Different Policy Measures and Practices between Swedish Counties Influence Market Dynamics: Part 1-Biosimilar and Originator Infliximab in the Hospital Setting.
Journal
BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy
ISSN: 1179-190X
Titre abrégé: BioDrugs
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9705305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
5
4
2019
medline:
19
11
2019
entrez:
5
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Decentralisation of healthcare budgets and issuance of local guidelines means that the use of biosimilars can vary by region within a particular country, for example between the 21 counties of Sweden. This study aimed to analyse the county-level market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab, which are hospital products, and to examine how local policy measures and practices, in addition to national policy, influenced market dynamics. We first conducted a literature review on (biosimilar) policies in Sweden, then analysed market data provided by IQVIA™ on uptake of originator and biosimilar infliximab within the different counties (Q2 2012 to Q4 2017), including discounts from (tender) contracts. Biosimilar market shares were calculated with volume data (measured as defined daily doses [DDDs]). We then discussed our findings in semi-structured interviews with the national pricing and reimbursement agency, key experts within the county councils of Skåne, Västra Götaland, and Stockholm, and an industry representative. Market shares of biosimilar infliximab vary widely between counties (range 18-96% in 2017). The initial uptake of biosimilar infliximab was slow and variable, with abrupt increments in biosimilar market shares coinciding with expiration of contracts for the originator product. Different approaches taken by counties to achieve a low cost per DDD of infliximab were identified, i.e., a rapid switch to the biosimilar (Skåne), a delayed switch to the biosimilar (Stockholm), or no switch to the biosimilar when a favourable price on the originator product could be obtained (Västra Götaland). Quantitative analysis showed that 59% of the variability in biosimilar market shares could be explained by the relative difference in discounted price between the biosimilar and the originator product. In addition, qualitative analysis indicated the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and initiatives, and whose budget it affects as drivers in the decision-making process. Variations in the market share of biosimilar infliximab between the Swedish counties is largely explained by the discounted price difference between biosimilar and originator product, and counties used different strategies to leverage such biosimilar competition. Additionally, the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and gainsharing arrangements appeared to play a role in infliximab market dynamics in counties.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Decentralisation of healthcare budgets and issuance of local guidelines means that the use of biosimilars can vary by region within a particular country, for example between the 21 counties of Sweden.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to analyse the county-level market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab, which are hospital products, and to examine how local policy measures and practices, in addition to national policy, influenced market dynamics.
METHODS
METHODS
We first conducted a literature review on (biosimilar) policies in Sweden, then analysed market data provided by IQVIA™ on uptake of originator and biosimilar infliximab within the different counties (Q2 2012 to Q4 2017), including discounts from (tender) contracts. Biosimilar market shares were calculated with volume data (measured as defined daily doses [DDDs]). We then discussed our findings in semi-structured interviews with the national pricing and reimbursement agency, key experts within the county councils of Skåne, Västra Götaland, and Stockholm, and an industry representative.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Market shares of biosimilar infliximab vary widely between counties (range 18-96% in 2017). The initial uptake of biosimilar infliximab was slow and variable, with abrupt increments in biosimilar market shares coinciding with expiration of contracts for the originator product. Different approaches taken by counties to achieve a low cost per DDD of infliximab were identified, i.e., a rapid switch to the biosimilar (Skåne), a delayed switch to the biosimilar (Stockholm), or no switch to the biosimilar when a favourable price on the originator product could be obtained (Västra Götaland). Quantitative analysis showed that 59% of the variability in biosimilar market shares could be explained by the relative difference in discounted price between the biosimilar and the originator product. In addition, qualitative analysis indicated the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and initiatives, and whose budget it affects as drivers in the decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Variations in the market share of biosimilar infliximab between the Swedish counties is largely explained by the discounted price difference between biosimilar and originator product, and counties used different strategies to leverage such biosimilar competition. Additionally, the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and gainsharing arrangements appeared to play a role in infliximab market dynamics in counties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30945207
doi: 10.1007/s40259-019-00345-6
pii: 10.1007/s40259-019-00345-6
pmc: PMC6533410
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals
0
Infliximab
B72HH48FLU
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
285-297Références
Arch Med Sci. 2014 Dec 22;10(6):1175-85
pubmed: 25624856
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 15;362(15):1383-95
pubmed: 20393175
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017 Apr 28;5(1):1307315
pubmed: 28740617
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017 Jan 30;5(1):1272308
pubmed: 28265349
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 May;25(3):516-23
pubmed: 25904313
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Mar 13;9:95
pubmed: 29593655
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Apr;71(4):541-8
pubmed: 21994233
Scand J Rheumatol. 2011 Jan;40(1):8-15
pubmed: 20955087
Int J Clin Pharm. 2017 Oct;39(5):1055-1060
pubmed: 28871421
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 28;12(12):e0190147
pubmed: 29284064
J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008 Aug;33(4):339-48
pubmed: 18613851
BioDrugs. 2019 Jun;33(3):299-306
pubmed: 30945206
Postgrad Med. 2017 May;129(4):460-470
pubmed: 28343424
Health Policy. 2006 May;76(3):299-311
pubmed: 16046026
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jan;17(1):e31-8
pubmed: 26758759
BMJ Open. 2017 May 2;7(4):e014345
pubmed: 28465306
J Pharm Belg. 2014 Dec;(4):36-46
pubmed: 25562926
Front Pharmacol. 2017 Oct 05;8:674
pubmed: 29056910
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Oct 20;14:469
pubmed: 25331607
Lancet. 2017 Jun 10;389(10086):2304-2316
pubmed: 28502609
BMC Public Health. 2018 Oct 3;18(1):1153
pubmed: 30285689
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Nov;50(11):3432-43
pubmed: 15529377
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Feb;66(2):187-98
pubmed: 19826799
BioDrugs. 2017 Apr;31(2):117-124
pubmed: 28353170
BioDrugs. 2016 Aug;30(4):295-306
pubmed: 27138636