Roche's MabThera continues to dwarf recently launched monoclonal antibodies: Report

Decision Resources, one of the world's leading research and advisory firms for pharmaceutical and healthcare issues, finds that, for the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 41 percent of surveyed European hematologist-oncologists say that the favorable efficacy profile of Roche's MabThera (rituximab) is the most significant driver of their use of this brand, while 26 percent say MabThera's favorable risk-benefit profile is the most significant driver.

The new European Physician & Payer Forum report entitled Will Emerging MAbs Threaten MabThera's Domination of the Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Markets in Europe? Clinician and Payer Perspectives finds that sales of MabThera, which was first marketed more than a decade ago, continue to dwarf those of more recently launched monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) such as Genzyme's MabCampath and Bayer's Zevalin. When asked what safety/toxicity improvements over MabThera would carry the most weight in convincing prescribers to switch from MabThera to a novel MAb, the largest group of surveyed clinicians in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom (EU5) cite concern about the rate of infections, although many are satisfied with the safety of MabThera.

"Thirty seven percent of surveyed European hematologist-oncologists say that an improvement in the rate of infections would carry the most weight, while 20 percent of surveyed clinicians cite concern about the rate of neutropenia," said Decision Resources Analyst Andrew Merron, Ph.D. "However, more than one-quarter of surveyed European hematologist-oncologists say that all side effects associated with MabThera are manageable."

The report also finds that emerging MAbs will not only face competition from MabThera in the EU5 markets but also from biosimilar rituximab. In the United Kingdom, interviewed payers expect that biosimilars will be used in preference to the brand if the price differences are favorable and efficacy/safety are the same as the brand.

The report is based on a survey of 251 hematologist-oncologists from Germany (52), France (50), Italy (49), Spain (50) and the United Kingdom (50) and interviews with 15 European payers from Germany (3), France (3), Italy (3), Spain (3) and the United Kingdom (3).