The Psychological Risks Associated With the Non-medical Switch From Biologics to Biosimilars

Stakeholder perspectives on the sustainability of the United States biosimilars market

Biologic therapies play a critical role in modern medical practice but also present challenges for payers, patients, and other stakeholders because of their high cost. Biosimilars can mitigate the cost pressures of reference biologic therapy because they are typically priced at least 25% lower, providing a means to administer cutting-edge biologic therapy while also managing cost of care. In fact, the US health care system has saved an estimated $23.6 billion from use of biosimilars. However, the market is still in a nascent phase of development, and early cost-saving successes are not guaranteed to persist unless sustainable market conditions are established. To better understand the perspectives of stakeholders about opportunities and threats to the sustainability of the US biosimilar market, a multistakeholder roundtable discussion was convened in December of 2023 and included health care payers, providers, self-insured employers, a manufacturer, and a biosimilar research and advocacy organization. The objective of this commentary, authored by the roundtable participants, is to posit specific opportunities and threats that stakeholders should consider to better facilitate sustainable biosimilar market conditions in the United States. We highlight key points, including (1) biosimilar price volatility with large quarter-on-quarter declines for most products; (2) perverse economic incentives that encourage providers to use more expensive reference products because reimbursement dynamics make them more profitable; (3) complex rebate structures that create barriers to biosimilar access; and (4) ongoing changes to the legal and regulatory environment, including evidence requirements to gain "interchangeable" status. We conclude with an overview of potential policy solutions to address the sustainability opportunities and threats. The authors welcome the opportunity to advance this dialogue toward action and encourage additional stakeholders to join the effort. We are optimistic that, through informed decision-making and compromise, we can collectively achieve a robust and sustainable US biosimilars market that appropriately benefits all stakeholders.

Consensus-Based Overarching Principles and Recommendations on the Use of Biosimilars in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis in the Gulf Region

BACKGROUND

Though biologic agents have significantly improved the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis), high costs, stringent regulations, strict reimbursement criteria, and existing patents have limited patient access to treatments. While being highly similar in quality, safety, and efficacy to biologic reference products, biosimilars can reduce the financial burden and prevent underutilization of medication.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this initiative was to develop an evidence-based consensus of overarching principles and recommendations aimed at standardizing the use of biosimilars in treating inflammatory arthritis in the Gulf region.

METHODS

A task force of practicing rheumatologists, a clinical pharmacist, a health economist, patients, regulators, and payors from across the Gulf region developed recommendations and overarching principles based on the outputs of a systematic literature review conducted to address Patient-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions specific to key challenges regarding the use of biosimilars for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis in the region. As the data before 2017 have been previously reviewed in another publication, the current review focused on data published between January 2017 and August 2022 (PROSPERO ID CRD42022364002). Consensus on each statement required a level of agreement of 70% or greater.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for five overarching principles and nine recommendations by the task force. The principles emphasize the importance of improving the awareness, understanding, and perception of biosimilars, as well as the need for regulated regional real-world data generation and protocols to make biosimilars a viable and affordable treatment option for all patients. The consensus recommendations advocate the need for shared treatment decisions between rheumatologists and patients when considering biosimilars. They further recommend that confirmation of a biosimilar's efficacy and safety in a single indication is sufficient for extrapolation to other diseases for which the reference product has been approved. Finally, there is a need for pharmacovigilance and national health policies governing the adoption and prescription of biosimilars in clinical practice across the region.

CONCLUSIONS

These are the first consensus recommendations for the Gulf region based on a systematic literature review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, integrating clinical evidence with clinical expertise to optimize decision making for the use of biosimilars in patients with inflammatory arthritis. They were formulated based on predominantly international data because of the limited regional data and therefore can be generalized to serve as recommendations for healthcare professionals in other parts of the world.

Self-reported efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars after non-medical switch in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results of a multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on subjective disease control and perception of adverse events (AEs) during switching from original anti-TNF agents to biosimilars.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Hungarian patients with inflammatory bowel disease were interviewed after a mandatory non-medical switch from an infliximab (IFX) originator to a biosimilar GP1111 or from an adalimumab (ADA) originator to a biosimilar GP2017. Drug choice was based on patient's and physician's decision. Subjective efficacy was measured using a 10-point scale, and AEs were assessed. Difference in efficacy before and after the switch was compared within and between the drugs.

RESULTS

Seventy-three ADA and 106 IFX switching patients were interviewed. Subjective efficacy of IFX biosimilar was rated lower compared to IFX originator (8.72 ± 1.68 vs. 7.77 ± 2.34; p = 0.001). The ADA biosimilar was rated higher than its originator (9.02 ± 1.61 vs. 8.42 ± 1.93; p = 0.017). Patients receiving ADA biosimilar were more satisfied with the new treatment compared to IFX (p = 0.032). The incidence of new AEs was 85% in the ADA and 55% in the IFX group (1.79 vs. 0.93 AEs per patient, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subjective efficacy of switching to a biosimilar was proven in case of ADA, while reduced efficacy was experienced with IFX biosimilar. Perception of AEs was high and varied between biosimilars.

Non-Medical Switching in Dermatology: Cost-Conscious Policy or an Affront to Patient Safety?

Non-medical switching is when a patient's therapy is switched for reasons unrelated to health outcomes. Dermatologists are regularly affected by non-medical switching, as many of their complex patients are on expensive medications, which become first-line targets for cost-containment. This commentary examines the literature on non-medical switching and explores the push and pull factors used to drive medication regimen changes. The system-level cost savings of this practice are substantial and could be used to fund treatment for more vulnerable patients. While there is no substantiated evidence of worse outcomes post-switching, patients may suffer negative psychosocial consequences. Negative patient expectations, which are in part fueled by prescriber suspicion of non-medical switching, seem to contribute to this effect. While non-medical switching is not ideal for all patients, it has the potential to reduce cost while maintaining patient outcomes. The decision to switch should be made only after careful evaluation of the individual patient and their physical and psychological reserve.

Non-medical switching of prescription medications, brand-name drugs and out-of-pocket spending on medicines among Peruvian adults

Objectives

This study evaluated the association between non-medical switching of prescription medications (NMSPM) with brand-name drugs and out-of-pocket spending (OPS) on drugs among Peruvian adults.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of the National Survey of User Satisfaction Health using an analytical cross-sectional design. We included 3155 adults who went to drugstores and pharmacies with prescriptions. The independent variable was the self-reported NMSPM. The outcomes were brand-name drug purchase and OPS on drugs. We calculated crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the OPS on drugs was analysed using linear regression with crude and adjusted β and their 95% CIs.

Key findings

The rate of NMSPM was 6.7%, the proportion of brand-name drug purchases was 55.7% and the average spending on drugs was US$1.73. In the adjusted analysis, the proportion of brand-name drug purchases with NMSPM was higher than without (73.3% versus 54.5%; P &lt; 0.001), with a statistically significant association (adjusted PR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.29 to 1.47; P &lt; 0.001), and the association between NMSPM and OPS on drugs was statistically significant (adjusted β = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.30; P &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions

There is a greater probability of brand-name drug purchases and OPS on drugs when NMSPM exists among adults who go to drugstores and pharmacies in Peru.