Tuesday, 18 Feb 2020

You are here

Biosimilars Projected to Yield $54 Billion in Savings

A primary projected advantage to biosimilar drugs development has been cost savings. A new study from the RAND Corporation suggests biosimilars could cut health care spending in the United States by $54 billion over the next decade. This number is nearly 20 percent greater than a similar study conducted three years ago by the same researchers. (Citation Source: https://buff.ly/2yLfgd8)

Biologics are pivotal in the treatment of many conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic and inflammatory bowel diseases. While 1 percent to 2 percent of the population is treated with a biologic each year, these drugs accounted for 38 percent of prescription drug spending in 2015. In addition, biologics accounted for 70 percent of the growth in prescription drug spending in the U.S. between 2010 and 2015.

Although there are 4 anti-TNF biosimilars that are FDA approved and each is proven to be equivalent to the approved "reference" biologics in terms of potency, safety and efficacy, the growth and utilization of these agents since 2016 has been slow.

RAND researchers developed their estimate of savings from biosimilars by examining other studies that have examined the issue, reviewing the sales history of more than 100 biologic drugs and examining the brief experience of the one biosimilar drug that has been marketed in the U.S.

RAND researchers estimate that that biosimilars will cut spending on biologics by about 3 percent over the next decade. The range of the new savings estimate given reasonable ranges of key assumptions -- like the price of biosimilars versus reference biologics and biosimilar market share -- varied from $24 billion to $150 billion from 2018 through 2027.

Overall it is thought that the introduction of biosimilars into the U.S. marketplace is expected to increase competition and drive down prices, resulting in savings for patients, health care payers and taxpayers. Lower costs also could improve access to biologic drugs, which may lead to overall greater spending; unless these treatments lower hospitalizations or other costs of care.

 

Disclosures: 
The author has received research/grant financial support on this subject
The author has received compensation as an advisor or consultant on this subject

Add new comment

More Like This

QD Clinic - Hepatitis B and Biologics

QD Clinic - Lessons from the clinic Active HBV infection (HGsAg+) on anti-viral therapy but needs a biologic - what should you use?

Biosimilars for Rheum Disease: Failure to Launch

The availability of biologic biosimilars has thus far had negligible impact on prescribing practices in the United States, in stark contrast to what has been observed in some European countries, researchers reported.

Best of 2019 - Is Methotrexate Necessary with Tofacitinib?

Rheumatoid arthritis patients taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz) plus methotrexate who achieved low disease activity (LDA) may be able to withdraw from the latter agent without significant worsening of disease activity, a researcher reported at EULAR 2019 in Madrid.

Best of 2019 - Ups and Downs with Abatacept

Two recent studies have examined the effect of starting abatacept upon the risk of serious hospitalized infections or cancer, showing divergent results from claims data analyses.

Best of 2019 - Are Non-TNF Biologics Superior to TNF inhibitors?

Current ACR and EULAR guidelines list TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab as being equally effective after methotrexate or as second line therapies when treating rheumatoid arthritis. An analysis from the Swedish Rheumatology Register shows that the non-TNFi biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), in particular tocilizumab and rituximab, are more effective than TNFi.