Although the literature on best-practices to implement educational initiatives for biosimilars is abundant [3], little is known about how to best implement benefit-sharing programmes and in what settings. Benefit-sharing programmes are incentive schemes established through multistakeholder collaboration (health authorities/payers/insurers, hospital financial departments, healthcare professionals) to generate consensus around the broad societal value offered by biosimilars and to support the prescription of BVB. The goal of these programmes is to generate savings that can be shared among the stakeholders involved, and that can be reinvested to increase patients’ access to treatments, improve quality of care and fund innovation [4].

To address knowledge gaps regarding the conduct of benefit-sharing programmes in the field of biologicals, author Teresa Barcina Lacosta and colleagues investigated benefit-sharing experiences across Europe [5]. The authors carried out a literature review and performed a series of semi-structured interviews with experts involved in benefit-sharing programmes (Ireland, Portugal, the UK, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania). According to this research, it is important for future benefit-sharing implementers to adapt the design/implementation of these programmes to the specific regulatory and political environment of the country, and to the characteristics of the healthcare system and the clinical setting. In some cases, e.g. if the savings potential associated with the use of BVB is low, it may not be economically feasible for the payer to apply benefit-sharing approaches.

Despite the variable design characteristics of the studied benefit-sharing cases and the different implementation environments, the authors detected a generalized lack of transparency regarding:
1. The outcomes achieved via benefit-sharing
2. The distribution and reinvestment of savings
3. How patients’ participation in benefit-sharing programmes specifically improved their care

Notwithstanding these challenges, the implementation of benefit-sharing initiatives can help align differing stakeholders’ views regarding the value of biosimilars and support the rational and cost-effective prescribing of biologicals. To minimize the limitations associated with the implementation of benefit-sharing programmes, careful planning and monitored execution are required. With this in mind, Barcina et al., formulated a series of recommendations to unlock the potential of benefit-sharing programmes implemented in the future, see Table 1.

Conflict of interest
The authors of the research paper [5] reported conflict of interest, including being a founder of the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL), as well as being involved in a stakeholder roundtable, having participated in advisory board meetings and having contributed to studies on biologicals and biosimilars. For full details of the authors’ conflict of interest, see the research paper [5].

Abstracted by Teresa Barcina Lacosta, PhD Researcher, Market Dynamics and Sustainability of Off-Patent Biologics and Biosimilar Medicines, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Editor’s comment
Readers interested to learn more about policies to encourage the use of biosimilars are invited to visit www.gabi-journal.net to view the following manuscript published in GaBI Journal:

Can local policies on biosimilars optimize the use of freed resources – experiences from Italy

GaBI Journal is indexed in Embase, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index and more.

Readers interested in contributing a research or perspective paper to GaBI Journal – an independent, peer reviewed academic journal – please send us your submission here.

GaBI Journal Citation Impact
2.2 – CiteScore 2021 (calculated on 5 May 2022)
2.3 – CiteScoreTracker 2022 (Last updated on 6 June 2022)

Submit a manuscript to GaBI Journal

Related articles
Targets and incentives to encourage use of biosimilars

The cost-effectiveness of biosimilars

References
1. Razanskaite V, Bettey M, Downey L, et al. Biosimilar infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease: outcomes of a managed switching programme. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(6):690-6.
2. Moorkens E, et al. Learnings from regional market dynamics of originator and biosimilar infliximab and etanercept in Germany. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2020;13(10):324.
3. Vandenplas Y, Simoens S, Van Wilder P, et al. Informing patients about biosimilar medicines: the role of European patient associations. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2021;14(2):117.
4. Duggan B, Smith A, Barry M. Uptake of biosimilars for TNF-α inhibitors adalimumab and etanercept following the best-value biological medicine initiative in Ireland. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021;43(5):1251-6.
5. Barcina Lacosta T, et al. Qualitative analysis of the design and implementation of benefit-sharing programs for biologics across Europe. BioDrugs. 2022;36(2):217-29.

Permission granted to reproduce for personal and non-commercial use only. All other reproduction, copy or reprinting of all or part of any ‘Content’ found on this website is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of the publisher. Contact the publisher to obtain permission before redistributing.

Copyright – Unless otherwise stated all contents of this website are © 2022 Pro Pharma Communications International. All Rights Reserved.