Biosimilar usage in practices within the ASCO PracticeNET learning network.

Abstract

77 Background: In recent years, several antineoplastic biosimilar products have been approved and marketed for use. We analyzed data from the ASCO PracticeNET learning network to gain insights on the adoption of biosimilar products for bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Methods: Our analysis included the following products: bevacizumab, bevacizumab-awwb, bevacizumab-bvzr, rituximab (excluding rituximab and hyaluronidase), rituximab-abbs, trastuzumab, trastuzumab-anns, and trastuzumab-dkst, administered from July 2019 to March 2020. 19 practices submitted their billing data; practices ranged in size from 2 to 29 hematologists/oncologists. Products were identified through use of healthcare common procedure coding system codes. The proportion of biosimilar product doses administered, as a percent of total doses for all related products, was calculated per participating practice. Results: Use of biosimilar products for bevacizumab (first biosimilar approval in September 2017) was first detected in August 2019, averaging 1.4% of administered doses (confidence intervals included in Table) with a range from 0% to 27% among participating practices; by March 2020, average use increased to 31% with a range from 0% to 100%. Use of biosimilar products for rituximab (first biosimilar approval in November 2018), was first detected in January 2020, averaging 2.6% of administered doses, with range of 0% to 30%; by March 2020, average use increased to 18%, with a range of 0% to 61%. Use of biosimilar products for trastuzumab (first biosimilar approval in December 2017) was first detected in September 2019, averaging 0.9% of administered doses with a range of 0% to 17%; by March 2020, average use increased to 35%, with a range of 0% to 98%. Conclusions: The release of biosimilar products has been identified as a potential opportunity to lower the cost of drug therapy for cancer patients. Our analysis identified an approximate 2-year lag from product approval to initial utilization followed by a steady increase in the use of biosimilar products, along with a wide range of use among practices. [Table: see text]

ASCO Policy Statement on Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products in Oncology

“…Although clinicians are critical for the informed uptake and utilization of biosimilars in oncology practice, some data show that clinician uptake is roughly 2 years behind initial approvals for oncologic biosimilars. 68,69…”

“…Although clinicians are critical for the informed uptake and utilization of biosimilars in oncology practice, some data show that clinician uptake is roughly 2 years behind initial approvals for oncologic biosimilars. 68,69 In contemplating use of biosimilars in a treatment plan, physicians should consider several factors. 69 Biosimilar approval is based on different regulatory processes and criteria than for new drugs and is based on a foundation of comparative analytical data rather than on large randomized controlled trials demonstrating de novo safety and effectiveness.…”

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

“…Despite early incorporation of biosimilars in ASCO clinical practice guidelines, questions remain regarding the optimal use and uptake of biosimilars as therapeutic alternatives to their corresponding reference biologics, although a recent analysis of billing data from 19 centers participating in the ASCO PracticeNET learning network during the period of July 2019 to March 2020 reported increasing use of biosimilars over time at those centers. 1 In addition, concerns remain including variability of substitution practices, monitoring for safety and efficacy of the biosimilar in real-world practice, and impact on health care costs. This report provides a partial update to an earlier publication by Lyman et al 2 for health care providers and the oncology community on oncology biosimilars.…”