemented. In 2015 the FDA adopted its own BQ-like suffix system, and until recently was in conversations with Canada about harmonizing nomenclature systems regionally.
While the discussions in the Open Session at which ASBM presented are bound by confidentiality agreements pending the publication of an Executive Summary by the INN Programme,  the Executive Summary from the 70th INN Consultation – held on April 21, 2020 and in which ASBM also participated – may be viewed here. From the Executive Summary:

The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the leadership that WHO has in global health, and ASBM believes that this leadership is critical also for the naming of biosimilars, as it has repeatedly stated, especially as the number of biosimilars is increasing each year. It is also important to recognise that the biological qualifier (BQ) is still valid and that broad support for the BQ remains. The US FDA is supportive of unique identifiers for biologics and has instigated its own random 4-letter suffix. Health Canada (HC) has been a past supporter and is willing to harmonise, similarly the Australian TGA. The ASBM noted that many other countries including Denmark, Japan and Jordan also support the BQ, while physicians are also supportive. However, despite this support, countries have developed their own system but would have used a WHO system if WHO had moved ahead with the BQ.

 

ASBM surveys have consistently shown strong support for distinct naming among physicians worldwide. 66% percent of U.S. physicians surveyed support distinct naming for all biologics, including biosimilars, as do 68% of Canadian and 79% of Australian physicians. Among physicians in Latin America, 94% believe the WHO’s BQ proposal would be helpful in ensuring their patients receive the correct medicine.

 

Read more about ASBM’s work with the WHO’s INN Group here

 

 


ASBM Presents at WHO’s 71st INN Consultation 

October 30, 2020

On October 20th, ASBM presented to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) 71st Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances, held in Geneva, Switzerland. This was the fifteenth INN Consultation at which ASBM has presented.

ASBM was represented by Executive Director Michael Reilly, Esq., and Advisory Board Chair Philip Schneider, MS, FASHP. Due to coronavirus-related travel restrictions in place at the time of the consultation, the presentation was made online.

Since 2013, ASBM has worked extensively on the issue of international harmonization of biologic nomenclature, most recently by hosting a series of meetings with FDA, Health Canada, and the WHO. Dr. Schneider also gave a presentation on the value of distinct biologic naming and the status of harmonization efforts at the DIA Global Annual Meeting in June.  In 2014, the WHO proposed that all biologics sharing an INN be assigned a unique four-letter suffix called a “biological qualifier” or BQ. While initially supported by many national regulatory authorities including the FDA, Health Canada, and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the BQ proposal has not yet been implemented. In 2015 the FDA adopted its own BQ-like suffix system, and until recently was in conversations with Canada about harmonizing nomenclature systems regionally.
While the discussions in the Open Session at which ASBM presented are bound by confidentiality agreements pending the publication of an Executive Summary by the INN Programme,  the Executive Summary from the 70th INN Consultation – held on April 21, 2020 and in which ASBM also participated – may be viewed here. From the Executive Summary:

The Covid-19 pandemic highlights the leadership that WHO has in global health, and ASBM believes that this leadership is critical also for the naming of biosimilars, as it has repeatedly stated, especially as the number of biosimilars is increasing each year. It is also important to recognise that the biological qualifier (BQ) is still valid and that broad support for the BQ remains. The US FDA is supportive of unique identifiers for biologics and has instigated its own random 4-letter suffix. Health Canada (HC) has been a past supporter and is willing to harmonise, similarly the Australian TGA. The ASBM noted that many other countries including Denmark, Japan and Jordan also support the BQ, while physicians are also supportive. However, despite this support, countries have developed their own system but would have used a WHO system if WHO had moved ahead with the BQ.

 

ASBM surveys have consistently shown strong support for distinct naming among physicians worldwide. 66% percent of U.S. physicians surveyed support distinct naming for all biologics, including biosimilars, as do 68% of Canadian and 79% of Australian physicians. Among physicians in Latin America, 94% believe the WHO’s BQ proposal would be helpful in ensuring their patients receive the correct medicine.

 

Read more about ASBM’s work with the WHO’s INN Group here

 

 


ASBM Launches New Microsite on Forced Switching in Canada

October 30, 2020

On October 28th, ASBM launched a new microsite focused on the issue of forced biosimilar substitution in Canada- the forcing of patients off their physician-prescribed biologics and onto preferred government-chosen products.

www.NoForcedSwitching.ca

 

This controversial practice is rare among the advanced countries of the world, and has raised concerns among patient and physician organizations worldwide. In nearly every European country, for example, patients and physicians are free to choose the most suitable product, and while new patients are encouraged to try the lowest cost medicine first, the treatment decision ultimately rests with the physician and patient. All products are reimbursed, and automatic or forced substitution is not practiced.

 

The microsite contains a variety of materials, including:

  • National and province-specific news stories about how provinces have implemented, or are considering such policies.
  • Statements from physician societies and patient advocacy organizations raising concerns with the practice
  • Fact sheets contrasting the forced-substitution policies of British Columbia and Alberta with the pro-competition policies of European countries
  • Surveys showing strong physician opposition to third-party non-medical substitutions from physicians in Europe and Canada
  • A whitepaper showing how European countries achieve biosimilar savings by preserving- not limiting- physician and patient choice
  • Shareable social media graphics
  • The ability for Canadians to quickly send a message to your Health Minister expressing your opposition to forced substitution in their province

 

We encourage you to take a moment to visit: www.noforcedswitching.ca

 


Fiche d’information : Que peut apprendre le Canada de l’expérience biosimilaire en Europe?

September 15, 2020

CanSubt-pic-FR

Comptant plus de 60 produits approuvés, l’Europe constitue le chef de file incontesté des biosimilaires, et le plus important marché de biosimilaires au monde, avec des taux d’adoption pouvant atteindre 91 % pour les produits plus anciens (avant l’approbation du premier anticorps monoclonal biosimilaire en 2013) et jusqu’à 43 % pour les produits plus récents (approuvés après 2013).

Alors que certaines provinces canadiennes, dont la Colombie-Britannique et l’Alberta, tentent de reproduire le succès obtenu en Europe, l’ASBM a créé une fiche d’information visant à servir de ressource.

La fiche d’information met en contraste les principes adoptés par l’Europe — qui incluent la préservation du libre choix du médecin et du patient, la promotion de la concurrence entre plusieurs produits et l’interdiction du remplacement automatique — avec la politique de changement imposé annoncée par le gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique et envisagée par d’autres provinces.

Le ministre de la Santé de Colombie-Britannique, Adrian Dix, a cité les taux élevés d’utilisation des biosimilaires en Europe pour justifier la politique [de changement imposé], mais ne tient pas compte du cheminement et des principes qui ont conduit au succès de l’Europe :

  • Cela n’a pas été accompli par une interdiction de remboursement des produits biologiques d’origine, c’est-à-dire la restriction du choix des médicaments et les changements obligatoires qui en résultent.
  • Au lieu de cela, des réductions de coûts ont été réalisées en préservant le libre choix des médecins et des patients et en favorisant la concurrence entre tous les produits approuvés en tenant compte de nombreux facteurs, y compris le coût, les données cliniques, le mode d’administration et les antécédents du patient.
  • Dans presque tous les pays européens, le remplacement automatique de médicaments biologiques n’est pas autorisé.
  • Non seulement la politique de Colombie-Britannique ne se reflète aucunement parmi les pays d’Europe occidentale, mais elle repose en outre sur des principes que l’Europe a rejetés avec une écrasante majorité.

Les médecins européens bénéficient de 13 ans d’expérience avec les biosimilaires; ils disposent donc d’une profonde connaissance et ont une grande confiance en eux.

  • Pourtant, la majorité d’entre eux (57 %) s’oppose au passage de leurs patients à un biosimilaire pour des raisons non médicales (coût).
  • Ils s’opposent encore plus fermement (73 %) à un remplacement non médical par un tiers des médicaments biologiques de leurs patients, comme cela se produit dans la politique de la Colombie-Britannique et que d’autres provinces envisagent.

L’enquête menée par l’ASBM en 2017 auprès des médecins canadiens a montré une opposition tout aussi forte (64 %) au changement imposé aux patients stables par des tiers pour des raisons non médicales (p. ex. : coût).

Les groupes de médecins canadiens et les organismes de défense des patients ont également soulevé des préoccupations au sujet de la politique de changement obligatoire de la Colombie-Britannique.

Cliquez ici pour lire la fiche d’information.

 


Alberta MP To Provide Feedback to Government on Drug Pricing Guidelines Following Implementation Delay

September 10, 2020

Alberta’s Shadow Health Minister, Matt Jeneroux, has used a recent implementation delay for new drug pricing guidelines from the Patented Medicines Pricing Review Board (PMPRB) to collect additional feedback about the proposed changes and will be presenting a comprehensive report to the government in the fall based on his findings.

Originally scheduled to take effect on July 1, earlier this summer the implementation was delayed until 2021, in order for the PMPRB to make “significant changes” in response to feedback it received during a public consultation period.
ASBM and the Gastrointestinal Society jointly submitted formal comments on the PMPRB draft guidelines during the stakeholder consultation. 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.
“I’m relieved that the voices of patients have been heard and the government has decided to delay the changes,” said Matt Jeneroux, a Member of Alberta’s Parliament representing Edmonton-Riverbend.  “However, we still have a lot of uncertainty and I expect the government to use this additional time to better consult with patients. We could see a drug shortage if these changes go ahead as planned in six months. Canada will no longer be a competitive marketplace and drug companies will be reluctant to bring their therapies here.”
Read ASBM’s and the Gastrointestinal Society’s February comments in their entirety here. 

Study: Biosimilar Infliximab Uptake Slow, But Tracks With Europe

September 10, 2020

The uptake of infliximab biosimilars in the United States is slow but tracks closely to the experience in Europe, according to a new study. After 2 years, infliximab biosimilars assumed a large share of the Europe market. While biosimilar filgrastim has gained large market share in the U.S., uptake of biosimilar infliximab has lagged that of biosimilar filgrastim.

 

As the Center for Biosimilars reported August 5th:

 

The study authors said the reasons for the slower adoption of infliximab biosimilars compared with the previous filgrastim biosimilar are unknown. However, they speculated that ‘patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one.

However, they acknowledged that “a considerable minority of patients did switch between biologic and biosimilar versions in 2018,” and suggested switching could have been the result of cost reductions, such as lower patient co-pays or physician rebates.

 

Read more about the study here.


Study: Biosimilar Infliximab Uptake Slow, But Tracks With Europe

September 10, 2020

The uptake of infliximab biosimilars in the United States is slow but tracks closely to the experience in Europe, according to a new study. After 2 years, infliximab biosimilars assumed a large share of the Europe market. While biosimilar filgrastim has gained large market share in the U.S., uptake of biosimilar infliximab has lagged that of biosimilar filgrastim.

 

As the Center for Biosimilars reported August 5th:

 

The study authors said the reasons for the slower adoption of infliximab biosimilars compared with the previous filgrastim biosimilar are unknown. However, they speculated that ‘patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one.

However, they acknowledged that “a considerable minority of patients did switch between biologic and biosimilar versions in 2018,” and suggested switching could have been the result of cost reductions, such as lower patient co-pays or physician rebates.

 

Read more about the study here.


logo logo logo