BioTrends Research Group Forecasts Relatively Rapid Uptake of Biosimilar Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factors (G-CSFs) – By 2021 Biosimilar Sales of G-CSFs are Expected to Reach $1.8 Billion Across the Seven Major Pharmaceutical Markets
October 25, 2012 - Exton, Penn
– BioTrends Research Group, one of the world’s leading research and advisory firms for specialized biopharmaceutical issues, finds that surveyed oncologists expect to take a more cautious approach toward prescribing biosimilar monoclonal antibodies initially compared with biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and biosimilar G-CSFs. According to Biosimilars Advisory Service: Physician Perspectives on Biosimilar G-CSFs and Monoclonal Antibodies in Oncology
, between 20-33 percent of French, 30-33 percent of German, and 42-45 percent of US medical oncologists say that they will initially have a wait-and-see attitude toward adoption of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. Despite initial hesitancy to prescribe biosimilar monoclonal antibodies, the market opportunity for biosimilar versions of rituximab, trastuzumab, cetuximab, and bevacizumab are forecast to exceed $4.9 billion in 2021.
“74-80 percent of surveyed US oncologists expect to prescribe biosimilar G-CSFs and ESAs within one year of launch,” said Biosimilars Advisory Services’ Director, Andrew Merron, Ph.D. “However, only 54-61 percent of surveyed US oncologists expect to prescribe a biosimilar monoclonal antibody within the same time frame.”
Surveyed US oncologists’ familiarity with biosimilars has grown year-on-year since 2010. Across the United States and the European markets evaluated in this study, the majority of surveyed medical oncologists and hematologist-oncologists are at least moderately familiar with biosimilars, but surveyed German oncologists are more familiar with biosimilars compared with their French or US colleagues.
Survey results also indicate that if subcutaneous rituximab (MabThera) is priced at the same level as IV MabThera, and biosimilar IV rituximab is priced 10 percent less, the majority of French and German hematologist-oncologists would select subcutaneous rituximab instead of the biosimilar in the maintenance setting for follicular lymphoma. However, surveyed hematologist-oncologists’ preferred rituximab agent varies by treatment setting, and shifts dramatically under different price points for subcutaneous and biosimilar rituximab agents.
We surveyed 185 oncologists in the United States, France, and Germany, respondents were also questioned on many other topics which are pivotal to understanding the current and future uptake of biosimilars, including their concerns about biosimilars, drivers and constrainers of adoption, views on indication extrapolation, opinions on automatic substitution, attitudes towards reimbursement, and the clinical trial requirements for biosimilars.
These findings are from the Biosimilars Advisory Service which provides insight and analysis which is vital to successful business planning in the rapidly evolving biosimilars space. The service includes quarterly webinars detailing major developments, analyst insight addressing key market changes and opportunities, therapeutic area-specific primary research, and interactive annualized 10-year forecasts.