US rheumatologists' beliefs and knowledge about biosimilars: a survey

Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars

Background: Physicians often prescribe original biologic products to patients who have not used them before and are reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already-approved biologics, but healthcare professionals typically hesitate to transition patients from the original products to biosimilars. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence U.S. healthcare professionals' intentions to use biosimilars. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. 510 participants were eligible healthcare professionals (279 physicians and 231 pharmacists). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to identify which factors affect healthcare professionals' intentions. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and the logistic regression model tested the TPB constructs as predictors of intentions toward biosimilars. Results: Among 279 physicians, most were aged 61 and above, with high (n = 142) and low (n = 137) intentions. Male physicians constituted 71% of the population. Attending physicians (66.3%) showed consistent perceptions towards biosimilars, primarily in the private sector (76.3%). Pharmacists (n = 231), a higher percentage of females demonstrated higher intentions compared to males (35.5% vs. 28.1%); the majority were community pharmacists. Associations between years of practice and intentions were significant. Positive correlations existed between beliefs and intentions, except for normative beliefs. Conclusions: This study revealed diverse attitudes among healthcare professionals towards biosimilars in the USA. Pharmacists and physicians, especially those with limited experience, require ongoing education on biosimilar manufacturing pathways. This education supports the appropriate use of biosimilars and helps standardize federal and state legislation.

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

METHODS

A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

RESULTS

Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

CONCLUSION

Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Achieving white blood cell equity: are the safety profiles of biosimilar and reference pegfilgrastims comparable?

Biosimilars can provide choices for patients and may provide cost savings; however, their uptake has been slow in the USA, in part due to limited knowledge. To provide additional confidence in US pegfilgrastim biosimilars, this narrative review compared the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims, currently approved or filed for approval in the USA, with the EU- and US-approved reference pegfilgrastims. Headache and bone pain were common to biosimilars and reference products and occurred at a similar incidence. Clinical trial data on the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference products have demonstrated similarity and comparability, with no unexpected safety outcomes. Overall, the safety profiles of biosimilar pegfilgrastims and reference pegfilgrastims demonstrated a high degree of similarity and comparability.

Safety outcomes when switching between biosimilars and reference biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable while on the reference biologic. Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified from publicly available information maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These findings were augmented with data from peer reviewed publications containing information not captured in FDA reviews. Forty-four STPs were identified from 31 unique studies for 21 different biosimilars. Data were extracted and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. A total of 5,252 patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified. Safety data including deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation showed an overall risk difference (95% CI) of -0.00 (-0.00, 0.00), 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01), -0.00 (-0.01, 0.00) across STPs, respectively. Immunogenicity data showed similar incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in patients within a STP who were switched to or from a biosimilar to its reference biologic and patients who were not switched. Immune related adverse events such as anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injections site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients. This first systematic review using statistical methods to address the risk of switching patients between reference biologics and biosimilars finds no difference in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who remained on a reference biologic or a biosimilar.

Practical Management of Biosimilar Use in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Global Survey and an International Delphi Consensus

As the patents for biologic originator drugs expire, biosimilars are emerging as cost-effective alternatives within healthcare systems. Addressing various challenges in the clinical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains crucial. To shed light on physicians' current knowledge, beliefs, practical approaches, and concerns related to biosimilar adoption-whether initiating a biosimilar, transitioning from an originator to a biosimilar, or switching between biosimilars (including multiple switches and reverse switching)-a global survey was conducted. Fifteen physicians with expertise in the field of IBD from 13 countries attended a virtual international consensus meeting to develop practical guidance regarding biosimilar adoption worldwide, considering the survey results. This consensus centered on 10 key statements covering biosimilar effectiveness, safety, indications, rationale, multiple switches, therapeutic drug monitoring of biosimilars, non-medical switching, and future perspectives. Ultimately, the consensus affirmed that biosimilars are equally effective and safe when compared to originator drugs. They are considered suitable for both biologic-naïve patients and those who have previously been treated with originator drugs, with cost reduction being the primary motivation for transitioning from an originator drug to a biosimilar.

What About Offering a Financial Incentive Directly to Clinical Units to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars? Results of a Two-Year National Experiment in France

BACKGROUND

Regarding the low penetration of biosimilars in the French market, in 2018, the government introduced two mutually exclusive financial incentives to increase biosimilar use. They redirect 20% (general case) or 30% (experimental case) of the price difference between the reference product and its biosimilar to hospitals for every biosimilar delivered in retail pharmacies from these hospital prescriptions. The experimental case specifically targets prescribing clinical units.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to assess whether the new payment scheme closer to physicians (experimental case) improved etanercept biosimilar penetration after 25 months.

METHOD

We evaluated hospital prescriptions using IQVIA Xponent data. The monthly number of etanercept boxes delivered in retail pharmacies was linked to the corresponding hospital prescription. The impact of the experimental case on the etanercept biosimilar rate was assessed by a difference-in-difference method.

RESULTS

Among the 39 hospitals studied in the experimental case compared with the 169 belonging to the general case, a similar growing trend of etanercept biosimilar use was observed before October 2018. At the start of the experiment, there was an acceleration of biosimilar penetration in the experimental group, until both groups reached a plateau. A significant double difference estimator of 9.72 percentage points in favor of the experiment confirmed this (p < 2.2.10-16).

CONCLUSION

The French experimental incentive appeared to be more effective at increasing biosimilar use. As it is expected to be implemented in all hospitals, the knowledge gained during this testing phase should allow adjustment of some of its terms and increase physician engagement.

An online survey among US patients with immune-mediated conditions: Attitudes about biosimilars

BACKGROUND: Few surveys about biosimilars have been conducted among US patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attitudes about biosimilars among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsO/A), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: WebMD, LLC fielded a 16-item online survey to members of the US Dynata consumer panel meeting these criteria: aged 18 years or older; self-reported specialist diagnosis of RA, PsO/A, or IBD of at least 1 year; and not currently receiving an infliximab biosimilar. A quota of 500 was set, stratified by region and condition. The survey was exempt by the institutional review board, exploratory, and not registered. RESULTS: Overall, 44% (n = 221) of patients were on a biologic; 56% (n = 279) were not on a biologic (40% [n = 199] were biologic naive and 16% [n = 80] used biologics in the past). Among all patients, 66% were unaware of biosimilars and 24% were aware (10% unsure). After being shown the US Food and Drug Administration definition of a biosimilar, main concerns were side effects (59%), long-term safety (50%), and not knowing a lot (46%). Among current users, 43% would switch to a biosimilar and 26% would not (32% unsure). Of those unwilling to switch, 51% were concerned about side effects, 42% about financial support, and 40% about efficacy. When those not on a biologic were asked if their doctor prescribed an original anti-tumor necrosis factor α but their insurance required its biosimilar, 49% would switch and 8% would not (43% unsure). 51% of patients surveyed thought pharmacist-level substitution of an interchangeable biosimilar was acceptable with notification. Survey findings were consistent among the RA, PsO/A, and IBD subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Although two-thirds of patients surveyed were unaware of biosimilars, the majority were potentially receptive to biosimilar treatment after being provided with the definition of a biosimilar. Patients expressed a desire to know more about biosimilars in general, how they compare with original biologics, their benefits, and cost. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. (BIPI). WebMD, LLC, fielded the survey. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the article for medical and scientific accuracy and intellectual property considerations. Dr Gibofsky is a consultant/advisor for AbbVie Inc., Biosplice Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Pfizer Inc., and he is on the speakers' bureau for AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Lilly, and Pfizer Inc., and has stock ownership in AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Horizon Pharma plc, and Pfizer Inc. Dr Peyrin-Biroulet reports that he has received personal consulting fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Celltrion, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Pharmacosmos, Shire, Genentech, Mitsubishi, Ferring, Norgine, Tillots, Vifor, UCB-Pharma, Hospira, BIPI, and Lilly. Dr McCabe is an employee of BIPI. Dr McGrath was an employee of BIPI at the time the survey was conducted. Mr Jacobson, Mr Franklin, and Ms O'Hara-Levi report no disclosures.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Real-world evidence of the use of the infliximab biosimilar SB2: data from the PERFUSE study

Objective

PERFUSE is a non-interventional study of 1233 adult patients (rheumatology, n = 496; IBD, n = 737) receiving routine infliximab (IFX) biosimilar SB2 therapy. The aim of this report was to investigate the 12-month persistence, effectiveness and safety outcomes of routine SB2 treatment in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic disease.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were assigned to one of three study cohorts according to whether SB2 treatment initiated after September 2017 had been the first IFX treatment (IFX naïve) or followed transition from reference IFX (IFX ref) or another IFX biosimilar (IFX bs). Outcomes to month 12 (±2) included persistence (primary outcome), SB2 dose, disease status, immunogenicity and safety.

Results

At month 12, persistence on SB2 in IFX-naïve, IFX ref and IFX bs cohorts, respectively, [mean percentage (95% CI)] by indication was as follows: 59% (36.1, 76.2), 75% (57.5, 86.1) and 85% (69.6, 93.0) for RA (n = 98); 64% (34.3, 83.3), 87% (65.6, 95.7) and 83% (60.0, 93.1) for PsA (n = 62); and 56% (44.4, 66.5), 80% (70.8, 86.1) and 80% (72.5, 85.6) for axSpA (n = 336). Disease activity was comparable at baseline and month 12 within the IFX ref and bs subgroups of all cohorts by indication. No immunogenicity concerns or new safety signals were detected.

Conclusion

SB2 was safe and effective in IFX-naïve patients and in patients transitioned from prior IFX ref or bs.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03662919.

Current Expertise, Opinions, and Attitude toward TNF-⍺ Antagonist Biosimilars among Physicians: A Self-Administered Online Survey in Western Switzerland

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-⍺) antagonists are biological drugs with multiple authorized biosimilars. Biosimilars are becoming critical to the financial sustainability of health systems. Recent studies emphasize that physicians’ knowledge regarding biosimilars has not yet progressed sufficiently to overcome their concerns regarding biosimilars’ safety and efficacy. To assess the current knowledge, opinions, and attitudes toward TNF-⍺ antagonist biosimilars among postgraduate physicians and specialists, an anonymous, self-administered survey was implemented on SurveyMonkey between February and May 2022. The survey was validated through think-aloud interviews with senior and postgraduate physicians in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and immunoallergology, and a senior epidemiologist. Participant recruitment was conducted with the help of the physicians’ professional societies and departmental head physicians of two university hospitals in Western Switzerland. Most physicians felt more comfortable initiating a TNF-⍺ antagonist biosimilar in biologic-naive patients (BNPs) than switching patients stabilized on the original biologic (originator). However, most participants agreed that BNPs should start treatment with the biosimilar rather than the originator when available. Postgraduate physicians and specialists in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and immunoallergology who participated in this survey were familiar with TNF-⍺ antagonist biosimilars and were confident in prescribing them. Yet, they still preferred to avoid switching a patient already on the originator.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Healthcare Providers, Healthcare Regulatory Practitioners and Patients Toward Biosimilars in China: Insights From a Nationwide Survey

Objective: With increasing numbers of biosimilars entering the market or in the approval pipeline in China, understanding the current awareness and attitudes of biosimilars still remains the first step to promote uptake. This study aims to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of multiple stakeholders toward biosimilars, including healthcare providers (HCPs), healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, and to provide practical information for future uptake of biosimilars in China.

Methods: This nationwide cross-sectional online survey was conducted in mainland China. The questionnaire with a high level of reliability and validity was designed based on previous studies and clinical questions in the Clinical Practice Guideline for Clinical Application of Biosimilars. Logistic regression model was employed to identify possible impact factors, and Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to identify the correlation between knowledge and attitudes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the differences between different stakeholders.

Results: Overall, 599 valid respondents were recruited, of whom 77.63%, 7.01% and 15.36% were HCPs, healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, respectively. A total of 504 respondents who had heard of biosimilars were included in the KAP analysis. 76.70% of HCPs, 90.24% of healthcare regulatory practitioners and 50.98% of patients had good knowledge about the definition, while less familiarity with the development process and regulations on interchangeability and indication extrapolation was found in the former two groups. For attitudes toward biosimilars, an overall lack of positivity was shown, as only 18.20% HCPs, 14.63% healthcare regulatory practitioners and 23.53% patients were classified as having positive attitudes. More specifically, most respondents were positive about the influence of payment policy on the uptake of biosimilars, but they showed a neutral attitude toward the clinical medication and interchangeability of biosimilars. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, interchangeability and indication extrapolation are major concerns when utilizing biosimilars. Regarding practice, our study showed an inadequate utilization of biosimilars in China. Several further suggestions on the regulation of biosimilars were proposed by healthcare regulatory practitioners.

Conclusions: There is still plenty of room for improvement of knowledge, attitudes and practice toward biosimilars among multiple stakeholders in China, which can be improved through high-quality real world evidence, educational programs and other effective measures directed towards barriers.

Perspectives toward biosimilars among oncologists: A Malaysian survey

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars confer significant cost-saving advantages and expand patients' access to biologic therapies in cancer care. In line with the increasing availability of antineoplastic biosimilars, it is pertinent to understand the oncologists' view on the adoption of biosimilars in their clinical practice. The study aimed to assess (i) the prevalence of biosimilar use, (ii) perception towards biosimilars, (iii) factors influencing the use of biosimilars and (iv) knowledge about biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among clinical oncologists and medical oncologists in Malaysia between January 2020 and February 2021 using a structured 31-item questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among the 121 oncologists registered in the country, 36 responded (response rate  =  30%). A total of 64% of the respondents prescribed biosimilars either often or always. Most oncologists (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that switching will not have a significant effect on the treatment benefit, with lower percentages saying that they agreed or strongly agreed that it will not lead to the emergence of additional adverse effects (56%) or harmful immunogenicity (64%). Patients' preferences (40%) and the non-availability of biosimilars in hospitals (34%) are the major barriers cited to the prescribing of biosimilars. Cost differences and robust pharmacovigilance activities are the two most important factors that would influence the prescribing of biosimilars. The mean score of knowledge in biosimilar among respondents was 3.81 (± 0.86) out of a maximum possible score of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified gap in prescribing and the use of biosimilars among Malaysian oncologists warrant educational intervention and robust pharmacovigilance activities to facilitate the prescribing of biosimilars and ultimately increase the accessibility to biologics in cancer treatment.

Embracing Change: An International Survey Study on the Beliefs and Attitudes of Pediatric Rheumatologists Towards Biosimilars

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been adopted by clinicians more slowly than anticipated in the post-marketing phase.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to reveal the perceptions and attitudes of pediatric rheumatologists towards biosimilars and the obstacles to biosimilar therapy.

METHODS

A web-based survey designed to determine the knowledge, experience, and perceptions of pediatric rheumatologists about biosimilars was electronically mailed to the participants between April and August 2021. Responses were collected anonymously and subsequently analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 114 pediatric rheumatologists including fellows (32.4%), specialists (29.8%), and seniors (37.7%) responded to the questionnaire. According to the data, 75 (65.8%) physicians had already prescribed at least one biosimilar. The vast majority of participants were aware of the potential cost savings of biosimilars (84, 73.3%). Participants who felt insufficiently informed were 41.8%, 67.6%, and 83.7% among seniors, specialists, and fellows, respectively. In pediatric rheumatology, the scarcity of clinical trials and real-life data (64%) and inadequate information about tolerance to the biosimilars and related side effects in children (49.1%) were the most common barriers expressed by prescribers. Nearly half (45%) of the pediatric rheumatologists preferred to prescribe biosimilars in the treatment of biologic-naive cases. However, most (93%) were reluctant to switch a reference molecule to a biosimilar while the patient was doing well under the originator medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provided insights into the concerns about prescribing biosimilars among pediatric rheumatologists. In the field of pediatric rheumatology, further education about biosimilars and real-life experiences is required to better inform about treatment options in children.

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.

Medical students' knowledge and awareness levels about biologics and biosimilars: the earlier the better?

BACKGROUND

Although most studies about physician knowledge and attitude toward biosimilars have been conducted on specialists, studies addressing this issue among medical students are missing.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the knowledge and awareness levels of biologics and biosimilars of medical students who will encounter these products soon.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 228 medical students were grouped as preclinical (Years 1,2,3) and clinical (Years 4,5,6). Students were given a survey including demographic (grade and gender) and questions about assessing their knowledge about biologics and biosimilars.

RESULTS

Clinical students' knowledge was better than preclinical students (54% and 25%, respectively). Students did not know much about biosimilars (7-20%) and thought a biosimilar is identical to its generic product (35%). More than 90% of the students thought that a lesson about biologics should be included in the medical curriculum.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that medical students had inadequate knowledge about biosimilars. We suggest that to establish a positive attitude toward prescribing biosimilars, knowledge about biologics and biosimilars should be delivered to physicians early, while they are still medical students, by including this topic into the medical curriculum.

Biosimilar Uptake: The Importance of Healthcare Provider Education

From peptide hormones to monoclonal antibodies, advances in biotherapeutic medicines, or biologics, have brought incalculable benefits to patients, especially for conditions where previous classes of therapy were ineffective or non-existent. At the same time, the development of biologics has been accompanied by questions of access and cost. The advent of biosimilars, molecules highly similar to their reference biologics, has offered the promise of ameliorating cost and access challenges. However, issues regarding biosimilar uptake remain. Multiple factors impact the utilization of biosimilars by healthcare providers and perhaps the best recognized of these is education. This paper discusses the importance of education to biosimilar adoption and lists action-items that various stakeholders in healthcare can adopt to improve the overall understanding of this important class of therapeutics.