European Stakeholder Learnings Regarding Biosimilars: Part I-Improving Biosimilar Understanding and Adoption

Facilitators and barriers to generic and biosimilar medications in the Middle East and North Africa: insights from physicians and pharmacists-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The adoption of generic and biosimilar medications is crucial for improving healthcare accessibility and cost savings in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Understanding the factors that influence their acceptance is crucial for developing effective strategies for promoting their use.

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to examine the facilitators and barriers identified by healthcare professionals while prescribing and dispensing generic and biosimilar medications in the MENA region, focusing on their perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes.

METHODS

Following Cochrane guidelines and the "Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews," a comprehensive search of electronic databases and grey literature was conducted from 2012 to 2024. Studies assessing physicians' and pharmacists' perspectives on generics and biosimilars in the MENA region were included. Quality appraisal was performed using a standardized tool, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). The findings were synthesized using a descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 3570 screened citations, 39 met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 25 studies addressed facilitators and barriers to adopting generic medications, whereas 15 focused on biosimilars. Facilitators of generic medications included understanding the use of generics as cost-effective substitutes, supportive government policies, generic medication awareness, and pharmacists' empowerment to substitute medications. Barriers included knowledge gaps leading to distrust in efficacy and safety, the influence of pharmaceutical companies, cultural biases favoring brand name drugs, regulatory challenges, low consumer awareness, and concerns about pharmacists' profitability. Facilitators for biosimilars were mostly similar to generics, with an added emphasis on access benefit recognition when using biosimilars. Unique barriers included concerns about the lack of long-term safety data, hesitancy toward non-medical switching, and nocebo effect concerns. The quality assessment indicated that most studies were of moderate quality, with limitations such as sample size and representativeness, validity of the measurement tools, and potential biases of the researchers.

CONCLUSION

Significant knowledge gaps regarding regulatory approval, safety, and efficacy hinder the adoption of generic drugs and biosimilars in MENA. Targeted educational initiatives at the regulatory and payer levels are essential for bridging these gaps, enhancing awareness, and fostering acceptance. Implementing comprehensive educational programs for physicians and pharmacists is crucial to support the transition toward the greater use of generics and biosimilars.

Drawing on collective action theory to foster sustainable biosimilar markets - insights from co-creation workshops with UK and Belgian stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Research has signaled the need for reformed biosimilar policy frameworks that adopt a behavioral approach, are informed by consensus-generating strategies and thus better align with the requirements of local healthcare communities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Through a series of co-creation workshops, the current study explores the feasibility of applying learnings from Collective Action Theory to formulate evidence-based multistakeholder-supported policy recommendations.

RESULTS

Insights from the conducted workshops indicate that future policy frameworks would benefit from: 1) a working system of incentives and rewards aligned with stakeholder needs; 2) evaluating the cost-benefit balance for stakeholders prior to policy implementation; 3) involving multistakeholder panels in policy co-design; 4) adopting a long-term vision; 5) fostering coordination at the interface between levels of governance; 6) defining shared goals and efficient systems to monitor policy compliance; and 7) using policy outcome data to adapt current policy frameworks based on evolving needs. The incorporation of these elements to policies is expected to help prioritize long-term sustainable solutions, and balance short-term gains and long-term objectives in biosimilar markets.

CONCLUSIONS

This study constitutes a first approach to developing multistakeholder-supported principles for sustainable biosimilar markets. This is a necessary step toward generating stakeholders' consensus on biosimilar policies.

Competencies of nurses to participate in safe medication management practices for biologics: A scoping review

AIM

To review the existing literature relating to nurse competence in safe medication management practices for biologics, identify evidence, and develop a competency framework to clarify the role of nurses in these practices.

BACKGROUND

With the widespread use of biological agents in disease treatment, ensuring the safe and economical use of high-cost medicines is particularly important. Even though nurses are essential in patient care, detailed knowledge regarding their competence and role in the safe administration of biologics is lacking.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed following the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA ScR guidelines. Electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched using accepted keywords, and relevant articles were identified using inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 3,422 studies were retrieved, 24 of which were eligible for inclusion. The required competencies for nurses were summarized into six areas: clinical specialized knowledge, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, safe medication skills, health education skills, communication and coordination skills, and technological literacy.

CONCLUSION

We provide insights into the competencies of nurses involved in the safe medication management of biologics. These competencies can be used to assess the actual competency level of nurses and facilitate the maximization of biological treatment goals and outcomes. This plays a vital role in optimizing the use of healthcare resources and demonstrating outcomes.

Real world comparison of filgrastim to filgrastim-sndz in patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia

INTRODUCTION

There exists some apprehension by prescribers, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders regarding the real-world safety and effectiveness of biosimilars. While some of the apprehension is likely due to clinician knowledge gaps in the biosimilarity exercise, additional data (including those generated from the real-world) regarding safety and efficacy could reduce a clinician's perception of biosimilar uncertainty and can potentially increase biosimilar acceptance and uptake. The published literature is lacking regarding the real-world impact on healthcare costs and clinical outcomes when a single healthcare institution converts from filgrastim to filgrastim-sndz as its short-acting Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor (GCSF), especially within diverse populations and indications not explicitly studied through the registration trials. Specifically, both filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz possess FDA-approved indications within patients with hematologic malignancies receiving high-dose chemotherapy and in those undergoing bone marrow transplantation. As a biosimilar to filgrastim, the FDA did not require prospective, randomized controlled trials to obtain these indications for filgrastim-sndz. The purpose of this study is to describe real-world healthcare resource costs, utilization patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim to support neutrophil recovery following chemotherapy (i.e., induction or consolidation) or a bone marrow transplant (BMT) at Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH).

METHODS

A total of 148 patients were identified and met the following criteria: at least 18 years old, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2, absence of fever or infection, newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia or newly post-bone marrow transplant and received filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio®) or reference filgrastim (Neupogen®).

RESULTS

Healthcare resource utilization outcomes were compared between biosimilar and reference filgrastim using descriptive statistics. There were no major differences between either cohort, including duration of hospitalization, the number of overall emergency room visits and additional hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of febrile neutropenia or neutropenia within 30 days post-discharge from initial hospital admission, time to neutrophil recovery following GCSF support, and the incidence and duration of both fever and febrile neutropenia. The total cost based on treatment of all patients in each arm differed significantly with filgrastim-sndz being the most cost-effective choice.

CONCLUSION

filgrastim-sndz significantly reduced healthcare utilization costs compared to reference filgrastim with similar effect on absolute neutrophil count, incidence of fever, and febrile neutropenia.

Impact of Value-Driven Healthcare Strategies for Biosimilar Adoption: The Singapore Story

BACKGROUND

Healthcare sustainability is a global challenge. Various value-driven healthcare strategies have been implemented by Singapore's national health technology assessment (HTA) agency, the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). Considering the high and growing expenditure on biologics, strategies have been implemented to drive the use of biosimilars. As Singapore has reached the 5-year mark since the subsidy listing of the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar infliximab, this review aimed to evaluate the impact of these strategies on the changes in adoption rates, utilisation, spending and cost savings for biosimilars in the public healthcare sector.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using aggregated drug utilisation data from all public healthcare institutions. Five monoclonal antibodies with biosimilars, namely infliximab, adalimumab, trastuzumab, rituximab and bevacizumab, were included in this study. The outcomes evaluated were the monthly trends for utilisation volume, proportion attributed to biosimilar use, and drug spending up to December 2022. The simulated cost savings associated with biosimilar adoption were also reported.

RESULTS

After subsidy implementation, an upward trend in biosimilar use and proportion attributed to biosimilar adoption was observed, while spending reduced substantially. The adoption rate of most biosimilars reached more than 95% within 1 year of listing. Drugs with more than one approved biosimilar brand at the time of subsidy listing reported substantial price reductions of over 80%. Overall, spending for the five monoclonal antibodies have significantly reduced after biosimilar subsidy listing, with an estimated cumulative cost savings of $136 million over 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Value-driven healthcare strategies implemented in Singapore's public healthcare institutions have contributed to high adoption rates of biosimilars and have improved affordable access through lower treatment costs. This in turn has led to significant cost savings to the healthcare system.

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Obstacles to Biosimilar Acceptance and Uptake in Oncology: A Review

Importance

Biosimilar drugs provide cost-effective yet clinically indistinguishable replications of target drugs. During initial development, this class of biologic medicines was expected to revolutionize pharmaceutical markets; however, following US Food and Drug Administration approval of the first biosimilar drug in 2015, the commercialization of biosimilars has been limited. The lack of biosimilar use may be especially salient in oncology, given that biosimilar distribution in this particularly high-cost area of medicine would bring savings on the order of many billions of dollars.

Observations

While researchers have focused on salient economic barriers to biosimilar uptake in the US, the present review provides insight regarding noneconomic barriers. This review discusses psychological, attitudinal, and educational factors among both health care professionals and payers in the US that may play a role in slowing biosimilar uptake. More specifically, these factors include a lack of health care professional education, concerns of safety and efficacy, and overly complex product naming systems.

Conclusions and Relevance

The pathway to biosimilar use has been obstructed by economic elements as well as attitudinal and psychological factors. For biosimilar drugs to achieve their potential in decreasing treatment costs and thus increasing patient access, it will be essential for both economic and noneconomic factors to be identified and systematically addressed.

Barriers and Enablers Affecting the Uptake of Biosimilar Medicines Viewed Through the Lens of Actor Network Theory: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars represent an opportunity to realise savings against the costs of innovative medicines. Despite efforts made by stakeholders, there are numerous barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. To realise the promise of biosimilars reducing costs, barriers must be identified, understood, and overcome, and enablers magnified. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars through the application of a classification system to organise them into healthcare professional (HCP), patient, or systemic categories.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, eConlit, and Embase. Included were primary research studies published in English between Jan 2017 through June 2023 focused on enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars. Excluded studies comprised comparisons of biosimilar efficacy and safety versus the reference biologic. One reviewer extracted data that included classification of barriers or enablers, the sub-classification, and the identification of the degree of agency associated with the actor through their role and associations as a mediator within their network, through the application of Actor Network Theory. The data were validated by a second reviewer (PV).

RESULTS

Of the 94 studies included, 59 were cross-sectional, 20 were qualitative research, 12 were cohort studies, and three were economic evaluations. Within the review, 51 of the studies included HCP populations and 35 included patients. Policies and guidelines were the most cited group of enablers, overall. Systemic enablers were addressed in 29 studies. For patients, the most frequently cited enabler was positive framing of a biosimilar, while for HCPs, cost benefit was the most frequently noted enabler. The most frequently discussed systemic barrier to biosimilar acceptance was lack of effective policies or guidelines, followed by lack of financial incentives, while the most significant barriers for HCPs and patients, respectively, were their lack of general knowledge about biosimilars and concerns about safety and efficacy. Systemic actors and HCPs most frequently acted with broad degree of agency as mediators, while patient most frequently acted with a narrow degree of agency as mediators within their networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and enablers affecting uptake of biosimilars are interconnected within networks, and can be divided into systemic, HCP, and patient categories. Understanding the agency of actors within networks may allow for more comprehensive and effective approaches. Systemic enablers in the form of policies appear to be the most effective overall levers in affecting uptake of biosimilars, with policy makers advised to give careful consideration to appropriately educating HCPs and positively framing biosimilars for patients.

Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive, retrospective analysis of ETN market competition, specifically changes in tender price based on shifts in market monopoly, including the effects on cost evolution, in the off-patent market in Poland. We included a total of 473 tenders for ETN purchase in dedicated biologic drug reimbursement programs, covering both pre-filled syringes and automatic injectors. This study covers the timeframe from November 2017 to December 2023, throughout which we evaluated a unique setting of ETN market re-monopolization from the perspective of payer, hospital and patient benefits resulting from changing cost calculations.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, Erelzi was recorded as having the largest total tender volume (59%), with a mean price [per ETN daily defined dose (DDD)] of €7.28, followed by Enbrel (31%, €8.34) and Benepali (10%, €9.45), respectively. Over the last 6 months of waning market competition, the mean price for winning bids was estimated at €5.69. After market re-monopolization by an ETN biosimilar, the mean price of winning bids increased to €8.09, and continued to increase (€9.71) in the last 6 months of available follow-up. In contrast to the competitive era, no significant relationship between tender volume and winning price was recorded after re-monopolization. In the most recent tenders, mean ETN prices increased up to €15.82, nearly tripling the lowest prices of the competitive market period. In the early re-monopolization market, mean annual treatment cost per patient is estimated at over €3800, which exceeds therapy costs in the prior competitive market years, and is expected to increase to over €6200 based on the most recent tenders. On a healthcare system level, this corresponds to over €3.42 million excess costs due to market monopoly. Higher ETN prices resulted in downstream failure of regulatory incentives to promote affordable biologics. Due to higher pricing, hospitals lost over an estimated €2.52 million, with possible risk of treatment restrictions. For the same reason, the public payer achieved comparable savings, allowing for partial coverage of higher reimbursement expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

This nation-level scenario of market re-monopolization by a biosimilar drug confirms net loss and excess costs for the healthcare payer, as can be expected from economic theory. The upwards drug repricing and restriction of treatment availability occurs much more rapidly than the decrement in a period of market competition.

Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain

Market signals such as: (1) the limited number of biosimilars in the development pipeline, (2) the focus of biosimilar development on high-profit therapeutic areas only, and (3) the increase in the number of biosimilar discontinuations and withdrawals, are indicative of sustainability threats facing biosimilar markets in Europe. Two prominent factors that undermine sustainability are: competing interests between the various stakeholders and a preferential focus on short-term gains, disregarding future sustainability threats, hence the need for effective policies that create sustainable competition in biologic markets. Thus far, measures implemented to foster biosimilar adoption have not been necessarily complied with and have had mixed success. Further, these policies have not consistently led to improving access to affordable biologics. In this commentary, we aim to raise awareness of vulnerabilities of biosimilar markets and of difficulties relating to reaching an agreement on policy solutions with a long-term vision. We propose to build on knowledge from collective action theory to advance in reconciling stakeholder interests. This first-of-its-kind approach can inform long-term solutions for biosimilar markets.

Policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar uptake: a systematic review

Introduction

While biosimilar medicines can contribute to the sustainability of healthcare systems, their utilization rate varies across European countries. This study aims to identify and systematize policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar market share.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Medline-PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched using inclusion criteria that required full articles published in English between January 2006 and November 2023. Reviews, letters, reports, editorials and comments or opinion articles were excluded from this study.

Results

Of the 1,137 articles, only 13 met the eligibility criteria for analysis, which covered a total of 28 European countries. Pricing regulation measures were found in 27 of these countries with tendering, price-linkage and internal reference price being the most used. Tendering was used by 27 countries to procure biosimilars in inpatient setting. Prescribing guidelines and recommendations were the widely used instrument. Some European countries adopted physician incentives, quotas, and prescription by international non-proprietary name.

Conclusion

Automatic substitution was not commonly recommended or applied. Interchangeability and switching will become increasingly relevant issues. It is important that the positive results from some countries serve as an example for the future of these medicines in the European market.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/, Identifier INPLASY2023120032.

Biosimilar perceptions among autoimmune prescribers and pharmacists in health system specialty pharmacy

BACKGROUND

By the end of 2023, 10 self-administered biosimilars indicated for autoimmune conditions are expected to launch in the United States, resulting in alternative treatment options for patients and a potential for cost savings. However, studies about perception and knowledge of self-administered biosimilars among health system prescribers and health system specialty pharmacists are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assesses knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars among autoimmune prescribers and health system specialty pharmacists across the United States.

METHODS

An anonymous, cross-sectional self-administered online questionnaire was conducted among prescribers and health system specialty pharmacists practicing in the specialties of rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology across the United States. The survey was available from January 2023 to February 2023.

RESULTS

31 prescribers and 44 pharmacists completed the questionnaire. Only 16.0% of prescribers and 13.4% of pharmacists reported being "very prepared" to have conversations with patients about biosimilar options. 43% of prescribers indicated they would prescribe a biosimilar to biologic naive patients. However, 13.3% of prescribers would be willing to prescribe a biosimilar to patients successfully established on biologic therapy. Among pharmacists, 68.1% were comfortable recommending a biosimilar substitution to a biologic naive patient, but only 18.1% would recommend a biosimilar substitution to an existing patient successfully established on a biologic therapy. Less than half of prescribers (48.0%) and pharmacists (42.0%) understood regulations of interchangeability and substitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights several knowledge gaps and hesitancies that exist among health system specialty prescribers and pharmacists regarding biosimilar products. Education efforts are needed to overcome the lack of biosimilar adoption, which will increase affordability of therapy for patients and health care savings.

Knowledge and attitudes of German and Swiss community pharmacists towards biologicals and biosimilars - a prospective survey before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Knowledge, attitudes and substitution laws of biosimilars are not consistent across countries. Biosimilar acceptance among patients and healthcare professionals may be suffering from gaps in knowledge and understanding about biosimilars and their regulatory approval process. Pharmacists' roles and responsibilities changed considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, they might have gained new skills and self-confidence in counseling and substitution of biosimilars.

AIMS

To examine and compare the knowledge, perceptions and information needs of German and Swiss pharmacists regarding original biologicals and biosimilars in 2020 and 2022.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey among Swiss and German community pharmacies in February 2020 (before) and August 2022 (after the COVID-19 pandemic). Descriptive statistics were calculated and the Chi-Square test was used for comparisons among categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of 764 pharmacists took part in the survey (390 in 2020 and 374 in 2022) with comparable demographics. The frequency of dispensing biologicals remained similar between German and Swiss pharmacists in 2020 and 2022, but the Swiss dispensation of biosimilars increased significantly in 2022 compared to 2020. Concerning the understanding of the term biosimilars, knowledge remained moderate in both countries in both years. Participants were equally familiar with the term and most felt sufficiently informed. In both countries, substitution with a biosimilar showed the least confidence of all attitudes. A third of the participants indicated correct substitution rules in their country. In both years, around 85% of the participants were highly interested in additional training on this topic.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The results indicate that similarities and differences between Germany and Switzerland regarding knowledge and attitudes towards biologicals and biosimilars remained unchanged before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. An influence of the pandemic is unlikely. There is still a clear lack of knowledge among community pharmacists on biosimilars, especially regarding the substitution rules. Due to a rising market with many benefits but also big challenges to overcome, the topic of biosimilars should receive more attention in the future. This requires additional training for pharmacists.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Similar Growth Outcomes in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Initiated on Infliximab Originator or Biosimilar

BACKGROUND

Growth is an important clinical outcome, especially in childhood-onset inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Prior research has demonstrated growth improvements with infliximab therapy. There are limited studies evaluating whether clinical and growth outcomes in children initiated on the infliximab originator and infliximab biosimilar are similar.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective review of patients with IBD, younger than 17 years old, and initiated on the infliximab originator or biosimilar for at least 12 months between April 2016 and February 2021. Propensity score matching was utilized. Laboratory values, disease activity scores, and growth values were collected at baseline (prior to infliximab initiation), 6 months, and 12 months post initiation. Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to test differences in measures over time and between study groups.

RESULTS

There were 113 patients on the originator and 39 patients on a biosimilar who met eligibility criteria. Propensity score methodology identified 37 dyads (1:1 match). Weight, height, and body mass index z scores increased over time (from baseline to 12 months) for both groups ( P < 0.05) and there was a similar rate of change between study groups. Clinical outcomes of lab values (albumin, C-reactive protein, and hemoglobin) and disease activity scoring were similar from baseline to 12 months between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were similar improvements in growth and clinical outcomes in patients initiated on the infliximab originator compared to an infliximab biosimilar agent. This study adds to the limited research evaluating whether infliximab biosimilars have similar growth outcomes in children with IBD.

Biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars: facts every prescriber, payor, and patient should know. Insulins perspective

INTRODUCTION

For many of the 537 million adults living now with diabetes, the cost of insulin is becoming prohibitive as the insulin prices have tripled between 2002-2013. Globally, the direct annual cost of healthcare expenditure due to diabetes will soon be US$1 Trillion. Biosimilars provide access to high-quality, affordable biologic therapy that is otherwise inaccessible due to the high costs of original biologics.

AREAS COVERED

A primer to the development of biosimilars shows comparable structural and analytical characterization to the original biologics (e.g. insulins), with no clinically significant or meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. 'Interchangeability' status, a regulatory designation by the US FDA, bestowed to some biosimilars, enables confidence in high-quality, bio-equivalent biosimilar of insulin with key global approvals. This can allow rapid uptake of biosimilars by the prescribers, formulary decision-makers, and payors. Biocon-Viatris's biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Semglee®) is the first interchangeable biosimilar insulin approved by the US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

The 'interchangeable' status can prompt faster and wider uptake of insulin biosimilars and keep the insulin expenditure under control, especially for patients who otherwise practice non-adherence or rationing of life-saving insulin. Education, support, and awareness can ensure that interchangeable biosimilars gain wider acceptance.

Maximizing the benefits of using biosimilars in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars constitute a pathway for sustainable financing of healthcare systems in the era of expensive biologics. However, such a pathway is not free of challenges. Since the biosimilars market is expanding in Egypt, there is an urgent need for a policy framework to optimize their use and diffusion in the market. We aim to characterize a national framework based on the experiences of other countries and consultation with local experts.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted to identify biosimilars' policy elements worldwide. A workshop was organized with experts to discuss the narrative review findings and create consensus on recommendations.

RESULTS

The narrative literature review highlighted the need for biosimilar policy actions in four areas: market authorization, pricing, reimbursement, and uptake. Eighteen experts representing the Egyptian healthcare authorities attended the workshop. The most significant conclusions from the workshop included setting the price of the biosimilar at 30-40% less than its originator's price and establishing financing protocols, in which the more expensive biologics with significant price premiums should be excluded from the formulary.

CONCLUSIONS

A summarized national framework policy recommendation for biosimilars was created by local experts from the main public healthcare entities in Egypt. These recommendations coincide with the international policies adopted across different countries that aim to improve patient access while sustaining health expenditure.

Biosimilars for Pediatric Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Pediatric Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Survey

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars are biological agents that have been demonstrated to have similar safety and efficacy profiles as the originator. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of pediatric gastroenterologists in the United States (U.S.) toward biosimilar use and to explore factors that impact their comfort level with prescribing infliximab biosimilars.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed to pediatric gastroenterology physicians from the U.S. via a listserv (Pediatric gastroenterology Bulletin Board). Respondent's demographics were recorded. Using a 6-point Likert scale, the survey assessed the respondent's perceptions toward biosimilars and initiating switches from the originator to biosimilar agent along with factors impacting provider's comfort level. Fischer exact tests were used to detect statistically significant differences in responses for hypotheses of interest.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine pediatric gastroenterologists completed the online survey (response rate 5.4%). Eighty-seven percent of respondents reported being comfortable prescribing infliximab biosimilars to anti-tumor necrosis factor naive patients, and 69% reported being comfortable doing a one-time switch if the patient was in clinical remission. Factors that negatively impacted a respondent's comfort level included respondents not practicing at an ImproveCareNow (ICN) center and managing less than 50 patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 90% of pediatric gastroenterologists felt comfortable prescribing an infliximab biosimilar, and 70% felt comfortable with a one-time switch to the biosimilar if the patient was in clinical remission. Involvement in ICN a learning health system and caring for higher numbers of patients with IBD was associated with increased provider comfort with biosimilar use.

Assessment of community pharmacists' knowledge of the differences between generic drugs and biosimilars: A pilot cross-sectional study

Background

Pharmacists' knowledge of the differences in the characteristics between generic drugs and biosimilars is essential to ensure good practice and lower pharmaceutical bills.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate community pharmacists' knowledge and perception of using and substituting biosimilars and generic drugs.

Design

A pilot cross-sectional study was performed over 2 months (August-September 2022) targeting community pharmacists in their work site.

Method

Data were collected using a uniform survey given to 75 pharmacists. Afterward, a knowledge score was generated by summing several individual scores of statements regarding generic drugs and biosimilars.

Results

Overall, pharmacists had moderate to low knowledge scores, namely, with the statements tackling biosimilars. No significance was reported between these scores and their general characteristics. As regards their substitution, most pharmacists agreed to substitute generic drugs if the brand was not available, while the doctor's approval was crucial for biosimilar switching. Most participants perceived equal effectiveness of generic drugs but similar to a lower one for biosimilars compared to the reference medication. Pharmacists highlighted the need to include generic drugs and biosimilars in the continuing education program and workshops.

Conclusion

To promote their use, improving pharmacists' knowledge can help overcome misconceptions about generic drugs and biosimilars. It is recommended that health care stakeholders focus on fostering good understanding among pharmacists to enhance access to medication.

Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmaceutical policies are generally based on the assumption that involved stakeholders make rational decisions. However, behavioral economics has taught us that this is not always the case as people deviate from rational behavior in rather predictable patterns. This scoping review examined to what extent behavioral concepts have already been applied in the pharmaceutical domain and what evidence exists about their effectiveness, with the aim of formulating future applications and research hypotheses on policymaking for best-value biologicals.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted on the evidence of behavioral applications to pharmaceuticals. Scientific databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, and Scopus) were searched up to 20 October, 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four full-text scientific articles were identified and narratively described in this article. Pharmaceutical domains where behavioral concepts have been investigated relate to influencing prescribing behavior, improving medication adherence, and increasing vaccination uptake. Multiple behavioral concepts were examined in the identified studies, such as social norms, defaults, framing, loss aversion, availability, and present bias. The effectiveness of the applied interventions was generally positive, but depended on the context. Some of the examined interventions can easily be translated into effective policy interventions for best-value biological medicines. However, some applications require further investigation in a research context.

CONCLUSIONS

Applications of behavioral economics to pharmaceutical policymaking are promising. However, further research is required to investigate the effect of behavioral applications on policy interventions for a more sustainable market environment for best-value biological medicines.

Understanding US Physician and Pharmacist Attitudes Toward Biosimilar Products: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars account for 30-40% of biologic medications dispensed in the United States (US), yet healthcare providers in relevant medical specialties have limited awareness of biosimilars and their characteristics. Likewise, many providers perceive biosimilars as less safe and effective than original biologics and are more comfortable prescribing original biologics to patients.

METHODS

We conducted in-person focus groups at three clinical sites in California and Texas (n = 49) to explore the reasons behind US healthcare providers' limited understanding of, cautious attitudes toward, and reluctance to prescribe biosimilars. We conducted thematic analysis by having three researchers independently analyze verbatim transcripts and identify patterns in provider responses.

RESULTS

Providers' limited knowledge of and cautious attitudes toward biosimilars are driven by uncertainty about how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized as well as negative past experiences with generic drugs that did not perform as well as branded counterparts. Additionally, healthcare providers are unfamiliar with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval pathway for biosimilars and are skeptical that an abbreviated approval process is rigorous enough to ensure biosimilars deliver the same efficacy and have the same side effect profiles as original biologics. Physicians also expressed concerns about pharmacy substitution of biosimilars and interchangeables, explaining they would be unaware of which medication was ultimately given to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating physicians and pharmacists about biosimilars-including how biosimilarity is defined and operationalized, the structure of the biosimilar approval process, and how analytical data can ensure biosimilar safety and efficacy-will be important for reducing healthcare providers' concerns and increasing biosimilar adoption in the US.

Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes towards Biosimilar Medicines as Part of Evidence-Based Nursing Practice-International Pilot Study within the Project Biosimilars Nurses Guide Version 2.0

Introduction: The increasing availability of biosimilars can increase patient access to these drugs and reduce the economic burden. Nurses play a key role in the education, administration, pharmacovigilance and management of the side effects of biosimilars. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards biosimilar drugs in different countries. Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022. The survey was carried out using Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI), sent by the CAWI panel via the website. Results: The results showed that nurses with a greater level of education felt most knowledgeable about biosimilars (χ2 = 105.813, df = 2, p < 0.001). One-third of nurses with a doctorate and a second degree said biosimilars are used in their workplace (χ2 = 48.169, df = 4, p < 0.001); most nurses with a second degree said that they had never heard of biosimilars (41%). Doctorate-level nurses thought knowledge is the key factor to increasing biosimilar uptake (97%). Conclusions: Nurses are not knowledgeable about biosimilars. Most would like to participate in training on biosimilars. This is a very important topic, because biosimilars are constantly evolving in medicine.

Regulatory aspects of biological medicines in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The use of the biological medicines, also called "biologics," has contributed to the progress of the treatment of many chronic diseases, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, and psoriasis. However, biologicals are expensive for healthcare systems in several countries. Their availability has been a global issue, which has affected many patients that suffer from various diseases. A biosimilar medicine, also called "biosimilar," is a medicine with similar characteristics in terms of quality, biological activity, safety, and efficacy as the approved original biological medicine, known as "originator biologic." Biosimilars generate competition within the market because they lower the prices of biologics and thus allow for an increase in patient access. However, there are barriers when it comes to the acceptability rate of biosimilars and how interchangeable they are with the originator biologic. In this review, we present a national regulatory framework for biologics along with its limitations, a system of monitoring the safety profile of biologics, the guideline for interchangeability, and a list of approved and available biologics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Additionally, recommendations were made here in order to provide opportunities for greater acceptance of biosimilars and better access to biologics. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, strengthening the national regulatory framework for biologics, capacity building, increasing awareness among healthcare providers for reporting adverse drug events and active pharmacovigilance, and better definitions of interchangeability. Finally, awareness among healthcare providers regarding biosimilars and biologics should be raised through continuous education and workshops, and by including this important topic in the graduate and postgraduate curriculum programs in the country.

Biosimilar Use and Switching in Belgium: Avenues for Integrated Policymaking

Background: By improving the affordability and accessibility of biologicals, biosimilar competition provides important benefits to healthcare systems and patients. In Belgium, biosimilar uptake and competition is limited compared to other European markets. Whereas other countries have initiated structured biosimilar introduction or switching plans, no such framework or guiding principles are yet available in Belgium.

Objective: This study aims to develop recommendations that can inform policy action in Belgium on biosimilar use, especially in the context of switch decision-making, and this by drawing from the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in procuring, prescribing, switching and dispensing biologicals including biosimilars.

Methods: This study made use of the consensus-building Nominal Group Technique, consisting of a three-step process 1) individual grading, 2) three structured Focus Group Discussions, 3) final individual grading involving an expert group of Belgian healthcare professionals (physician specialists and hospital pharmacists).

Results: Participants (n = 13) voiced challenges with the use of biosimilars and switching in practice, and a lack of incentives to use them. Six concrete areas for policy development to support stakeholders with biosimilar use and switch decision-making were identified: 1) address stakeholder hesitations regarding (multiple) switching, 2) provide meaningful incentives, 3) guide healthcare professionals with product decision-making, 4), align practical product modalities when possible, 5) involve healthcare professionals in policy making, and 6) provide practical switch support and patient information material, particularly in the ambulatory care setting. For each area, specific consensus-based recommendations were developed. Furthermore, a set of switch management and patient communication principles was derived, including amongst others, generating buy-in from involved stakeholders prior to switching and communicating with a one-voice message.

Conclusion: Without cohesive actions to reduce hurdles and without tangible benefits or steering mechanisms, changes in biosimilar use are unlikely in Belgium. To overcome this and stimulate market competitiveness, this study advances a set of concrete policy recommendations. At large, policy makers should develop an integrated policy framework, with a pro-active, best-value biological implementation roadmap that provides guidance and compelling measures to incentivize healthcare professionals to use biosimilars. Particular consideration should go to the ambulatory care setting, since drivers for biosimilar use are quasi absent in this context.

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While biosimilars are less expensive than their originator biologics, various factors are known to impede their uptake in clinical practice including concerns regarding their interchangeability, efficacy, and safety. Pharmacists are well positioned to promote the adoption of biosimilars, thus, the aim of the review was to assess pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars to identify the need for pharmacist-directed biosimilar education.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for published articles indexed in MEDLINE via EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar databases. We included studies written in English from their earliest publication dates until December 2021. Only studies concerning pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the studies that included pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about interchangeability and automatic substitution of biosimilars. We also assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA) for quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Out of the 22 studies included in the review, 19 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, and the other three were qualitative studies. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 19 to 1500 participants. The level of knowledge of biosimilars graded as good, considerable, above average, or excellent among pharmacists varied from study to study, with a range of 47-86%. Only 22-51% of pharmacists were comfortable if biosimilars were prescribed for all of the indications previously used for the originator products. Pharmacists' acceptability of switching from the originator to a biosimilar also varied, with a range of 26-84%. However, most pharmacists viewed the substitution of the originator with a biosimilar without physicians' permission as unacceptable. Data from three studies reported that 22-74% of pharmacists had attended biosimilar training. They obtained information about biosimilars from scientific publications, pharmaceutical companies, and continuing education. Based on the criteria of JBI-ACSSA and CASP, the overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The majority of the studies did not describe the sampling methods used and the strategies to deal with confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists' knowledge and perception about biosimilars varied and were limited, especially about interchangeability and substitution, efficacy, safety, and indication extrapolation. A better understanding of biosimilars amongst pharmacists could help them to encourage prescribers' acceptance of biosimilars.

Regulatory Information and Guidance on Biosimilars and Their Use Across Europe: A Call for Strengthened One Voice Messaging

Background

Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use.

Objectives

This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars.

Methods

This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies (n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe (n = 14).

Results

The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally.

Conclusion

This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard.

Perceptions About Biosimilar Medicines Among Belgian Patients in the Ambulatory Care

Background and objectives: Biosimilar medicines have been on the European market for 15 years. Despite the extensive and positive experience with biosimilars across Europe, their uptake remains limited in Belgium. One of the possible factors limiting uptake in clinical practice is the inadequate understanding and lack of trust in biosimilars among patients. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions about biosimilar medicines among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care. Methods: This study consisted of online questionnaires among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus type I and II). The results were collected between December 2020 and February 2021. The data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: In total, 657 patients across all disease areas of interest participated in this study. Only 38% of patients had heard of biosimilars before. Of those patients, most (58%) were aware that biosimilars are as safe and effective as their reference product. The vast majority of respondents (68%) would agree with transitioning to a biosimilar if their physician prescribed it, only 3% would never agree with a transition to a biosimilar. If a physician would propose to change their current originator biological therapy with its biosimilar, nearly all patients (95%) want their physician to explain the decision and inform them. For additional information about biosimilars, Belgian patients prefer brochures or folders (41%), or available resources on the internet (35%). Physicians were indicated as the preferred source of information (95%), followed by pharmacists (51%), academia (39%), and patient associations (35%). Most patients require information regarding the safety and efficacy (78%), price and reimbursement (64%), and the clinical development process (56%) of the biosimilar. Conclusion: Belgian patients require information about biosimilar medicines. However, most patients are open and positive towards transitioning their current biological therapy with its biosimilar if sufficiently supported by their healthcare providers.

Switching from Biologic to Biosimilar Products: Insight from an Integrated Health Care System

Biologics are indicated for the treatment of a wide range of conditions and have transformed care in several therapeutic areas; however, they are expensive for both health care systems and patients. The use of biosimilars, which are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as being "highly similar" to the originator biologic, has the potential to change the health care landscape in the biologic space through considerable cost savings for both payors and patients. With the introduction of biosimilars, organizations are increasingly evaluating how to switch patients from originator biologics to biosimilars. While published studies have evaluated the outcomes of patients switched from originator biologics to biosimilars, there are few publications describing the process health care systems have used to adopt and switch patients to biosimilars. Since 2016, Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO) has undertaken several biosimilar switches starting with the first biosimilar introduced to the market, filgrastim, and has been able to successfully switch 91.8% of patients receiving infliximab, 99.8% receiving rituximab, and 100% receiving filgrastim, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab originator biologics to their respective biosimilars. In an effort to support other health care systems and provide a framework for implementing biosimilar switches, the purpose of this paper is to describe the biosimilar switch model and share learnings from the KPCO experience.

Assessing Knowledge and Attitude of Healthcare Professionals on Biosimilars: A National Survey for Pharmacists and Physicians in Taiwan

Despite the first approval of biosimilars’ in 2010, biosimilar products usage has remained low in Taiwan. This cross-sectional survey study assessed healthcare professionals’ (HCPs)—hospital pharmacists, oncologists, and rheumatologists—knowledge, and attitudes toward biosimilars. More precisely, their knowledge and attitude towards biosimilars’ current usage and regulations in Taiwan were analyzed. The mean ± standard deviation knowledge score was 2.56 ± 0.86 out of 4 (n = 395), and a difference in knowledge score was determined according to the hospital types (p = 0.004). Rheumatologists possessed significantly higher confidence in their knowledge of biosimilars than other HCPs (p = 0.001). Pharmacists showed the highest acceptance—and rheumatologists the least—for switching patients from reference drugs to biosimilars (p = 0.02). Hospital type was associated with the respondent’s confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.04) and the preference for distinguishable naming of biosimilars (p = 0.007). Their knowledge scores were associated with their confidence in the efficacy and safety of biosimilars (p = 0.02). The study found that the current level of biosimilar knowledge of HCPs in Taiwan is low. The higher the knowledge score, the greater the confidence in biosimilars and the familiarity with relevant regulations.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Interchangeability of Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies and Fusion Proteins: A Regulatory Perspective

Background

Biosimilars have been used for 15 years in the European Union (EU), and have been shown to reduce costs and increase access to important biological medicines. In spite of their considerable exposure and excellent safety record, many prescribers still have doubts on the safety and interchangeability of biosimilars, especially monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to analyse the short- and long-term safety and interchangeability data of biosimilar mAbs and fusion proteins to provide unbiased information to prescribers and policy makers.

Methods

Data on the safety, immunogenicity and interchangeability of EU-licensed mAbs and fusion proteins were examined using European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and postmarketing safety surveillance reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As recent biosimilar approvals allow self-administration by patients by the subcutaneous route, the administration devices were also analyzed.

Results

Prelicensing data of EPARs (six different biosimilar adalimumabs, three infliximabs, three etanercepts, three rituximabs, two bevacizumabs, and six trastuzumabs) revealed that the frequency of fatal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), TEAEs leading to discontinuation of treatment, serious adverse events (SAEs), and main immune-mediated adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the biosimilars and their reference products. The availability of new biosimilar presentations and administration devices may add to patient choice and be an emerging factor in the decision to switch patients. Analysis of postmarketing surveillance data covering up to 7 years of follow-up did not reveal any biosimilar-specific adverse effects. No product was withdrawn for safety reasons. This is in spite of considerable exposure to biosimilars in treatment-naïve patients and in patients switched from the reference medicinal product to the biosimilar. Analysis of data from switching studies provided in regulatory submissions showed that single or multiple switches between the originator and its biosimilar versions had no negative impact on efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Conclusions

In line with previous reports of prelicensing studies of biosimilar mAbs and etanercepts, this study demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with the reference products. This is the first study to comprehensively analyze postmarketing surveillance data of the biosimilar mAbs and etanercept. An analysis of more than 1 million patient-treatment years of safety data raised no safety concerns. Based on these data, we argue that biosimilars approved in the EU are highly similar to and interchangeable with their reference products. Thus, additional systematic switch studies are not required to support the switching of patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01601-2.

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

Background

Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria.

Results

Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates.

Conclusions

The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.

Knowledge and perception of biosimilars in ambulatory care: a survey among Belgian community pharmacists and physicians

Background

With the approval of biosimilars for subcutaneously administered products, such as adalimumab, etanercept and insulin, biosimilars become increasingly available in ambulatory care. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers who are in charge of dispensing and prescribing biosimilars in this context. This study aims to assess the knowledge and perception about biosimilars among community pharmacists and physicians.

Methods

Belgian community pharmacists (n = 177) and physicians (n = 30) were surveyed on their knowledge, experience with dispensing/prescribing biologicals including biosimilars, perception regarding interchangeability, switching and substitution and informational and educational needs. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Only 32% of community pharmacists and 52% of physicians had yet dispensed/prescribed a biosimilar. Approximately 35% of community pharmacists felt insufficiently trained to counsel patients with biosimilar therapy, which was significantly higher compared to their self-assessed competence to counsel patients with biological therapy in general (p = 0.023). Community pharmacists experienced questions about similarity between reference products and biosimilars (47%) and their interchangeability (42%). Over 40% of physicians found patient uncertainty about efficacy and safety challenging when prescribing biosimilars. A similar proportion of physicians would only prescribe a biosimilar in indications for which the biosimilar has been tested clinically. The majority of pharmacists (58%) was in favor of substitution of biologicals, on the condition that the prescriber would be contacted. Also over 40% of physicians was open to this approach in case of substitution. Educational support, budget for additional staff and transparency about savings were considered suitable stimuli to incentivize biosimilar use. The need for information about biologicals including biosimilars was nearly unanimous among community pharmacists. Also 67% of physicians requested more information. Both community pharmacists and physicians preferred to be informed by their respective professional associations.

Conclusions

This study showed a substantial need for targeted educational measures to increase the knowledge and confidence about both biological medicines in general and biosimilars in particular among Belgian community pharmacists and physicians. The results may inform educational and policy measures to stimulate biosimilar use in ambulatory care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00330-x.

Knowledge of biosimilars and perceptions of the naming conventions for biosimilar products in clinical practice in the United States

BACKGROUND

Biosimilar therapies and their naming conventions are both relatively new to the drug development market and in clinical practice. We studied the use of the four-letter naming convention in practice and the knowledge, perceptions, and preferences of US health care providers.

METHODS

A survey was distributed among health care professionals with a history of utilizing biosimilars in clinical practice to measure key knowledge and the presence of discernable naming trends. Differences in responses across pre-hypothesized subgroups were tested for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of the 506 surveys emailed, 83 (16%) people responded. Overall, there was poor knowledge about the key concepts surrounding biosimilars. For example, only 52% of respondents correctly identified that biosimilars were not the same as the generic drug; however, frequent use correlated with superior knowledge across all groups. In reference to naming preferences, 67% of all respondents indicated that they commonly use the brand name to distinguish biosimilars in clinical practice and a majority of them (85%) indicated that the brand name was easier to remember than the nonproprietary name with the four-letter suffix. An unexpected number of neutral responses was documented. Notably, more than half of respondents (68%) indicated a neutral response when asked if the four-letter suffix promoted medical errors.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains a knowledge gap with regard to biosimilars, and lack of consensus on how the naming convention is and should be utilized in clinical practice. The data also suggest that effective biosimilar education could aid in promoting familiarity with the naming convention among health care providers.

Off-Patent Biologicals and Biosimilars Tendering in Europe-A Proposal towards More Sustainable Practices

Background: In Europe, off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are largely procured by means of tender procedures. The organization and design of tenders may play a key role in the evolving biosimilar market, and currently, it is not fully elucidated how tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are designed and if approaches are aligned with sustaining market competition and societal savings for healthcare systems over the long term. This study aims to (i) explore the design and implementation of tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe, (ii) identify learnings for sustainable tender approaches from purchasers and suppliers, and (iii) formulate recommendations in support of competitive and sustainable tender practices in the off-patent biologicals market. Methods: A mixed methods design was applied. A quantitative web-survey was conducted with hospital pharmacists and purchasers (N = 60, of which 47 completed the survey in full), and qualitative expert-interviews with purchasers and suppliers (N = 28) were carried out. Results: The web survey results showed that the organization and design of tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, and the experience of hospital pharmacists and purchasers with this, considerably varies on several elements across European countries. From the qualitative interviews, signals emerged across the board that some of the current tender approaches might negatively affect market dynamics for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars. The focus on generating short-term savings and existence of originator favouring tender practices were identified as elements that may limit timely competition from and market opportunity for biosimilar suppliers. The need to optimize tender processes, considering a more long-term strategic and sustainable view, was expressed. In addition, challenges appear to exist with differentiating between products beyond price, showing the need and opportunity to guide stakeholders with the (appropriate) inclusion of award criteria beyond price. Due to the variety in tender organization in Europe, a ‘one size fits all’ tendering framework is not possible. However, on an overarching level, it was argued that tender procedures must aim to (i) ensure market plurality and (ii) include award criteria beyond price (warranted that criteria are objectively and transparently defined, scored and competitively rewarded). Depending on the market (maturity), additional actions may be needed. Conclusions: Findings suggest the need to adjust tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, considering a more long-term strategic and market sustainable view. Five main avenues for optimization were identified: (i) safeguarding a transparent, equal opportunity setting for all suppliers with an appropriate use of award criteria; (ii) fostering a timely opening of tender procedures, ensuring on-set competition; (iii) ensuring and stimulating adherence to laws on public procurement; (iv) securing an efficient process, improving plannability and ensuring timely product supply and (v) safeguarding long-term sustainable competition by stimulating market plurality.

Type and Extent of Information on (Potentially Critical) Quality Attributes Described in European Public Assessment Reports for Adalimumab Biosimilars

Regulatory approval of biosimilars predominantly relies on biosimilarity assessments of quality attributes (QAs), particularly the potentially critical QAs (pCQAs) that may affect the clinical profile. However, a limited understanding exists concerning how EU regulators reflect the biosimilarity assessments of (pC)QAs in European public assessment reports (EPARs) by different stakeholders. The type and extent of information on QAs and pCQAs in EPARs were evaluated for seven adalimumab biosimilars. Seventy-seven QAs, including 31 pCQAs, were classified and assessed for type (structural and functional attributes) and extent (biosimilarity interpretation and/or test results) of information in EPARs. Reporting on the QAs (35–75%) varied between EPARs, where the most emphasis was placed on pCQAs (65–87%). Functional attributes (54% QAs and 92% pCQAs) were reported more frequently than structural attributes (8% QAs and 22% pCQAs). About 50% (4 structural and 12 functional attributes) of pCQAs were consistently reported in all EPARs. Regulators often provided biosimilarity interpretation (QAs: 83% structural and 80% functional; pCQAs: 81% structural and 78% functional) but rarely include test results (QAs: 1% structural and 9% functional and pCQAs: 3% structural and 9% functional). Minor differences in structural attributes, commonly in glycoforms and charge variants, were often observed in adalimumab biosimilars but did not affect the functions and clinical profile. Despite the variability in reporting QAs in EPARs, the minor observed differences were largely quantitative and not essentially meaningful for the overall conclusion of biosimilarity of the seven adalimumab biosimilars.

Informing Patients about Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of European Patient Associations

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual’s needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients’ Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

European Stakeholder Learnings Regarding Biosimilars: Part II-Improving Biosimilar Use in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits biosimilars offer in terms of cost savings and patient access, healthcare professionals and patients have been reluctant to use them. Next to insufficient understanding of and trust in biosimilars, healthcare professionals and patients have questions about switching and the nocebo effect when using biosimilars in clinical practice. In addition, clear motivation to use biosimilars may be lacking among these stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar use on both a clinical and a practical level based on insights from healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patients (or their representatives), and regulators across Europe.

METHODS

We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with experts from five stakeholder groups across Europe: physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, regulators, and patients/representatives. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and transcripts analysed according to the thematic framework method.

RESULTS

Based on the insights and considerations of the experts interviewed, we identified a number of recommendations to improve the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Regarding switch implementation, the experts voiced support for the following actions: (1) disseminate evidence from and experience with (multiple) switching; (2) provide clear, one-voice regulatory guidance about the interchangeability of biosimilars and their reference product; (3) apply a multi-stakeholder implementation and communication protocol to guide switching in clinical practice; (4) apply a pragmatic approach when taking switch decisions; and (5) avoid mandated switching, allowing stakeholder communication and alignment. When discussing approaches to increase the willingness of stakeholders to use biosimilars, we concluded that actions should be centred on (1) communicating the benefits provided by biosimilars and the introduction of market competition, (2) increasing awareness among stakeholders about medicine prices and their societal responsibility to use medicines in a cost-effective manner, (3) transparent reporting about the allocation of savings, (4) sharing biosimilar usage data among hospitals and prescribers to allow peer-to-peer benchmarking, and (5) applying a balanced combination of tangible and non-tangible incentives that can be tailored to offset the time and effort expended by stakeholders when switching to a biosimilar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes a number of strategic, practical, and overarching recommendations to support healthcare professionals and inform decision makers to improve the clinical use of biosimilars and the willingness of stakeholders to use them. The proposed solutions to fully realise the potential of biosimilars for healthcare systems and patients include developing practical switch guidance, being transparent about the gains from biosimilar use (and how savings are allocated), and developing a combination of non-tangible and tangible incentives for involved stakeholders.