Payer and provider solutions to utilization management challenges in the management of rare hematologic cancers.

Patients with rare diseases such as Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL), a hematologic malignancy affecting approximately 1500 new patients per year, experience barriers to care involving both clinical and administrative factors. Optimal patient outcomes depend on timely identification, diagnosis of disease, and treatment initiation. For patients living with Ph+ ALL, the process can be delayed by limited treatment options approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and administrative hurdles that often delay treatment initiation. An overhaul of utilization management processes, such as the requirement for prior authorization (PA) for treatment, are needed to ensure patients have access to appropriate treatments in a timely manner. An AJMC Roundtable in November 2022 brought together a panel of payers and providers to discuss the challenges and shortcomings of current PA processes and to present ideas for potential solutions for improving them. Panelists at the roundtable discussed approaches including the use of guideline-concordant electronic PAs and other digital solutions, expedited approval pathways for use in specific conditions, use of real-world evidence in decision-making, issuance of PA "Gold Cards" to select providers, and a shift to value-based care agreements. Roundtable attendees agreed that, regardless of the strategy for PA-process improvement, there is a need for improved communication between providers and payers to ensure that the decision-making system meets the essential need for timely patient access to optimal care. This article reviews utilization management and guideline-concordant care through the lens of rare diseases and then presents solutions to utilization.

The First 2 Years of Biosimilar Epoetin for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in the U.S.: A Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Biosimilars are biologic drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018. The manufacturer received an FDA nonapproval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favorable review by FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA nonapproval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation. We discuss the 2018 FDA approval, the 2017 FDA ODAC Committee review, and the FDA complete response letters in 2015 and 2017; review concepts of litigation, naming, labeling, substitution, interchangeability, and pharmacovigilance; review European and U.S. oncology experiences with biosimilar epoetin; and review the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. In 2020, policy statements from AETNA, United Health Care, and Humana indicated that new epoetin oncology starts must be for biosimilar epoetin unless medical need for other epoetins is documented. Empirical studies report that as of 2012, reference epoetin use decreased from 40%-60% of all patients with cancer with chemotherapy-induced anemia to <5% of such patients because of safety concerns. Between 2018 and 2020, biosimilar epoetin use varied, increasing to 81% among one private insurer's patients covered by Medicare whose cancer care is administered with Oncology Analytics and to 41% with the same private insurer's patients with cancer covered by commercial health insurance and administered by the private insurer, to 0% in several Veterans Administration Hospitals, increasing to 100% in one large county hospital in California, and with yet-to-be-reported data from most oncology settings. We conclude that biosimilar epoetin appears to have overcome some barriers since 2015, although current uptake in the U.S. is variable. Pricing and safety considerations for all erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are primary determinants of biosimilar epoetin oncology uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Few oncologists understand substitution and interchangeability of biosimilars with reference drugs. Epoetin biosimilar is new to the market, and physician and patient understanding is limited. The development of epoetin biosimilar is not familiar to oncologists.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: considerations for managed care professionals.

Liver cancer is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the United States and is associated with a high cancer-related mortality. Seventy-five percent of liver cancers are hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) resulting from cirrhosis. Patients are typically diagnosed late in the disease, with a relatively small percentage eligible for curative treatments. Despite the addition of several new therapies for advanced HCC, the 5-year survival rate is just 18%. The direct and indirect costs of HCC are substantial, and are expected to increase with the rise in disease incidence as well as a growing number of high-cost therapies entering the market. There are opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients with HCC through implementation of value-based reimbursement principles and pharmacist involvement in care.

End of an era of administering erythropoiesis stimulating agents among Veterans Administration cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

Erythropoisis stimulating agent (ESA) use was addressed in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) meetings between 2004 and 2008. FDA safety-focused regulatory actions occurred in 2007 and 2008. In 2007, black box warnings advised of early death and venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks with ESAs in oncology. In 2010, a Risk Evaluation Strategies (REMS) was initiated, with cancer patient consent that mortality and VTE risks were noted with ESAs. We report warnings and REMS impacts on ESA utilization among Veterans Administration (VA) cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Data were from Veterans Affairs database (2003-2012). Epoetin and darbepoetin use were primary outcomes. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate changes in ESA use levels and trends, clinical appropriateness, and adverse events (VTEs) among chemotherapy-treated cancer patients. To estimate changes in level of drug prescription rate after policy actions, model-specific indicator variables as covariates based on specific actions were included. ESA use fell by 95% and 90% from 2005, for epoetin and darbepoetin, from 22% and 11%, respectively, to 1% and 1%, respectively, among cancer patients with CIA, respectively (p<0.01). Following REMS in 2010, mean hematocrit levels at ESA initiation decreased from 30% to 21% (p<0.01). Black box warnings preceded decreased ESA use among VA cancer patients with CIA. REMS was followed by reduced hematocrit levels at ESA initiation. Our findings contrast with privately- insured and Medicaid insured cancer patient data on chemotherapy-induced anemia where ESA use decreased to 3% to 7% by 2010-2012. By 2012, the era of ESA administration to VA to cancer patients had ended but the warnings remain relevant and significant. In 2019, oncology/hematology national guidelines (ASCO/ASH) recommend that cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia should receive ESAs or red blood cell transfusions after risk-benefit evaluation.

Regulatory and Clinical Experiences with Biosimilar Filgrastim in the U.S., the European Union, Japan, and Canada.

Biosimilar filgrastims are primarily indicated for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prevention. They are less expensive formulations of branded filgrastim, and biosimilar filgrastim was the first biosimilar oncology drug administered in European Union (EU) countries, Japan, and the U.S. Fourteen biosimilar filgrastims have been marketed in EU countries, Japan, the U.S., and Canada since 2008, 2012, 2015, and 2016, respectively. We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastim markets in EU countries and Japan, where uptake has been rapid, and in the U.S. and Canada, where experience is rapidly emerging. U.S. regulations for designating biosimilar interchangeability are under development, and such regulations have not been developed in most other countries. Pharmaceutical substitution is allowed for new filgrastim starts in some EU countries and in Canada, but not Japan and the U.S. In EU countries, biosimilar adoption is facilitated with favorable hospital tender offers. U.S. adoption is reportedly 24%, while the second filgrastim biosimilar is priced 30% lower than branded filgrastim and 20% lower than the first biosimilar filgrastim approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Utilization is about 60% in EU countries, where biosimilar filgrastim is marketed at a 30%-40% discount. In Japan, biosimilar filgrastim utilization is 45%, primarily because of 35% discounts negotiated by Central Insurance and hospital-only markets. Overall, biosimilar filgrastim adoption barriers are small in many EU countries and Japan and are diminishing in Canada in the U.S. Policies facilitating improved U.S. adoption of biosimilar filgrastim, based on positive experiences in EU countries and Japan, including favorable insurance coverage; larger price discount relative to reference filgrastim pricing; closing of the "rebate trap" with transparent pricing information; formal educational efforts of patients, physicians, caregivers, and providers; and allowance of pharmaceutical substitution of biosimilar versus reference filgrastim, should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: We reviewed experiences and policies for biosimilar filgrastims in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the U.S. Postmarketing harmonization of regulatory policies for biosimilar filgrastims has not occurred. Acceptance of biosimilar filgrastims for branded filgrastim, increasing in the U.S. and in Canada, is commonplace in Japan and Europe. In the U.S., some factors, accepted in Europe or Japan, could improve uptake, including acceptance of biosimilars as safe and effective; larger cost savings, decreasing "rebate traps" where pharmaceutical benefit managers support branded filgrastim, decreased use of patent litigation/challenges, and allowing pharmacists to routinely substitute biosimilar for branded filgrastim.

Melanoma complicating treatment with natalizumab for multiple sclerosis: A report from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

A 43-year-old female with multiple sclerosis developed urethral melanoma. The only potential risk factor was treatment with natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against α4 integrins. To investigate the risk-exposure relationship, we reviewed this case, all other published cases, and cases of natalizumab-associated melanoma reported to regulatory agencies. Data sources included the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) (2004-2014), a FDA Advisory Committee Meeting Report, and peer-reviewed publications. In the United States, the manufacturer maintains an FDA-mandated Tysabri Safety Surveillance Program (part of the Tysabri Outcomes Unified Commitment to Health (TOUCH)) of natalizumab-treated patients. We statistically compared reporting completeness for natalizumab-associated melanoma cases in FAERs for which information was obtained entirely from the TOUCH program versus cases where FAERS information was supplemented by TOUCH program information. FAERS included 137 natalizumab-associated melanoma reports in patients with multiple sclerosis. Median age at melanoma diagnosis was 45 years (range: 21-74 years). Changes in preexisting nevi occurred in 16%, history of cutaneous nevi occurred in 22%, diagnosis within 2 years of beginning natalizumab occurred in 34%, and 74% had primary surgical treatment. Among seven natalizumab-treated MS patients who developed biopsy-confirmed melanoma on treatment and reported in the literature, median age at diagnosis was 41 years (range: 38-48 years); and the melanoma diagnosis occurred following a median of 12 natalizumab doses (range: 1-77 doses). A history of mole or nevi was noted in four patients and a history of prior melanoma was noted in one patient. Completeness scores for reports were significantly lower for FAERS cases reported from the TOUCH program versus FAERS cases supplemented by TOUCH information (median score of 2 vs. 4 items out of 8-possible items, P < 0.0007). Clinicians should monitor existing nevi and maintain suspicion for melanoma developing in natalizumab-treated patients. The TOUCH Safety Surveillance Program, currently focused on progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, should be expanded to include information on other serious complications including malignancies, particularly if they are immunologic in nature.

Generic oncology drugs: are they all safe?

Although the availability of generic oncology drugs allows access to contemporary care and reduces costs, there is international variability in the safety of this class of drugs. In this Series paper, we review clinical, policy, safety, and regulatory considerations for generic oncology drugs focusing on the USA, Canada, the European Union (EU), Japan, China, and India. Safety information about generic formulations is reviewed from one agent in each class, for heavy metal drugs (cisplatin), targeted agents (imatinib), and cytotoxic agents (docetaxel). We also review regulatory reports from Japan and the USA, countries with the largest pharmaceutical expenditures. Empirical studies did not identify safety concerns in the USA, Canada, the EU, and Japan, where regulations and enforcement are strong. Although manufacturing problems for generic pharmaceuticals exist in India, where 40% of all generic pharmaceuticals used in the USA are manufactured, increased inspections and communication by the US Food and Drug Administration are occurring, facilitating oversight and enforcement. No safety outbreaks among generic oncology drugs were reported in developed countries. For developing countries, oversight is less intensive, and concerns around drug safety still exist. Regulatory agencies should collaboratively develop procedures to monitor the production, shipment, storage, and post-marketing safety of generic oncology drugs. Regulatory agencies for each country should also aim towards identical definitions of bioequivalence, the cornerstone of regulatory approval.

Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs.

Biological oncology products are integral to cancer treatment, but their high costs pose challenges to patients, families, providers, and insurers. The introduction of biosimilar agents-molecules that are similar in structure, function, activity, immunogenicity, and safety to the original biological drugs-provide opportunities both to improve health-care access and outcomes, and to reduce costs. Several international regulatory pathways have been developed to expedite entry of biosimilars into global marketplaces. The first wave of oncology biosimilar use was in Europe and India in 2007. Oncology biosimilars are now widely marketed in several countries in Europe, and in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, India, and South Korea. Their use is emerging worldwide, with the notable exception of the USA, where several regulatory and cost barriers to biosimilar approval exist. In this Review, we discuss oncology biosimilars and summarise their regulatory frameworks, clinical experiences, and safety concerns.