The Concept of Biosimilars: From Characterization to Evolution-A Narrative Review

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between etanercept biosimilar LBEC0101 and reference in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in real-world data using the KURAMA cohort

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars are anticipated to be widely used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), owing to their cost efficiency; LBEC0101 was the first etanercept (ETN) biosimilar approved in Japan. However, there are limited real-world data comparing its safety and effectiveness with those of a reference product.

METHODS

This study used data from the Kyoto University Rheumatoid Arthritis Management Alliance cohort, including patients with RA who received ETN therapy-ETN reference product (ETN-RP) or LBEC0101-between 2015 and 2021. Serum ETN levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

The 1-year continuation rates of ETN-RP and LBEC0101 were 58.7% and 74.4%, respectively. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in 18 patients; both products significantly reduced the 28-joint RA disease activity score and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Moreover, to determine equivalence, we analysed 11 patients who switched from ETN-RP to LBEC0101; the DAS28-ESR and serum ETN levels before and after switching were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world cohort study confirmed that the biosimilar of ETN, LBEC0101, was comparable to the reference product in terms of continuation rate, effectiveness at initiation of introduction, and effect persistence before and after switching in clinical practice.

Initial prescriptions and medication switches of biological products: an analysis of prescription pathways and determinants in the Swiss healthcare setting

OBJECTIVES

Biological products have contributed to extraordinary advances in disease treatments over the last decade. However, the cost-saving potential of imitator products, so-called biosimilars, is still under-researched in Switzerland. This study aims to assess biosimilars' prescriptions at treatment initiation and their determinants, as well as biological therapy switches.

DESIGN

The study included all patients who had at least one biosimilar available on the market at the time when they were prescribed a biological product. We analysed longitudinal data for biosimilar prescriptions in Switzerland using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to quantify the associations with individual, pharmaceutical and provider-related variables.

SETTING

The analysis is based on de-identified claims data of patients with mandatory health insurance at Helsana, one of the Swiss health insurance companies with a substantial enrollee base in mandatory health insurance.

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 18 953 patients receiving at least one biological product between 2016 and 2021 were identified.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We differentiated between initial prescriptions and follow-up prescriptions. Our regression focused on initial prescriptions due to evidence indicating that patients tend to follow the medication prescribed at therapy initiation.

RESULTS

Although biosimilars' market share was low (28.6%), the number of prescriptions has increased (from 1016 in 2016 to 6976 in 2021). Few patients with medication switches (n=1492, 8.5%) were detected. Increased relative price difference (difference in the price of available biosimilars relative to price of corresponding reference product) was associated with decreased probability of biosimilar prescriptions, whereas male sex, an increase of available imitator drugs on the market, larger packaging sizes, and prescriptions from specialists or physicians in outpatient settings were associated with increased biosimilar use.

CONCLUSION

The low number of biosimilar prescriptions, despite the proliferating biosimilar market, indicates a high potential for biosimilar diffusion. The findings indicate that patients typically adhere to the therapy options initially chosen and are less inclined to make changes following the initiation of treatment. Our research highlights the need for awareness initiatives to improve understanding among patients and physicians, enabling informed, shared decision-making about biosimilar prescriptions.

Exploring the Potential Challenges for Developing Generic Orphan Drugs for Rare Diseases: A Survey of US and European Markets

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration in 1983 and the European Union's European Medicines Agency in 2000 implemented the orphan drug development program for rare diseases. The study aimed to find the potential challenges encountered by generic companies in developing generics for rare diseases.

METHODS

We performed a thematic analysis, which consists of qualitative and quantitative research. For data analysis of approved orphan drugs, we used statistical methods, and for the industrial case study, we selected 14 generic companies and conducted semistructured interviews related to 10 critical areas of drug development.

RESULTS

The orphan drug approvals were classified into 4 categories: the number of orphan approvals, pediatric claims, formulation, and therapeutic areas. We analyzed the approvals from 2001 to 2021; the Food and Drug Administration approved 815 drugs and European Medicines Agency approved 258 drugs. The pediatric orphan approvals were analyzed from 2010 to 2021; the average percentage of orphan drugs claim pediatric exclusivity during this period was found to be 31.8%. In formulation, we found the highest percentage of drugs belong to small molecules at 71%. In the therapeutic class, oncology drugs have a majority of approvals at 25%. The industrial case study responses revealed that the major challenge for drug development is the complexity of the disease at 21%, followed by the limited market at 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high need for generic orphan drugs in the developing countries. The generic companies can use the opportunities provided by health authorities for the benefit of both the company and the patient perspective.

Indian Biosimilars and Vaccines at Crossroads-Replicating the Success of Pharmagenerics

BACKGROUND

The global pharma sector is fast shifting from generics to biologics and biosimilars with the first approval in Europe in 2006 followed by US approval in 2015. In the form of Hepatitis B vaccine, India saw its first recombinant biologics approval in 2000. Around 20% of generic medications and 62% of vaccines are now supplied by the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It is this good position in biologics and biosimilars production that could potentially improve healthcare via decreased treatment cost. India has witnessed large investments in biosimilars over the years. Numerous India-bred new players, e.g., Enzene Biosciences Ltd., are keen on biosimilars and have joined the race alongside the emerging giants, e.g., Biocon and Dr. Reddy's. A very positive sign was the remarkable disposition during the COVID-19 pandemic by Bharat Biotech and the Serum Institute of India. India's biopharmaceutical industry has been instrumental in producing and supplying preventives and therapeutics to fight COVID-19. Despite a weak supply chain and workforce pressure, the production was augmented to provide reasonably priced high-quality medications to more than 133 nations. Biosimilars could cost-effectively treat chronic diseases involving expensive conventional therapies, including diabetes, respiratory ailments, cancer, and connective tissue diseases. Biologics and biosimilars have been and are being tested to treat and manage COVID-19 symptoms characterized by inflammation and respiratory distress.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although India boasts many universities, research centers, and a relatively skilled workforce, its global University-Industry collaboration ranking is 24, IPR ranking remains 47 and innovation ranking 39. This reveals a wide industry-academia gap to bridge. There are gaps in effective translational research in India that must be promptly and appropriately addressed. Innovation demands strong and effective collaborations among universities, techno-incubators, and industries.

METHODOLOGY

Many successful research findings in academia do not get translation opportunities supposedly due to low industrial collaboration, low IP knowledge, and publication pressure with stringent timelines. In light of this, a detailed review of literature, including policy papers, government initiatives, and corporate reviews, was carried out, and the compilation and synthesis of the secondary data were meticulously summarized for the easy comprehension of the facts and roadmap ahead. For easy comprehension, charts, figures, and compiled tables are presented.

RESULTS

This review assesses India's situation in the biosimilar space, the gaps and areas to improve for Indian investment strategies, development, and innovation, addressing need for a more skilled workforce, industrial collaboration, and business models.

CONCLUSIONS

This review also proposes forward an approach to empowering technopreneurs to develop MSMEs for large-scale operations to support India in taking innovative thoughts to the global level to ultimately realize a self-reliant India. The limitations of the compilation are also highlighted towards the end.

A phase II, multicenter, open-label trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ISU303 (Agalsidase beta) in patients with Fabry disease

BACKGROUND

Fabry disease (FD) is caused by a deficiency in the activity of the lysosomal enzyme, α-galactosidase A (α-Gal A), which leads to globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) deposition in multiple tissues. The current management of FD is enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). We report on the efficacy and safety of a new agalsidase beta, ISU303, in FD.

METHODS

Ten patients (7 males, 3 females) were enrolled and administered a 1 mg/kg dose of ISU303, every other week for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the normalization of plasma Gb3 level. The secondary endpoints were the changes from baseline in urine Gb3 and the plasma and urine lyso-globotriaosylsphingosine (lyso-Gb3) level. Echocardiography, renal function test, and pain-related quality of life were also assessed before and after administration. Safety evaluation was performed including vital signs, laboratory tests, electrocardiograms, antibody screening tests, and adverse events at each visit.

RESULTS

At 22 weeks of treatment, plasma and urine Gb3 level decreased by a mean of 4.01 ± 1.29 μg/mL (range 2.50-5.70) (P = .005) and 1.12 ± 1.98 μg/mg Cr. (range 0.04-5.65) (P = .017), respectively. However, no significant difference was observed in plasma and urine lyso-Gb3 levels. Echocardiography also was not changed. Renal function and pain-related quality of life showed improvements, but there was no clinical significance. No severe adverse events were observed. Only 1 patient developed an anti-drug antibody without neutralizing activity during the trial.

CONCLUSION

This study showed the efficacy and safety of ISU303. Treatment with ISU303 significantly resulted in plasma and urine Gb3 decrease in patients with FD. These results suggest that ISU303 is safe and effective and can alternative ERT for FD.

Trastuzumab in breast cancer treatment: the Era of biosimilars

BACKGROUND

The discovery of trastuzumab as anti-HER2 therapy markedly improved disease control and the survival rates of patients with HER2+ breast cancer. However, as trastuzumab is considered a complex molecule, the cost of production is usually elevated, which significantly affects health budgets and limits the treatment access for patients who live in underdeveloped countries. Recently, trastuzumab production became more accessible and sustainable due to the patents' expiration, allowing biosimilar versions of trastuzumab to be developed.

OBJECTIVE

Our main goal was to shed more light on the uses of biosimilars in breast cancer treatment, emphasizing trastuzumab.

METHOD

An integrative review was carried out in the PubMed, Scielo, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases using the terms "biosimilar," "breast cancer," "monoclonal antibody," and "trastuzumab." The time range included scientific articles published from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The bibliographic survey showed the complexities in biological medicine manufacturing and how the monoclonal antibody's therapy with trastuzumab improved the patients' life expectancy, revolutionizing HER2+ breast cancer treatment. Nonetheless, despite its benefits, trastuzumab generates certain restrictions, especially from the economic perspective. Trastuzumab biosimilars have high selectivity and rarely cause adverse effects compared to conventional chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that trastuzumab biosimilars improve patients' accessibility to breast cancer treatment through a safe and effective therapy compared to the drug reference.

Anti-VEGF and Other Novel Therapies for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: An Update

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in older adults. The prognosis for the neovascular type of advanced AMD improved with the introduction of biological drugs with antiangiogenic properties, beginning with off-label bevacizumab, which was first used intravitreally in 2006. These drugs target newly formed vessels that grow beneath the center of the retina, causing loss of central vision, and they can help to maintain or improve vision. Repeated intravitreal injections are needed to achieve prolonged inhibition of proangiogenic cytokines, primarily vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Major regulatory agencies have approved several molecules for AMD treatment, including ranibizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab. The development of further drugs was mainly targeted at prolonging anti-VEGF inhibition-thus reducing the frequency of injections-and expanding the biological targets of proangiogenic cytokine inhibition. Finally, biosimilars are already being marketed in some countries, allowing the containment of costs of AMD treatment, which are growing steadily in many settings because of the need for long-term treatment. This review summarizes the properties and clinical profiles of anti-VEGF biological drugs that are approved to treat neovascular AMD as well as ongoing research on molecules that may be marketed in the near future.

[Knowledge and perceptions of biosimilar medicines by health professionals in Tunisia]

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilar drugs occupy a strategic place in the global pharmaceutical market. However, there are brakes on their use. The objective of our study is to assess the knowledge and perceptions of healthcare professionals on biosimilar drugs in a developing country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective survey via an anonymous 18-question multiple-choice questionnaire developed and published online through the "Google Forms" application over a period of one month. This questionnaire is intended for Tunisian pharmacists and doctors of all ranks.

RESULTS

A total of 240 health professionals responded to this questionnaire, including 158 pharmacists and 82 physicians. Among them, 73 are not informed about the biosimilar drugs and were excluded from the rest of the questionnaire. Questions regarding the definition of biosimilar drugs and their differences from generic drugs obtained the best rate of 76 % of correct answers. In contrast, the questions that generated the most errors mainly concerned the regulation of biosimilar drugs. Participants felt that they were under-informed about biosimilar drugs in 65 % of the cases. In addition, 92 % were in favor of the development of this class of drugs and 85 % estimated significant to very significant savings related to their use.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the lack of information of pharmacists and physicians on biosimilar drugs. Sensitization of healthcare professionals on the safety and effectiveness of the use of these drugs seems to be necessary in order to allow their development.

Biosimilars accessible in the market for the treatment of cancer

Biosimilars are the biological product clinically identical to a biologic reference standard regarding their strength, purity, and safety. A large segment of biosimilars has been developed for the treatment of cancer. This review aims to discuss various facets of biosimilars and explicates on biosimilars accessible in the market for cancer clinical intervention. It also illustrates the outcomes of recent clinical trial studies concerning biosimilars. Further, it also crosstalk the safety profiles, regulatory approval requirements, and allied challenges therein. The work will be of significant interest to researchers working in the field of biologics and biosimilars.

Progress in oncology biosimilars till 2020: Scrutinizing comparative studies of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies

Stupendous elevation in the healthcare costs has followed with the inception of the current unconventional options of treatment available for cancer patients. There is a dire need of innovative financing approaches to lessen the financial load on healthcare system. Biosimilars are biological drugs consisting of an active ingredient from a reference biological drug that has a great potential of relieving financial load. Strict requirements from regulatory point of view are required as biosimilars are exceedingly similar to but not identical to the reference product. This provides with a certainty that no consequential differences from clinical point of view as compared to the respective biologics exists with regards to efficacy, safety and purity. Safety and effectiveness of biosimilars have been disclosed since more than 10 years of affirmations. However, there is a need to educate the healthcare professionals to abolish potential misconceptions and coalesce biosimilars into regular clinical practice. The present review focuses on providing an overview of regulatory aspects and requirements for biosimilars, the main challenges in the selection and development of biosimilars and the economic impact and financial savings observed in recent studies carried out in different parts of the world. In addition, we have discussed the different successful comparative studies which have been done in different parts of the world to depict the biosimilarity for monoclonal antibodies such as bevacizumab, trastuzumab and rituximab.

Barriers to Biosimilar Prescribing Incentives in the Context of Clinical Governance in Spain

Incentives contribute to the proper functioning of the broader contracts that regulate the relationships between health systems and professionals. Likewise, incentives are an important element of clinical governance understood as health services’ management at the micro-level, aimed at achieving better health outcomes for patients. In Spain, monetary and non-monetary incentives are sometimes used in the health services, but not as frequently as in other countries. There are already several examples in European countries of initiatives searching the promotion of biosimilars through different sorts of incentives, but not in Spain. Hence, this paper is aimed at identifying the barriers that incentives to prescribe biosimilars might encounter in Spain, with particular interest in incentives in the framework of clinical governance. Both questions are intertwined. Barriers are presented from two perspectives. Firstly, based on the nature of the barrier: (i) the payment system for health professionals, (ii) budget rigidity and excessive bureaucracy, (iii) little autonomy in the management of human resources (iv) lack of clinical integration, (v) absence of a legal framework for clinical governance, and (vi) other governance-related barriers. The second perspective is based on the stakeholders involved: (i) gaps in knowledge among physicians, (ii) misinformation and distrust among patients, (iii) trade unions opposition to productivity-related payments, (iv) lack of a clear position by professional associations, and (v) misalignment of the goals pursued by some healthcare professionals and the goals of the public system. Finally, the authors advance several recommendations to overcome these barriers at the national level.

Epoetin alfa-epbx: a new entrant into a crowded market. a historical review of the role of erythropoietin stimulating agents and the development of the first epoetin biosimilar in the United States

Introduction: Erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) have been established both to correct anemia and provide the clinical benefits of increased exercise capacity, reduced transfusion requirements, and improved quality of life. An increase in physician and patient adoption of biosimilars, as well as changes to healthcare reimbursement policies, have driven market competitors to innovate and expand the range of biosimilar products. While erythropoietin biosimilars have been approved by the EMA since 2007, the FDA's approval of epoetin alfa-epbx in 2018 marks the first erythropoietin biosimilar approved in the United States. Areas covered: In this article, we critically review the biology, clinical use, manufacturing, safety, and efficacy of ESAs and erythropoietin biosimilars. We then review the regulatory framework and potential impact on healthcare costs offered by erythropoietin biosimilars. Expert opinion: Due to the complex nature of manufacturing large-molecule biologics, it is important to recognize the challenges to quality assurance and overall safety posed by the introduction of biosimilars, which undergo much more limited clinical testing than their reference biologic product before coming to market. With many biologic therapies nearing patent expiration, biosimilars will become increasingly common in clinical practice. Ensuring patient safety with these products will require increased post-marketing surveillance and awareness from prescribers.

Biosimilars in Malaysia: Regulatory Framework, Approved Products, and Adverse Effects

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to original biologic medicines that allow patients access to biologic therapies for various chronic diseases. Our paper aims to provide an overview of biosimilars in Malaysia with emphasis on the comparison of Malaysian guidelines with guidelines from well-established regulatory agencies, a review of biosimilars' market approval and their reported adverse effects (AEs) as well as clinical trials conducted in Malaysia.

METHODS

We searched the official websites of the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) Malaysia and three other well-established agencies, online databases of Medline® and EMBASE for guidelines on legislation and regulations of biosimilars. Meanwhile, we extracted the reports of AEs involving biosimilars in Malaysia from the NPRA database and for global AEs from the World Health Organisation VigyLize database. The ClinicalTrials.gov Website by the U.S. National Library of Medicines was the source for data on clinical trials.

RESULTS

Malaysia followed the principles of the European Medicines Agency biosimilar regulations and issued their guideline in 2008. Since then, NPRA has approved 24 biosimilar products and recorded 499 AE reports, of which 43 (8.6%) were serious. NPRA has also approved ten Phase III clinical trials in Malaysia with four trials still ongoing.

CONCLUSION

Malaysia follows a stringent regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars enacted by well-established regulatory agencies to maintain the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilars. Introducing biosimilars to the Malaysian market would improve patients' accessibility to biologic therapies.

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP's key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.

Current and future roles of biosimilars in oncology practice

Biologics have been used increasingly in the treatment and supportive care of cancer; however, their high cost places a significant burden on healthcare systems. The expiration of patents for biologics has led to the development of biosimilars, with the aim of reducing cost and increasing accessibility to novel treatments, which are affordable for a greater number of patients. Biosimilars are highly similar but not identical to the reference products; therefore, strict regulatory requirements have been formed for their approval. This ensures that there are no clinically meaningful differences compared with respective biologics, with regard to purity, safety and efficacy. In 2003, a regulatory framework for the approval of biosimilars was established in Europe, whereas the USA did not implement a framework until 2009, when the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act was formed. A number of biosimilars have currently been approved in oncology and the number is expected to rise in the near future. More than 10 years of evidence has revealed that biosimilars are safe and effective; however healthcare professionals need to be further educated to eliminate potential misconceptions and integrate biosimilars into routine clinical practice. The present review aims to provide an overview of the biosimilars used in Europe and the USA, present their main benefits and challenges, and discuss their current and future roles in medical oncology.

Biosimilars in dermatology: The wind of change

Biosimilars are new drugs, highly similar copies of biological medicines, equally effective and safe but at lower prices. The aim of this brief review is to provide the current status of biosimilars approved in the European Union for dermatological use. We used PubMed for literature search up to June 2018. The keyword 'biosimilars' was searched and 1,691 items were found. From the 1,691 studies, we included 34 articles in our review. Biologics, biosimilars and generics are different types of drugs. Biosimilars are complex molecules produced by a difficult manufacturing process, and changes in product quality may affect its safety and efficacy. Now, there are 9 biosimilar medicines approved by European Medicines Agency (EMA) for plaque psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa: Amgevita, Solymbic, Cyltezo, Imraldi, Benepali, Erelzi, Flixabi, Inflectra and Remsima, and the number is increasing. In 2005, EMA issued the first guidelines for approval of biosimilars. Next-generation biologics, called 'biobetters', have the same target or mechanism of action as previously approved biologics, but they have structural changes and an improved formulation. The debate over the future of biosimilars is far from being finished. The explosive development of biological therapy and the emergence of biosimilars represent a significant success in the effort to provide advanced healthcare to patients all over the world.

Infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis: tolerance and efficacy in a retrospective study including switch from the originator and initiation of treatment

OBJECTIVES

Infliximab is increasingly used to treat neurosarcoidosis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerance of an infliximab biosimilar for treating neurosarcoidosis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study to describe the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of an infliximab biosimilar in neurosarcoidosis patients. We compared the survival time without relapse while receiving the biosimilar or previous originator-infliximab treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with histologically documented neurosarcoidosis were treated with an infliximab biosimilar (initiation of treatment in 12 and switch from the originator drug in 8) between February 2016 and August 2018. All patients presenting with neurological involvement of one or more areas, including meningeal (n = 15), cerebral (n = 10), spinal cord (n = 9), and/or cranial nerves (n = 5); epilepsy (n = 3); and/or intracranial hypertension (n = 3) were enrolled. Eighteen patients received glucocorticoids during infliximab treatment, and 16 had methotrexate or azathioprine concomitant treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 25 months (19-28). Six patients relapsed during biosimilar treatment. Relapse rates and time-to-relapse did not differ between the infliximab originator previously received and biosimilar treatment groups (p = 0.40 and 0.51, respectively). Nine patients experienced 11 adverse events with the infliximab biosimilar, including infections (n = 5), urticaria (n = 4), headache (n = 1), and diarrhea (n = 1). All side effects were grade 2 or less using the WHO classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, the infliximab biosimilar was efficacious and safe for treating neurosarcoidosis.

An Empirical Analysis of the Perceived Challenges and Benefits of Introducing Biosimilars in Bangladesh: A Paradigm Shift

The high demand for and resulting financial success of biopharmaceutical products over the last three decades have seen the door open for close copies of these biological products, also known as biosimilars. This paper seeks to collate all relevant published intelligence with acquired survey data to assess the weight of available evidence that these products hold immense potential for the pharmaceutical industry in terms of their applications and benefits. Biosimilars also pose to be of great promise to the Bangladesh pharmaceutical industry, with the commitment of drastically reducing its dependence on foreign imports of biopharmaceutics to meet local demand. Our questionnaire based survey involved 100 Clinicians, 50 Industry Experts and 100 Academicians. The study found that majority of Industry Experts (72%) and Academicians (63%) shared a different concept of biosimilars opposed to majority of Clinicians (78%). Majority of Academicians (68%) and Industry Experts (61%) also shared a different belief from that of most Clinicians (61%) regarding the need for updating the existing regulatory guidelines. The study also showed that Clinicians (67%), Industry Experts (83%) and Academicians (80%) highlighted the benefit of lower costs of biosimilars. Furthermore, the quality data obtained from the survey results allowed us to evaluate and provide recommendations for stakeholders on the need for increased biosimilar awareness, pharmacovigilance and safety in Bangladesh.

A bibliometric analysis of the global research on biosimilars

Background

Biosimilars could be a promising option to help decrease healthcare costs and expand access to treatment. There is no previous evidence of a global bibliometric analysis on biosimilars. Therefore, we aimed to assess the quantity and quality of worldwide biosimilars research.

Methods

We performed a bibliometric analysis using documents about biosimilars published until December 2016 in journals indexed in Scopus. We extracted the annual research, languages, countries, journals, authors, institutions, citation frequency, and the metrics of journals. The data were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2013. Additional information about authors' participation was obtained using the R-package Bibliometrix. Publication activity was adjusted for the countries by population size. Also, author co-citation analysis and a term co-occurrence analysis with the terms included in the title and abstract of publications was presented as network visualization maps using VOSviewer.

Results

A total of 2330 biosimilar-related documents identified in the Scopus database, most of them were articles (1452; 62.32%). The number of documents published had an exponential increased between 2004 and 2016 (p < 0.001). The United States was the country with the highest production with 685 (29.40%) documents followed by Germany and UK with 293 (12.58%) and 248 (10.64%), respectively. Switzerland (11.05), Netherlands (5.85) and UK (3.83) showed the highest per capita ratio. The highest citation/article ratio were for the Netherlands (28.06), Spain (24.23), and France (20.11). Gabi Journal published 73 (3.13%) documents; both Biopharm International and Pharmaceutical Technology and Mabs, 41 (1.76%). Three out of top ten journals were Trade publications. Amgen Incorporated from the USA was the most prolific institution with 51 documents followed by Pfizer Inc. with 48. Terms about specific diseases and drugs were found in recent years, compared with terms such as legislation, structure, protein, dose and generic in the early years.

Conclusions

Research production and publication of documents on biosimilars are increasing. The majority of publications came from high-income countries. The trends in terminology use are according to state of the art in the topic, and reflects the interest in the utilization of biosimilars in diseases who are expected to obtain benefits of its use.