Advertisement

BioDrugs

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries

  • Seung-Mi Lee
  • Jae-Ho Jung
  • David Suh
  • Yu-Seon Jung
  • Seung-Lai Yoo
  • Dong-Won Kim
  • Ji-An Kim
  • Dong-Churl SuhEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

As the economic burden of treating cancer patients has been soaring in European countries, performing a budget impact analysis is becoming one of the requirements for payers’ application dossiers.

Objective

The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of introducing the biosimilar trastuzumab (CT-P6) from the payer’s perspective and to determine the number of additional patients who could be treated with resulting savings in 28 European countries.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the financial impact of switching from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer and metastatic gastric cancer with a time horizon of 1–5 years. Budgetary savings and the number of patients potentially affected were measured based on epidemiological and sales volume data. The base-case analysis assumed that the price of CT-P6 is 70% of the originator price, the switching rate of originator to CT-P6 in the first year is 20%, and the annual growth in the switching rate for each subsequent year is 5%.

Results

For analyses using the base-case scenario following CT-P6 introduction, the total estimated budgetary savings over a 5-year period (depending on the scenario) ranged from €1.13 billion to €2.27 billion based on epidemiological data, or from €0.91 billion to €1.82 billion based on sales volume data. In the first year only, the projected budgetary savings ranged from €58 million to €136 million, and the number of additional patients who could be treated using the savings ranged from 3503 to 7078 by sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

The conducted budget impact analysis assessing a switch from originator trastuzumab to biosimilar CT-P6 in 28 European countries indicates that budget savings could be between €0.91 billion and €2.27 billion over the next 5 years. These savings could be used to help improve patient access to local biologics in their respective countries while simultaneously strengthening the overall public health landscape across the European Union.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Gil-Hwan Lew for the study design and data collection and analysis in the early stages of this study. Editorial support (which included editing and styling an advanced draft provided by the authors) was provided by Emma Evans PhD at Aspire Scientific (Bollington, UK).

Author Contributions

S.-M. Lee and J.-H. Jung contributed equally to the study design, statistical analysis, and manuscript development under the guidance of D.-C. Suh. D. Suh, Y.-S. Jung, S.-L. Yoo, D.-W. Kim, and J.-A. Kim contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data and were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. All authors have approved the submitted version to be published and agree to be accountable for aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The sponsor was not involved in the study design or in the analysis and interpretation of the data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University research grant in 2019. This study was partially funded by a research grant including editorial support from Celltrion Healthcare Co., Ltd. (Incheon, Republic of Korea).

Conflict of Interest

S.-M. Lee, J.-H. Jung, D. Suh, Y.-S. Jung, S.-L. Yoo, D.-W. Kim, J.-A. Kim, and D.-C. Suh declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Akinyemiju TF, Al Lami FH, Alam T, Alizadeh-Navaei R, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(11):1553–68.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jonsson B, Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Wilking N. The cost and burden of cancer in the European Union 1995–2014. Eur J Cancer. 2016;66:162–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tabernero J, Vyas M, Giuliani R, Arnold D, Cardoso F, Casali PG, et al. Biosimilars: a position paper of the European Society for Medical Oncology, with particular reference to oncology prescribers. ESMO Open. 2016;1(6):e000142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Finance report 2018. Basel: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; 2019.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prasad V, Wang RB, Afifi SH, Mailankody S. The rising price of cancer drugs-a new old problem? JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):277–8.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly RJ, Smith TJ. Delivering maximum clinical benefit at an affordable price: engaging stakeholders in cancer care. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):E112–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70578-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howard DH, Bach PB, Berndt ER, Conti RM. Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs. J Econ Perspect. 2015;29(1):139–62.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baji P, Pentek M, Szanto S, Geher P, Gulacsi L, Balogh O, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab and other biological treatments in ankylosing spondylitis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:S45–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0593-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komaki Y, Yamada A, Komaki F, Kudaravalli P, Micic D, Ido A, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of biosimilars of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents in rheumatic diseases; a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autoimmun. 2017;79:4–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2017.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Komaki Y, Yamada A, Komaki F, Micic D, Ido A, Sakuraba A. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy and safety of CT-P13, a biosimilar of anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agent (infliximab), in inflammatory bowel diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;45(8):1043–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cantini F, Benucci M. Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability. Biologics. 2018;12:87–95.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geynisman DM, Velasco GD, Sewell KL, Jacobs I. Biosimilar biologic drugs: a new frontier in medical care. Postgrad Med. 2017;129:460–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiland P, Batko B, Brzosko M, Kucharz EJ, Samborski W, Świerkot J, et al. Biosimilar switching - current state of knowledge. Reumatologia. 2018;56(4):234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jørgensen KK, Olsen IC, Goll GL, Lorentzen M, Bolstad N, Haavardsholm EA, et al. Switching from originator infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 compared with maintained treatment with originator infliximab (NOR-SWITCH): a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017;389:2304–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiménez-Pichardo L, Gázquez-Pérez R, Sierra-Sánchez JF. Degree of prescriber’s knowledge about variability in biological drugs “innovators” in manufacturing process. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74(4):505–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brodszky V, Baji P, Balogh O, Pentek M. Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:S65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gulacsi L, Brodszky V, Baji P, Rencz F, Pentek M. The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatology and cancer: a budget impact analysis in 28 European countries. Adv Ther. 2017;34:1128–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aapro M, Conres P, Sun D, Abraham I. Comparative cost efficiency across the European G5 countries of originators and a biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent to manage chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2012;4(3):95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abraham I, Han L, Sun D, MacDonald K, Aapro M. Cost savings from anemia management with biosimilar epoetin alfa and increased access to targeted antineoplastic treatment: a simulation for the EU G5 countries. Future Oncol. 2014;10(9):1599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horbrand F, Rottenkolber D, Fischaleck J, Hasford J. Erythropoietin-induced treatment costs in patients suffering from renal anemia - a comparison between biosimilar and originator drugs. Gesundheitswesen. 2014;76(11):e79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1361111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matusewicz W, Godman B, Pedersen HB, Fürst J, Gulbinovič J, Mack A, et al. Improving the managed introduction of new medicines: sharing experiences to aid authorities across Europe. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15:755–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burstein HJ, Schrag D. Biosimilar therapy for ERBB2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer: close enough? JAMA. 2017;317(1):30–2.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.18979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boku N. HER2-positive gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-013-0252-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer CE Jr, Davidson NE, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1673–84.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer (version 2). 2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2017.
  26. 26.
    Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, Aapro M, Andre F, Barrios CH, et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3). Breast. 2017;31:244–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smyth EC, Verheij M, Allum W, Cunningham D, Cervantes A, Arnold D, et al. Gastric cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl 5):v38–49.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Esteva FJ, Stebbing J, Wood-Horrall RN, Winkle PJ, Lee SY, Lee SJ. A randomised trial comparing the pharmacokinetics and safety of the biosimilar CT-P6 with reference trastuzumab. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018;81(3):505–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-017-3510-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Im YH, Odarchenko P, Grecea D, Komov D, Anatoliy CV, Gupta S, et al. Double-blind, randomized, parallel group, phase III study to demonstrate equivalent efficacy and comparable safety of CT-P6 and trastuzumab, both in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) as first-line treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stebbing J, Baranau Y, Baryash V. CT-P6 compared with reference trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 equivalence trial (vol 18, pg 917, 2017). Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):E510-E.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stebbing J, Valerievich Y, Baryash BV, Manikhas A, Moiseyenko V, Dzagnidze G, et al. Double-blind, randomized phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of CT-P6, trastuzumab biosimilar candidate versus trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment in HER2 positive early breast cancer (EBC) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(15 Suppl):510.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orlewska E, Gulacsi L. Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(10):807–27.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11313770-000000000-00000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van de Vooren K, Duranti S, Curto A, Garattini L. A critical systematic review of budget impact analyses on drugs in the EU countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, Jaime Caro J, Lee KM, Minchin M, et al. Budget impact analysis—principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Eriksson I, Wettermark B, Persson M, Edstrom M, Godman B, Lindhe A, et al. The early awareness and alert system in Sweden: history and current status. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Faleiros DR, Alvare J, Almeida AM, Eloisa de Araujo V, Andrade EIG, Godman B, et al. Budget impact analysis of medicines: updated systematic review and implications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(2):257–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wettermark B, Persson ME, Wilking N, Kalin M, Korkmaz S, Hjemdahl P, et al. Forecasting drug utilization and expenditure in a metropolitan health region. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:128.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chalkidou K, Marquez P, Dhillon P, Teerawattananon Y, Anothaisintawee T, Gadelha CA, et al. Evidence-informed frameworks for cost-effective cancer care and prevention in low, middle, and high-income countries. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):e119-31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70547-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Godman B, Bucsics A, Vella Bonanno P, Oortwijn W, Rothe CC, Ferrario A, et al. Barriers for access to new medicines: searching for the balance between rising costs and limited budgets. Front Publ Health. 2018;6:328.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cancer Research UK. Statistics by cancer type. 2017. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type. Accessed 15 Sep 2018.
  41. 41.
    The World Bank. Population. 2017. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Accessed 15 Sep 2018.
  42. 42.
    Walpole SC, Prieto-Merion D, Edwards P, Cleland J, Stevens G, Roberts L. The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:439. https://doi.org/http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/439.
  43. 43.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bray F, Ren JS, Masuyer E, Ferlay J. Global estimates of cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(5):1133–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    European Commission. European Cancer Information System. 2017. https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.
  46. 46.
    Ross JS, Slodkowska EA, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Ravdin PM, Hortobagyi GN. The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine. Oncologist. 2009;14(4):320–68.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pathmanathan N, Geng JS, Li W, Nie X, Veloso J, Hill J, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status of breast cancer patients in Asia: results from a large, multicountry study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016;12(4):369–79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Koopman T, Smits MM, Louwen M, Hage M, Boot H, Imholz AL. HER2 positivity in gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma: clinicopathological analysis and comparison. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141(8):1343–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-014-1900-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pathmanathan N, Geng JS, Li W, Nie X, Veloso J, Wang J, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status of gastric cancer patients in Asia: results from a large, multicountry study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2017;13(3):249–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bang Y, Chung H, Sawaki A, Xu J, Shen L, Lipatov O, et al. HER2-positivity rates in advanced gastric cancer (GC): results from a large international phase III trial [abstract]. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15 Suppl):4526.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.4526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Blackstone EA, Fuhr JP. The economics of biosimilars. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(8):469–78.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vogler S, Schneider P. Do pricing and usage-enhancing policies differ between biosimilars and generics? Findings from an international survey. GaBI J. 2017;6(2):79–88.  https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2017.0602.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, et al. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):783–92.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200103153441101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inoue K, Nakagami K, Mizutani M, Hozumi Y, Fujiwara Y, Masuda N, et al. Randomized phase III trial of trastuzumab monotherapy followed by trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus trastuzumab plus docetaxel as first-line therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: the JO17360 Trial Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(1):127–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0498-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lang I, Bell R, Feng FY, Lopez RI, Jassem J, Semiglazov V, et al. Trastuzumab retreatment after relapse on adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: final results of the Retreatment after HErceptin Adjuvant trial. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014;26(2):81–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2013.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bang YJ, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, Chung HC, Shen L, Sawaki A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9742):687–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61121-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cesarec A, Likie R. Budget impact analysis of biosimilar trastuzumab for the treatmennt of breast cancer in Croatia. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15:277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jha A, Upton A, Dunlop WC, Akehurst R. The budget impact of biosimilar infliximab (Remsima®) for the treatment of autoimmune diseases in five European countries. Adv Ther. 2015;32:742–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Severs M, Oldenburg B, van Bodegraven A, Siersema P, Mangen M. The economic impact of the introduction of biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11:289–96.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I, Dylst P, Godman B, Keuerleber S, et al. Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: an overview. PLoSONE. 2017;12(12):e0190147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Leopold C, Vogler S, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, de Joncheere K, Leufkens HG, Laing R. Differences in external price referencing in Europe: a descriptive overview. Health Policy. 2012;104(1):50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Godman B, Shrank W, Wettermark B, Andersen M, Bishop I, Burkhardt T, et al. Use of generics-a critical cost containment measure for all healthcare professionals in Europe? Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2010;3(8):2470–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Simoens S. A review of generic medicine pricing in Europe. GaBI J. 2012;1(1):8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Jelkmann W. Biosimilar epoetins and other ‘‘follow-on’’ biologics: update on the European experiences. Am J Hematol. 2010;85:771–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schiestl M, Krendyukov A. The ESMO position position paper on biosimilars in oncology: enhancing the provision of accurate education and information. ESMO Open. 2017;2(3):e000245.  https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    European Medicines Agency and European Commission. Biosimilars in the EU: information guide for healthcare professionals. 2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Leaflet/2017/05/WC500226648.pdf. Accessed 10 Mar 2018.
  67. 67.
    O’Callaghan J, Bermingham M, Leonard M, Hallinan F, Morris JM, Moore U, et al. Assessing awareness and attitudes of healthcare professionals on the use of biosimilar medicines: a survey of physicians and pharmacists in Ireland. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;88:252–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hemmington A, Dalbeth N, Jarrett P, Fraser AG, Broom R, Browett P, et al. Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars. Pharmacoepidem Drug Saf. 2017;26:570–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Godman B, Shrank W, Andersen M, Berg C, Bishop I, Burkhardt T, et al. Comparing policies to enhance prescribing efficiency in Europe through increasing generic utilization: changes seen and global implications. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;6:707–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I, Dylst P, Godman B, Keuerleber S, et al. Policies for biosimilar uptake in Europe: an overview. PLoS One. 2017;12(12):e0190147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kostić M, Djakovic L, Šujić R, Godman B, Janković SM. Inflammatory bowel diseases (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis): cost of treatment in Serbia and the implications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(1):85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Putrik P, Ramiro S, Kvien TK, Sokka T, Pavlova M, Uhlig T, et al. Inequities in access to biologic and synthetic DMARDs across 46 European countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(1):198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Burcombe R, Chan S, Simcock R, Samanta K, Percival F, Barrett-Lee P. Subcutaneous trastuzumab (Herceptin): a UK time and motion study in comparison with intravenous formulation for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Adv Breast Cancer Res. 2013;2:133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tjalma WAA, Van de Mooter T, Mertens T, Bastiaens V, Huizing MT, Papadimitriou K. Subcutaneous trastuzumab (Herceptin) versus intravenous trastuzumab for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: a time, motion and cost assessment study in a lean operating day care oncology unit. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;221:46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Simoens S, Jacobs I, Popovian R, Isakov L, Shane LG. Assessing the value of biosimilars: a review of the role of budget impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(10):1047–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Henry D, Taylor C. Pharmacoeconomics of cancer therapies : considerations with the introduction of biosimilars. Semin Oncol. 2014;41:S13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of PharmacyChung-Ang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Mailman School of Public HealthColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations