PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Biosimilars offer the potential for cost savings and expanded access to biologic products; however, there are concerns regarding the rate of biosimilar uptake. We assessed the relationship between biosimilar and originator pricing, coverage, and market share by describing four case studies that fall into two categories: (1) sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred; biosimilar(s) non-preferred), defined as steep average sales price (ASP) reductions for originator products (decline in net prices by at least 50% following the introduction of biosimilar competition by 2022) and (2) non-sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred alongside biosimilar products), defined as moderate ASP reductions for originator products with (net prices did not decline by at least 50% of its pre-biosimilar competition value). We found that originators with sole preferred coverage strategies maintained formulary preference and market share relative to originators with non-sole preferred coverage strategies. Regardless of strategy, the market-weighted ASP for all four product families (originator and biosimilars) declined significantly in the years following the introduction of biosimilars, suggesting that biosimilar uptake alone may not be a complete measure of whether the biosimilar market is facilitating competition and lowering prices.
摘要：
生物仿制药提供了节省成本和扩大获取生物产品的潜力；然而，人们对生物仿制药的摄取率感到担忧。我们评估了生物仿制药和发起人定价之间的关系，覆盖范围，通过描述分为两类的四个案例研究和市场份额：(1)唯一优先覆盖策略(即，目标是首选发起人产品；非首选生物仿制药)，定义为发起人产品的平均销售价格(ASP)大幅降低(到2022年引入生物仿制药竞争后净价下降至少50%)和(2)非唯一优先覆盖战略(即，目标是让发起人产品与生物类似产品一起优先使用)，定义为鼻祖产品的ASP适度降低(净价至少没有下降其生物仿制药竞争前价值的50%)。我们发现，相对于具有非唯一优先覆盖策略的发起人，具有唯一优先覆盖策略的发起人保持了处方集偏好和市场份额。不管策略如何,在引入生物仿制药之后的几年中，所有四个产品系列（原始产品和生物仿制药）的市场加权ASP显着下降，这表明，单独的生物仿制药吸收可能并不能完全衡量生物仿制药市场是否促进竞争和降低价格。
