Preparing for the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars in the US in 2023: A primer for specialty pharmacists.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: The impact of the market entry of adalimumab biosimilars on clinical practices and specialty pharmacies is explained. A roadmap is also provided for how pharmacists can successfully navigate this landscape. SUMMARY: Biosimilars have previously been introduced as a mechanism to help curb biologic expenditures, with biosimilars undergoing an abbreviated regulatory approval process that focuses on biosimilarity and generating product competition. Adalimumab is currently the leading product in the biologics market, generating approximately $20 to $30 billion in sales worldwide consecutively from 2019 to 2021. Many adalimumab biosimilars are slated to enter the market in 2023 and become available for patient use. However, compared to other biosimilars, adalimumab biosimilars have several unique considerations, such as interchangeability and concentration, that will impact pharmacy practices and workflows. Because pharmacists embedded in clinical practices and specialty pharmacies will be significantly involved in the processes relating to adalimumab biosimilar implementation, adoption, and use, a primer on understanding the various adalimumab biosimilar products available and considerations surrounding these products with regard to workflow and patient use is critical. Several resources are also provided to help pharmacists successfully navigate the adalimumab biosimilar landscape. CONCLUSION: The biosimilar landscape continues to evolve, and 2023 will see the launch of several adalimumab biosimilar products, which vary with regard to formulation, concentration, and interchangeability status. Pharmacists are well positioned to educate providers and patients about this landscape and help implement an efficient workflow to support adalimumab biosimilar adoption and use.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2023.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2023 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2023 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, diabetes medications, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2023 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2022, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 9.4% compared to 2021, for a total of $633.5 billion. Utilization (a 5.9% increase), price (a 1.7% increase) and new drugs (a 1.8% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top-selling drug in 2022, followed by semaglutide and apixaban. Drug expenditures were $37.2 billion (a 5.9% decrease) and $116.9 billion (a 10.4% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with a small impact from price changes. In nonfederal hospitals, a drop in utilization led to a decrease in expenditures, with price changes and new drugs contributing to growth in spending. Several new drugs that will influence spending have been or are expected to be approved in 2023. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2023, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 6.0% to 8.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 8.0% to 10.0% and 1.0% to 3.0%, respectively, compared to 2022. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

A leap towards enforcing medicines prescribing by generic names in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): pitfalls, limitations, and recommendations for local drug regulatory agencies.

The Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) in response to the public outcry on increasing medicines prices in the country issued notifications to direct healthcare professionals to prescribe medicines with their generic names. Like DRAP, many regulators in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are also inspiring from the west to legally enforce generic prescribing in a bid to reduce the out-of-pocket public expenditures. However, there are pitfalls in the LMICs drug regulatory framework, which if left unaddressed can severely jeopardise the foreseen benefits of medicines prescribing by generic names. This article critically appraises the impact of prescribing by generic names regulations in LMICs and highlights the key considerations that are vital to address before legally enforcing generic prescribing. The ethics, regulatory compliance, and good governance are the key to success; better generics for a better tomorrow.

Approaches to optimising access to NICE-approved biologic anti-TNFs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with moderately active disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that is associated with joint pain and stiffness. Biologics represent some of the most effective treatments for RA, but previous guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has limited their use to patients with severely active disease. This has meant patients with moderately active RA have been treated as if they have an acceptable disease state, despite many cases where the inflammation has a major impact on joint damage, mobility, pain and quality of life. However, recent guideline changes (NICE TA715) have approved the use of three biologics - adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab - for the treatment of moderately active RA. MAIN BODY: In response to these changes, we have held discussions with medical teams from across the UK to consider the main implications for implementation of these new recommendations, as well as any differences in approach that may exist at a local level. Several key challenges were identified. These included establishing methods of educating both physicians and patients concerning the new availability of the biologic treatments, with suggestions of various organisations that could be approached to circulate informative material. Identifying which patients with moderately active RA stand to benefit was another discussion topic. Relying solely on scoring systems like Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28) was acknowledged to have limitations, and alternative complementary approaches such as ultrasound, as well as assessing a patient's co-morbidities, could also be useful tools in determining those who could benefit from biologics. An additional challenge for the process of patient identification has been the increase in the use of telemedicine consultations in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. More use of patient-reported outcomes was raised as one possible solution, and the importance of maintaining up-to-date databases on patient disease scores and treatment history was also stressed. CONCLUSION: While challenges exist in education and identifying patients who may benefit from the use of biologics, the NICE TA715 recommendations hold great potential in addressing an unmet need for the treatment of moderate RA.

Indian Biosimilars and Vaccines at Crossroads-Replicating the Success of Pharmagenerics.

BACKGROUND: The global pharma sector is fast shifting from generics to biologics and biosimilars with the first approval in Europe in 2006 followed by US approval in 2015. In the form of Hepatitis B vaccine, India saw its first recombinant biologics approval in 2000. Around 20% of generic medications and 62% of vaccines are now supplied by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It is this good position in biologics and biosimilars production that could potentially improve healthcare via decreased treatment cost. India has witnessed large investments in biosimilars over the years. Numerous India-bred new players, e.g., Enzene Biosciences Ltd., are keen on biosimilars and have joined the race alongside the emerging giants, e.g., Biocon and Dr. Reddy's. A very positive sign was the remarkable disposition during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bharat Biotech and the Serum Institute of India. India's biopharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in producing and supplying preventives and therapeutics to fight COVID-19. Despite a weak supply chain and workforce pressure, the production was augmented to provide reasonably priced high-quality medications to more than 133 nations. Biosimilars could cost-effectively treat chronic diseases involving expensive conventional therapies, including diabetes, respiratory ailments, cancer, and connective tissue diseases. Biologics and biosimilars have been and are being tested to treat and manage COVID-19 symptoms characterized by inflammation and respiratory distress. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although India boasts many universities, research centers, and a relatively skilled workforce, its global University-Industry collaboration ranking is 24, IPR ranking remains 47 and innovation ranking 39. This reveals a wide industry-academia gap to bridge. There are gaps in effective translational research in India that must be promptly and appropriately addressed. Innovation demands strong and effective collaborations among universities, techno-incubators, and industries. METHODOLOGY: Many successful research findings in academia do not get translation opportunities supposedly due to low industrial collaboration, low IP knowledge, and publication pressure with stringent timelines. In light of this, a detailed review of literature, including policy papers, government initiatives, and corporate reviews, was carried out, and the compilation and synthesis of the secondary data were meticulously summarized for the easy comprehension of the facts and roadmap ahead. For easy comprehension, charts, figures, and compiled tables are presented. RESULTS: This review assesses India's situation in the biosimilar space, the gaps and areas to improve for Indian investment strategies, development, and innovation, addressing need for a more skilled workforce, industrial collaboration, and business models. CONCLUSIONS: This review also proposes forward an approach to empowering technopreneurs to develop MSMEs for large-scale operations to support India in taking innovative thoughts to the global level to ultimately realize a self-reliant India. The limitations of the compilation are also highlighted towards the end.

Barriers to Worldwide Access for Paxlovid, a New Treatment for COVID-19.

Pfizer and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) have reached a voluntary licensing agreement for Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir+ritonavir), a novel antiviral for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) taken orally in the first 5 days from symptom onset. The Pfizer-MPP deal enables 95 low- and middle-income countries (L/MICs) to access affordable biosimilars. Generics are delayed awaiting bioequivalence testing and may be ineffective in L/MICs with reduced testing capacity, which comprise only 10% of global diagnoses. Thirty-nine percent of diagnoses originate in MICs forced to pay high prices due to exclusion from the Pfizer-MPP deal. The cost-effectiveness of Paxlovid could be limited compared with the creation of sustainable vaccine infrastructure in these nations, delaying socioeconomic pandemic recovery. Furthermore, Paxlovid may not be cost-effective in vaccinated populations, and concerns remain over ritonavir drug interactions with COVID-19 comorbidity medications. We call for expanded coverage by the Paxlovid-MPP deal and greater access to testing.

A comprehensive high cost drugs dataset from the NHS in England - An OpenSAFELY-TPP Short Data Report.

Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no routine comprehensive hospital medicines data from the UK available to researchers. These records can be important for many analyses including the effect of certain medicines on the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. With the approval of NHS England, we set out to obtain data on one specific group of medicines, "high-cost drugs" (HCD) which are typically specialist medicines for the management of long-term conditions, prescribed by hospitals to patients. Additionally, we aimed to make these data available to all approved researchers in OpenSAFELY-TPP. This report is intended to support all studies carried out in OpenSAFELY-TPP, and those elsewhere, working with this dataset or similar data. Methods: Working with the North East Commissioning Support Unit and NHS Digital, we arranged for collation of a single national HCD dataset to help inform responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset was developed from payment submissions from hospitals to commissioners. Results: In the financial year (FY) 2018/19 there were 2.8 million submissions for 1.1 million unique patient IDs recorded in the HCD. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 2.6. In FY 2019/20 there were 4.0 million submissions for 1.3 million unique patient IDs. The average number of submissions per patient over the year was 3.1. Of the 21 variables in the dataset, three are now available for analysis in OpenSafely-TPP: Financial year and month of drug being dispensed; drug name; and a description of the drug dispensed. Conclusions: We have described the process for sourcing a national HCD dataset, making these data available for COVID-19-related analysis through OpenSAFELY-TPP and provided information on the variables included in the dataset, data coverage and an initial descriptive analysis.

National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022.

PURPOSE: To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2022 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. METHODS: Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2022 were reviewed-including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for biosimilars, cancer drugs, generics, COVID-19 pandemic influence, and specialty drugs. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2022 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. RESULTS: In 2021, overall pharmaceutical expenditures in the US grew 7.7% compared to 2020, for a total of $576.9 billion. Utilization (a 4.8% increase), price (a 1.9% increase) and new drugs (a 1.1% increase) drove this increase. Adalimumab was the top drug in terms of overall expenditures in 2021, followed by apixaban and dulaglutide. Drug expenditures were $39.6 billion (a 8.4% increase) and $105.0 billion (a 7.7% increase) in nonfederal hospitals and in clinics, respectively. In clinics and hospitals, new products and increased utilization growth drove growth, with decreasing prices for both sectors acting as an expense restraint. Several new drugs that are likely to influence spending are expected to be approved in 2022. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures along with the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: For 2022, we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 7.0% to 9.0% and 3.0% to 5.0%, respectively, compared to 2021. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

The European framework for intellectual property rights for biological medicines

Introduction: The Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe (2020) proposes actions related to intellectual property (IP) rights as a means of ensuring patients' access to medicines. This review aims to describe and discuss the European IP framework and its impact on accessibility of biological medicines and makes some recommendations. Methods: A non-systematic literature review on IP for biological medicines was conducted. Data on authorizations and patent and exclusivity expiry dates of biological medicines obtained from the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) website and literature was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results: The analysis showed that as at end July 2021, 1,238 medicines were authorized in Europe, of which 332 (26.8%) were biological medicines. There were only 55 biosimilars for 17 unique biologicals. There is an increasing trend in biological authorizations but significant delays in submission of applications for marketing authorization of biosimilars, with no significant differences in the time for assessment for marketing authorization between originator biologicals and biosimilars. For some of the more recent biosimilars, applications for authorization were submitted prior to patent and exclusivity expiry. COVID vaccines confirmed the impact of knowledge transfer on accessibility, especially when linked to joint procurement. Discussion: IP protects originator products and impacts the development of biosimilars. Strategies to improve competition in the EU biological market are discussed. Pricing policies alone do not increase biosimilar uptake since patients are switched to second generation products. Evergreening strategies might be abusing the IP framework, and together with trade secrets and disproportionate prices compared to R & D and manufacturing costs lead to an imbalance between market access and innovation. Conclusion: The European Pharmaceutical Strategy should focus on IP initiatives that support earlier authorization of biosimilars of new biologicals. Recommendations include knowledge sharing, simplification of the regulatory framework and transparency of prices and R & D costs.

Biosimilars in Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis in Iran.

Biological drugs are manufactured via some changes made to the living organisms by genetic engineering. Notably, biological drugs are very expensive and their importation can impose economic pressure, especially on poorer countries. Thereafter, manufacturing these drugs has been considered by policymakers in many countries, resulting in the production of biosimilars. Iran requires a wide range of biological drugs due to the growing number of patients with multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, the poor economic situation of Iran due to repeated sanctions has had a great impact on the health care system, which has prevented the allocation of sufficient financial resources in this regard. Therefore, manufacturing biosimilar drugs due to their lower cost has received much attention in various fields of treatment.

The outcome of Covid-19 in patients receiving biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease, with multisystemic implications and genetic predisposition, characterized by the development of erythematous, scaling plaques on the skin. Management of moderate to severe psoriasis vulgaris may involve a biological treatment that suppresses the immune system. Because of this, the patients with psoriasis on an immunosuppressive treatment are theoretically at an increased risk of infections, including SARS-CoV2 infection. SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) is responsible for the current pandemic. In Romania, COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19) was first reported on February 26, 2020, by confirming the first patient with SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR method. COVID-19 progression was divided into three phases: early infection, pulmonary phase, and hyperinflammatory phase. Although the inhibition of pro-inflammatory cytokines by biologic therapy is detrimental in the viral phase, it seems to be beneficial in the hyperinflammatory phase, by protecting the patients with psoriasis in progressing towards extra-pulmonary manifestations and death. Analyzing the evolution of the 8 cases of patients from our dermatology department - Colentina Clinical Hospital, with generalized psoriasis vulgaris on biologic immunosuppressive treatment and SARS-CoV-2 infection, we observed that they did not develop a more severe form of COVID-19 than the general population. Patients on biologic immunosuppressive treatment are more susceptible to the development of infections, including by SARS-CoV-2, but it was found that the biologic therapy can protect against a more severe type of COVID-19.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future.

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

Autoimmune diseases - New insights into a troublesome field.

Recent updates in the diagnosis and management of chronic inflammatory conditions can be brought together to better understand autoimmune diseases (ADs). With organ-specific or organ-limited and systemic ADs, physicians often are faced with a dilemma when making a diagnosis and may feel a kind of embarrassment when a more distinct nosological entity cannot be found. ADs often overlap with other diseases and good diagnostic procedures for ADs only become evidence-based when refined histopathologic, immunopathologic, and general laboratory analyses are available. Immunofluorescence analyses, Western blotting, CUT & RUN technology allow localization of the site of autoantibody-reactivity on the relevant DNA sequence. The Polymerase chain reaction technology and CRISPR-Cas9, the new gene editor using pools of synthetic non-coding RNAs in screening experiments, are expected to lead to advances in the diagnosis of ADs. The current use of mRNA as a vaccine against COVID-19 has increased confidence in the use of mRNA or long non-coding RNAs in the treatment strategy for ADs. The integration of new knowledge about innate immunity, the complement system, vaccinology, and senescence into the care of patients with ADs expands the therapeutic arsenal of disease-modifying drugs and allows for the repurposing of anti-cytokine monoclonal/biosimilar antibodies, originally designed for chronic inflammatory diseases, for ADs. This review article brings together some of the most relevant ideas; a case report included in this review highlights the difficulty of distinguishing between ADs, chronic inflammation, and/or granular disease.

Patient perspectives on the British Columbia Biosimilars Initiative: a qualitative descriptive study.

In May 2019, the Government of British Columbia (BC) announced the implementation of the Biosimilars Initiative, mandating the switch of biologic (originator) drugs to biosimilars for certain patient populations in the hopes of optimizing public resources. Through this qualitative study, we aimed to identify patients' perspectives as they undergo this change. From October 2019 to July 2020, we conducted nine pre- and six post-switch to biosimilar interviews with BC, English speaking participants, who were 18 years or older, and were currently taking a biologic medication. Participants were interviewed pre- and post-switch to a biosimilar medication and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for qualitative analysis. Interviews were thematically analysed and major themes and sub-categories were elucidated. The themes derived from pre and post-switch interviews captured participants' anticipated or experienced barriers and enablers to the policy change. In general, the fears and apprehension of participants approaching the switch, including concerns surrounding the efficacy and safety of biosimilars, were addressed by their rheumatologist and social support circles. For the most part, participants were able to successfully manage their disease regardless of their baseline concerns about efficacy and safety. Experiences of changes in health delivery models were also observed secondary to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic amongst participants. This study is the first of its kind to characterize the patient perspective regarding the BC Biosimilars Initiative. The incorporation of the patient perspective, including adequate provider-patient communication and shared decision-making can help to inform future non-medical switching policy changes.

Biologic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Context of Biosimilars, Genetics, Epigenetics and COVID-19 Treatment.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects around 1.2% of the adult population. RA is one of the main reasons for work disability and premature retirement, thus substantially increasing social and economic burden. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were shown to be an effective therapy especially in those rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, who did not adequately respond to conventional synthetic DMARD therapy. However, despite the proven efficacy, the high cost of the therapy resulted in limitation of the widespread use and unequal access to the care. The introduction of biosimilars, which are much cheaper relative to original drugs, may facilitate the achievement of the therapy by a much broader spectrum of patients. In this review we present the properties of original biologic agents based on cytokine-targeted (blockers of TNF, IL-6, IL-1, GM-CSF) and cell-targeted therapies (aimed to inhibit T cells and B cells properties) as well as biosimilars used in rheumatology. We also analyze the latest update of bDMARDs' possible influence on DNA methylation, miRNA expression and histone modification in RA patients, what might be the important factors toward precise and personalized RA treatment. In addition, during the COVID-19 outbreak, we discuss the usage of biologicals in context of effective and safe COVID-19 treatment. Therefore, early diagnosing along with therapeutic intervention based on personalized drugs targeting disease-specific genes is still needed to relieve symptoms and to improve the quality of life of RA patients.