Exploring the Global Impact of Biosimilars in Cancer Treatment


As the cost of cancer therapies continues to increase, the cancer community is looking to biosimilars as a potential alternative for treatment; however, experts wonder if factors besides cost need to be taken in to consideration.

As the cost of cancer therapies continues to increase, the cancer community is looking to biosimilars as a potential alternative for treatment; however, experts wonder if factors besides cost need to be taken in to consideration.

For example, researchers need a better benchmark for what is said to be “clinically meaningful” in order to focus on the cost-effective treatment options with the greatest benefit, according to Sunil Verma, MD.

“We need to set up structures to assess things like overall response and other important data so we can ultimately provide the best possible treatment,” added Verma, professor and head of the Department of Oncology at the University of Calgary, and medical director of the Tom Baker Cancer Centre.

In an interview with OncLive®, a sister publication of Oncology Nursing News®, Verma offered insight in to the benefits and unanswered questions that remain about biosimilars in oncology.

What impact would the implementation of biosimilars have?

There are a couple aspects to look at when we talk about global impact. One would be the cost of care. The second would be the integration of these new agents. In terms of cost of care, introducing biosimilars would reduce the burden of cost that's becoming an issue all over the world. This is especially true for biologic agents in cancer. The numbers [for biosimilar costs] are quite durable between what we've seen in North America and what we see across to Europe. Depending on what kind of cost reductions we get, this would have a significant impact.

The secondary impact would be our ability to then shift these walls and integrate these new therapies, so people can have access to them. We have to look at it in a way that allows any patient with cancer to have the option of a number of new, innovative treatments. If this comes to be, and we see an improvement in patient outcomes, that would be great for oncology. We're hoping this will be the case.

Why might there still be skepticism regarding biosimilars?

Mainly, the skepticism is that it remains to be seen what the cost reduction would look like. It is [unknown] how we are going to be able to collect real-world evidence to measure the integration of biosimilars. This has not been fully assessed yet. Also, there is skepticism because biosimilars would essentially replace therapies that have been providing significant clinical value to our patients. Any time you introduce a change, there's always this healthy doubt. Patients and oncologists want to be absolutely sure something works before they use it. Therefore, we need to make sure we're implementing new agents that are doing what they're labeled to do—and that is reducing cost and providing similar clinical benefit.

Do drug manufacturers pose a challenge in terms of implementing a more cost-driven solution?

It's hard to know. There will certainly be a competitive threat any time you want to introduce a new biosimilar. It is hard to say what this could mean for the drug companies, especially if a biosimilar could devalue one of their brands. In the clinical realm, we need to be supportive of methods that will lead to cost reduction. We need to have innovation in mind as the most important thing. Would biosimilars lead to greater innovation? That's something we still have to decide. One dogma might be that biosimilars would be stemming innovation just because they're driving down costs. I would argue that it would create greater innovation if we can divert some of those dollars to other newer therapies.

If the cost of treatment continues to rise, is the field of oncology sustainable without biosimilars?

It's a very provocative question. I would like to think that the field of oncology has a bright road ahead. The interest and investment that exists both from the industry, researchers, patients, and academia will lead to better therapy. The only way we can sustain and accelerate this is to address cost. Biosimilars would be one element, but it's not the only element. It's part of the approach.

A version of this article was originally published by OncLive® as Expert Highlights Evolution of Biosimilars in Oncology.

Related Videos
Meaghan Mooney, B.S.N., RN, OCN, during the Extraordinary Healer interview
Colleen O’Leary, DNP, RN, AOCNS, EBP-C, LSSYB, in an interview with Oncology Nursing News.
Michelle H. Johann, DNP, RN, PHN, CPAN, WTA, in an interview with Oncology Nursing News explaining surgical path cards
Jessica MacIntyre, DNP, MBA, APRN, NP-C, AOCNP, in an interview with Oncology Nursing News
Andrea Wagner, M.S.N., RN, OCN, in an interview with Oncology Nursing News discussing her abstract on verbal orders for CRS.
John Rodriguez in an interview with Oncology Nursing News discussing his abstract on reducing nurse burnout
Alison Tray, of Hartford Healthcare, discusses her team's research on a multidisciplinary team approach to manage the cancer drug shortage
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.