Biosimilar G-CSF Implementation & lessons learnt Kashyap Thakrar Lead Formulary & Medicines Management Pharmacist University College London Hospitals (UCLH), London, UK Presentation My role G-CSF pan-London therapeutic tender Therapeutic rationalization examples Implementation strategy London Procurement Plan (LPP) Overcoming resistance NCL JFC Results & Benefits Barriers to implementation Look to the future Q&A My role Lead F&MM Pharmacist, UCLH DTC & NCL JFC Formulary QIPP Competitive tenders, branded medicines Publications Editor UCL Injectable guide MSc Health Economics QIPP = Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention Role of NICE (National Institute for Health & Care Excellence) NICE Technological appraisal Biosimilar statement Role of local DTCs JFCs Local formularies QIPP Re-imbursement of medicines NHSE = National Health Service England JFC = Joint Formulary Committee DTC = Drugs & Therapeutics Committee Re-imbursement of medicines Medicine In-tariff Local hospital NHSE = National Health Service England Ex-tariff NHSE CCGE = Clinical Commissioning Group Local CCG London procurement programme London procurement programme £5.5 billion spend on goods and services* £2 billion on medicines = 20% of total England & Wales spend 15% annual inflation on medicine expenditure • Driven by new high-cost medicines and innovations Budgets capped Work with Trusts: £27 million saved on medicines alone in 4 years Royal Marsden Hospital Guy’s Hospital University College Hospital St Thomas’ Hospital Royal Free Hospital King’s College Hospital Therapeutic rationalization Therapeutic rationalization ideas Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) Botulinum A toxins Human growth hormones – Biosimilar Omnitrope® Therapeutic rationalization GCSF – Biosimilar Zarzio® Epoetins – Biosimilar Binocrit® Infliximab - Biosimilar ® Systemic antifungals Tissue sealants GCSF pan-London therapeutic tender GCSF therapeutic tender Competitive market High-cost high-volume products Pre-meet with all suppliers Therapeutic tender Matrix-based tender No local deals! Implementation strategy Implementation strategy Communication Local assistance & protocol change Monthly tracking Implementation RAG rating and hierarchical standings Identifying and learning from model Trusts Targeting poor performers Cost savings data Barriers to implementation Barriers to implementation Requirement for local-decision making Clinical data “push-backs” • Data 1: Biosimilar misinformation • Data 2: Healthy volunteers • Data 3: Stem-cell mobilisation • Data 4: Neulasta® and febrile neutropenia rates Neulasta® convenience (and perceived cost) advantage Originator support Lack of (hospital) financial incentives Electronic prescribing protocols (Chemocare) Chemocare® protocol changes Overcoming resistance Overcoming resistance NHS-industry partnership working One Neulasta® injection – niche position retained, Zarzio® -support package 6 Lack of (hospital) financial incentives – gainshare arrangements 2 1 Overcoming resistance 5 Data: Detailed evidence-based stakeholder discussions, costminimisation analysis of Zarzio® vs. Neulasta® 3 4 Originator support – identification and channelling of savings Electronic prescribing protocols – master protocol change/support Results Implementation of daily G-CSF therapeutic tender (1): Zarzio® vs Granocyte® Implementation of daily G-CSF therapeutic tender (2): Zarzio® vs Granocyte® UCLH daily GCSF Volumes 1600 1400 1200 1000 Zarzio 800 Granocyte 600 400 200 0 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Implementation of G-CSF therapeutic tender: long-acting (Neulasta®) Implementation of daily G-CSF (2): Zarzio® vs Neupogen® vs Granocyte® Volumes London implementation of daily G-CSF tender (1): Savings £1 000 000 annual net save despite increased usage £3.3 million £2.3 million £3.5 million cost save achievable if 100% daily G-CSF & 80% Neulasta® switch to Zarzio® London implementation of G-CSF therapeutic tender: long-acting (Neulasta®) NHS London Pegfilgrstim Volum es 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 Mar12 Apr12 May12 Jun- Jul-12 Aug12 12 Sep12 Oct12 Nov12 Dec12 Jan13 Feb13 Mar13 Apr13 East of England implementation Rapid uptake of biosimilar G-CSF in UK • Biosimilar G-CSF has 83% volume share1 • 40% increase in daily G-CSF volume usage since biosimilars launched2 • Clinicians are beginning to see the benefit of reduced costs to reinvest in novel cancer therapies 1 IMS, Dec 2011; 2 IMS, Sept 2008 vs Dec 2011 Cost-savings through use of biosimilar G-CSF Annual savings achieved by London hospitals after switch to Zarzio® £2 000 000 (AUD 3 200 000) Estimated annual savings to European healthcare system €85 000 000 Benefits Benefits Benefits 1 Deliver against QIPP targets 2 Used to offset against workforce saving pressures 3 Increase access to new cancer therapies 4 Increase access to G-CSF Q&A
© Copyright 2024