Dataset Information

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.

Objectives

To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.

Data sources

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.

Main outcomes and measures

Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.

Results

A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.

Conclusions and relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

SUBMITTER: Luo X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10570888 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Luo Xingxian X Du Xin X Li Zhuangqi Z Liu Jingwen J Lv Xufeng X Li Haoran H Guo Qixiang Q Wang Cen C Xue Xuecai X Le Kaidi K Jiang Xiaomeng X Huang Lin L Yang Yue Y

JAMA network open 20231002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, ...[more]

PMID: 37824143

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.ObjectivesTo compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.ResultsBetween July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedLine Ovid and Scopus databases at the end of 2018.Eligibility criteriaOriginal scientific studies written in English that addressed physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.Data extraction and synthesisThe search resulted in altogether 451 studies and 331 after removing duplicates. Two researchers examined these based on the title, abstract and entire text, resulting in 20 studies. The references in these 20 studies were screened and three further studies were included. The data of these 23 studies were extracted. All the publications were quality assessed by two researchers.ResultsMost of the selected studies were conducted in Europe and commonly used short surveys. Physicians' familiarity with biosimilars varied: 49%-76% were familiar with biosimilars while 2%-25% did not know what biosimilars were, the percentages varying from study to study. Their measured knowledge was generally more limited compared with their self-assessed knowledge. Physicians' perceptions of biosimilars also varied: 54%-94% were confident prescribing biosimilars, while 65%-67% had concerns regarding these medicines. Physicians seemed to prefer originator products to biosimilars and prescribed biosimilars mainly for biologic-naive patients. They considered cost savings and the lower price compared with the originator biologic medicine as the main advantages of biosimilars, while their doubts were often related to safety, efficacy and immunogenicity. 64%-95% of physicians had negative perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines.ConclusionsPhysicians' knowledge of and attitudes towards biosimilars vary. Although physicians had positive attitudes towards biosimilars, prescribing was limited, especially for patients already being treated with biologic medicines. Perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines were often negative. Education and national recommendations for switching and substitution of biologic medicines are needed to support the uptake of biosimilars.

Project description:BackgroundBiologic drugs such as adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab represent major first-line and second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, their high cost poses a massive burden on healthcare systems worldwide. The expiration of patents for these biologics has driven the production of biosimilar drugs, which are potentially less costly and remarkably similar, albeit not identical to the reference molecules. This paper aims to outline the protocol of a systematic review that will investigate the efficacy and safety profile of biosimilars compared to biologics (objective 1) and the impact of switching between biosimilar drugs and reference biologics on the management of RA patients (objective 2).MethodsWe will investigate the effects of any biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab on RA patients. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs to assess efficacy and safety outcomes and RCTs with two- or multiple-part designs to evaluate the consequences of switching from reference biologics to biosimilar drugs (and vice-versa). Electronic searches will be performed through MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL (from inception to April 2021). Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias. The latter will be carried out considering specific domains from equivalence trials and switching studies. Random-effects models will be fitted to obtain summary estimates using either relative risk or standardized mean difference as a metric. The primary outcome will be the rate of treatment success according to the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20), and the co-primary outcome will be the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Conclusions will be based on equivalence hypothesis testing using predefined margins of equivalence elicited from a group of experienced rheumatologists and prior studies. The overall certainty of the evidence will be assessed based on the GRADE system.DiscussionThe present investigation proposes a comprehensive, clinician-oriented approach to assess the equivalence and the impact of switching between biosimilars and biologics on the management of patients with RA. Our results will elucidate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity of biosimilars, and the clinical consequences of substituting biologics with biosimilars in the management of RA.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019137152 and CRD42019137155.

Project description:BackgroundWhile China has implemented reimbursement-linked drug price negotiation annually since 2017, emphasizing value-based pricing to achieve a value-based strategic purchase of medical insurance, whether drug prices became better aligned with clinical value after price negotiation has not been sufficiently established. This study aimed to assess the changes in prices and their relationship with the clinical value of anticancer drugs after the implementation of price negotiations in China.Methods and findingsIn this observational study, anticancer drug indications that were negotiated successfully between 2017 and 2022 were identified through National Reimbursement Drug Lists (NRDL) of China. We excluded extensions of indications for drugs already listed in the NRDL, indications for pediatric use, and indications lacking corresponding clinical trials. We identified pivotal clinical trials for included indications by consulting review reports or drug labels issued by the Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration. We calculated treatment costs as outcome measures based on publicly available prices and collected data on clinical value including safety, survival, quality of life, and overall response rate (ORR) from publications of pivotal clinical trials. The associations between drug costs and clinical value, both before and after negotiation, were analyzed using regression analyses. We also examined whether price negotiation has led to a reduction in the variation of treatment costs for a given value. We included 103 anticancer drug indications, primarily for the treatment of blood cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer, with 76 supported by randomized controlled trials and 27 supported by single-arm clinical trials. The median treatment costs over the entire sample have been reduced from US$34,460.72 (interquartile range (IQR): 19,990.49 to 55,441.66) to US$13,688.79 (IQR: 7,746.97 to 21,750.97) after price negotiation (P < 0.001). Before price negotiation, each additional month of survival gained was associated with an increase in treatment costs of 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.1, 4.8], P < 0.001) for indications supported by randomized controlled trials, and a 10% increase in ORR was associated with a 6.0% (95% CI [1.6, 10.3], P = 0.009) increase in treatment costs for indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. After price negotiation, the associations between costs and clinical value may not have changed significantly, but the variation of drug costs for a given value was reduced. Study limitations include the lack of transparency in official data, missing data on clinical value, and a limited sample size.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that the implementation of price negotiation in China has led to drug pricing better aligned with clinical value for anticancer drugs even after substantial price reductions. The achievements made in China could shed light on the price regulation in other countries, particularly those with limited resources and increasing drug expenditures.

Dataset Information

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance

Objectives

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Uptake for Cancer Biosimilars vs Reference Drugs in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets