Health economics of market access for biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars

References

• Young FE. Biotechnology: the view from the FDA. Health Matrix 1986;4:10-15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nagle PC, Lugo TF, Nicita CA. Defining and characterizing the late-stage biopharmaceutical pipeline. Am J Manag Care 2003;9: S124-135.
   Google Scholar
• IMS Health. IMS lifecycle R&D focus. London: IMS Health, 2007
   Google Scholar
• Simon F. Market access for biopharmaceuticals: new challenges. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:1363-70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IMS Health. IMS MIDAS Therapy forecaster, market insights. London: IMS Health, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Morrow T, Penna P. Managing the expanded use of biologics across therapeutic areas: an example from b-cell targeted therapies. Am J Manag Care 2006;12:S24-37.
   Google Scholar
• Staginnus U. Health economics in the era of biologics. London 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Mellstedt H, Niederwieser D, Ludwig H. The challenge of biosimilars. Ann Oncol 2008;19:411-19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldham T. Strategies for entering the biosimilar market. In: Biosimilars – Evolution or Revolution? London: Biopharm Knowledge Publishing, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• DiMasi J, Grabowski H. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Managerial and Decision Economics 2007;28: 469-79.
   Google Scholar
• Mathieu M. Parexel's pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2004/2005. Waltham, MA: Parexel, 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski H. Follow-on biologics: data exclusivity and the balance between innovation and competition. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7:479-88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Regulation (EC) 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency. Official Journal of the European Union 2004;1(L 136/1 - L 136/33).
   Google Scholar
• European Generic Medicines Association. EGA Handbook on Biosimilar Medicines. Brussels: European Generic Medicines Association, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Report of Trastuzumab - scientific discussion. London: European Medicines Agency, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider CK, Schaffner-Dallmann G. Typical pitfalls in applications for marketing authorization of biotechnological products in Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7:893-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Report of Remicade - scientific discussion. London: European Medicines Agency, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Report of Natalizumab - scientific discussion. London: European Medicines Agency, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guideline on safety and efficacy follow-up - risk management of advanced therapy medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Danzon PM, Furukawa MF. Prices and availability of biopharmaceuticals: an international comparison. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:1353-62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Stolk E, Niezen M. The increasingly complex fourth hurdle for pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 2007;25: 727-34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines – similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health 2001;4:225-50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vernon JA, Johnson SJ, Hughen WK, et al. Economic and developmental considerations for pharmacogenomic technology. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:335-43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cook JP, Vernon JA, Manning R. Pharmaceutical risk-sharing agreements. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:551-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barham L. Multiple sclerosis risk-sharing: four years on. Pharma Pricing Reimbursement 2006;11:100-1.
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski H, Cockburn I, Long G. The market for follow-on biologics: how will it evolve? Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25: 1291-301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Guideline on similar biological medicinal products. London: European Medicines Agency, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines around the World. Lawrenceville, NJ: ISPOR, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Cleemput I, Van Wilder P, Vrijens F, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Belgium. Health technology assessment. Brussels: Belgian Healthcare Knowledge Centre, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Lyman GH, Dale DC, Crawford J. Incidence and predictors of low dose-intensity in adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: a nationwide study of community practices. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4524-31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingshead LM, Goa KL. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF). A review of its pharmacological properties and prospective role in neutropenic conditions. Drugs 1991;42:300-30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyman GH, Kuderer NM, Djulbegovic B. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients receiving dose-intensive cancer chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 2002;112:406-11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amgen. Neupogen prescribing information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Esser M, Brunner H. Economic evaluations of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Pharmacoeconomics 2003;21:1295-313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Medicines Agency. Assessment report for Filgrastim Ratiopharm. London: European Medicines Agency, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Siena S, Piccart MJ, Holmes FA, et al. A combined analysis of two pivotal randomized trials of a single dose of pegfilgrastim per chemotherapy cycle and daily Filgrastim in patients with stage II-IV breast cancer. Oncol Rep 2003;10:715-24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eldar-Lissai A, Cosler LE, Culakova E, et al. Economic analysis of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in adult cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Value Health 2008;11:172-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyman G, Lalla A, Barron R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:401-11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey S, Liu Z, Boer R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Value Health 2009;12:217-25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar