Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
BioDrugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Finance report 2018. Basel: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; 2019.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cantini F, Benucci M. Focus on biosimilar etanercept - bioequivalence and interchangeability. Biologics. 2018;12:87–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Geynisman DM, Velasco GD, Sewell KL, Jacobs I. Biosimilar biologic drugs: a new frontier in medical care. Postgrad Med. 2017;129:460–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boku N. HER2-positive gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-013-0252-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. The World Bank. Population. 2017. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. Accessed 15 Sep 2018.

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. European Commission. European Cancer Information System. 2017. https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 10 Aug 2018.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Blackstone EA, Fuhr JP. The economics of biosimilars. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(8):469–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Simoens S. A review of generic medicine pricing in Europe. GaBI J. 2012;1(1):8–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jelkmann W. Biosimilar epoetins and other ‘‘follow-on’’ biologics: update on the European experiences. Am J Hematol. 2010;85:771–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Henry D, Taylor C. Pharmacoeconomics of cancer therapies : considerations with the introduction of biosimilars. Semin Oncol. 2014;41:S13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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 information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong-Churl Suh.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, SM., Jung, JH., Suh, D. et al. Budget Impact of Switching to Biosimilar Trastuzumab (CT-P6) for the Treatment of Breast Cancer and Gastric Cancer in 28 European Countries. BioDrugs 33, 423–436 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-019-00359-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-019-00359-0

Navigation