Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Department of Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
BioDrugs. 2023 Jul;37(4):531-540. doi: 10.1007/s40259-023-00593-7. Epub 2023 Apr 1.
Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).
We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex RED BOOK for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.
Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).
Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.
生物仿制药的推出旨在与高价生物疗法竞争,但它们的采用速度低于预期,导致效率提升有限。我们旨在探讨美国(美国)商业计划中与参考产品相比,生物类似物覆盖范围相关的因素。
我们从 Tufts 医疗中心专科药物证据和覆盖数据库中确定了 1181 项针对 19 种市售生物类似物的覆盖决策,涉及 7 种参考产品和 28 种适应症。我们还借鉴了 Tufts 医疗中心成本效益分析注册表的成本效益证据,以及 MerativeTM Micromedex RED BOOK 的定价清单。我们根据健康计划是否覆盖产品以及如果覆盖,生物类似物与其参考产品之间的支付者治疗线的差异,将覆盖范围的限制概括为一个二进制变量。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来检查覆盖范围限制与覆盖范围的一些潜在驱动因素之间的关联。
与参考产品相比,健康计划在 229 项(19.4%)决策中对生物类似物实施了覆盖范围排除或分步治疗限制。计划更有可能限制儿科人群(优势比 [OR] 11.558,95%置信区间 [CI] 3.906-34.203)的生物类似物覆盖范围,在疾病美国患病率高于 100 万的情况下(OR 2.067,95%CI 1.060-4.029),如果计划未与三大药房福利经理之一签订合同(OR 1.683,95%CI 1.129-2.507)。与参考产品相比,如果生物类似物用于癌症治疗(OR 0.019,95%CI 0.008-0.041),产品是第一个生物类似物(OR 0.225,95%CI 0.118-0.429),如果生物类似物有两个竞争对手(包括参考产品;OR 0.060,95%CI 0.006-0.586),如果生物类似物每年可节省超过 15,000 美元的患者清单价格(OR 0.171,95%CI 0.057-0.514),如果生物类似物的参考产品受到计划限制(OR 0.065,95%CI 0.038-0.109),或者如果没有成本效益措施(OR 0.066,95%CI 0.023-0.186),则计划不太可能对生物类似物施加限制。
我们的研究提供了有关美国商业健康计划相对于其参考产品对生物类似物覆盖范围相关因素的新见解。癌症治疗、儿科人群以及参考产品的覆盖范围限制是与生物类似物覆盖范围决策最相关的一些重要因素。