Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey

An evaluation of the utilisation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody drugs in Ireland and barriers to their usage

BACKGROUND

While biologic drugs have demonstrated efficacy across a range of indications, patient access to these drugs is constrained due to their high cost. Biosimilars provide a means to increase patient access while reducing the financial burden.

AIMS

The primary objective was to determine the current usage of biosimilar and reference trastuzumab and rituximab in four Irish hospitals. A secondary objective involved determining barriers to biosimilar usage.

METHODS

This project involved a retrospective chart review to analyse the usage of reference and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab. Additionally, a prospective cross-sectional study identified barriers to the usage of biosimilars via the distribution of a novel questionnaire to patients, pharmacists, doctors and students.

RESULTS

The utilisation of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab ranged from 39 to 100%, and 0 to 89%, respectively. A total of n = 479 questionnaire responses were included. Biosimilar awareness was significantly lower among 'Doctors and Medical Students' (45.3%; 95% [CI, 33.8-57.3%]) compared to 'Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students' (97.1%; 95% [CI, 94-98.8%; comparison p < 0.001]). A significant majority of healthcare professionals agreed biosimilars should have consistent nomenclature (p < 0.001). A significant majority of patients (87.3%, 95% [CI, 81.3-92%; p < 0.001]) indicated that they would agree to commence using a biosimilar medicine.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab were in use to a variable extent. There remains a considerable opportunity to further increase the usage to maximise their potential benefits. A series of challenges were identified including reduced awareness among the medical profession and lack of clear nomenclature.

Real-World Experience of Adalimumab Biosimilar (ABP 501) Use in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Approval of adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita®) for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was based upon the principle of extrapolation. Real-world experience of ABP 501 utilization in IBD can provide useful information to healthcare providers and patients.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the 2020-2021 Adelphi IBD Disease Specific Programme™ conducted in five major European countries. Participating gastroenterologists completed a point-in-time survey to provide patient medical record data, and patients voluntarily completed questionnaires to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Descriptive analyses were conducted for "ABP 501 initiators" (received ABP 501 as first advanced therapy) and "RP-ABP 501 switchers" (switched to ABP 501 from reference product [RP; Humira®] as first advanced therapy).

RESULTS

This analysis included 239 ABP 501 initiators and 136 RP-ABP 501 switchers. At consultation, initiators had been on ABP 501 treatment for a median of 7.5 months and switchers had received ABP 501 for a median of 7.7 months following the switch from a median of 14.0 months treatment with RP. About 74% of initiators and 89% of switchers were reported by their treating physicians as being in clinical remission. Physicians and patients reported satisfaction with ABP 501 in the range of 92-99% across both groups. Patient self-assessment, including EuroQol visual analogue scale, Short IBD Questionnaire, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores, suggested minimal impairment of HRQoL while on ABP 501. The most common reason for RP to ABP 501 switch was lower healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

Both patients with IBD and treating physicians reported high levels of satisfaction with ABP 501 among initiators and switchers.

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.

A place for biosimilars in the changing multiple sclerosis treatment landscape

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm for multiple sclerosis (MS), particularly relapsing-remitting MS, is heavily reliant on biologic disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the current cost of treatment acts as a significant barrier to access for patients. Over the next few years exclusivity periods for key biologic medicines used in MS are likely to end, opening the door for biosimilar medicines to enter the market.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss what biosimilar medicines are, and how the existing experience with biosimilar medicines across multiple therapy areas can inform the assimilation of biosimilar medicines into the MS treatment landscape in Europe and the US.

RESULTS

There is currently a lack of knowledge and awareness around the distinctions and similarities between small molecules, non-biological complex drugs, and biological medicines, as well as the different categories of follow-on successor medicines. These include biosimilar medicines that offer a matching efficacy and safety profile to the reference biologic. Understanding and recognition of the stringency of the approval pathways required for drug categories such as biosimilars are key in building confidence in treatment outcomes. For example, biosimilar medicines are sometimes perceived only as 'copies' of their reference biologic despite undergoing an extensive approval process requiring that no clinically meaningful differences are observed between the biosimilar medicine and the reference medicine. For MS, introduction of biosimilar medicines in the future will enable more people with MS to receive effective treatment, and also expand access to biologic DMTs in MS. Experiences from the use of biosimilars in multiple therapy areas have shown us that this can result in cost-saving benefits for a healthcare system. Introduction of biosimilar medicines in other therapy areas has also demonstrated the importance of appropriate, accurate education and information for their successful integration into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

In order to realize optimized treatment outcomes in MS in coming years and to find the appropriate place for biosimilar medicines in the changing MS landscape, it is essential that clinicians and people with MS understand the fundamentals of biosimilars, their potential benefits and consistency of treatment provided by a biosimilar medicine, given the matching efficacy and safety profile to its reference medicine. As evidenced in other therapy areas, biosimilar medicines may reduce key barriers to access by providing a cost-effective alternative to the MS treatment arsenal, while providing the same treatment outcomes as reference biologics.

ASCO Policy Statement on Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products in Oncology

As the voice of cancer care clinicians and the patients they serve, ASCO has taken steps to elevate awareness about biosimilar products and their use in oncology. In 2018, ASCO released its Statement on Biosimilars in Oncology which was subsequently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to serve as an educational tool which highlighted and provided guidance on several topical areas surrounding biosimilars. At the time of its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved eight biosimilar products for use in the United States, including one product for use as a supportive care agent in the cancer setting and two products for use in the treatment for cancer. This number has risen dramatically (40 approvals), with a total of 22 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products approved since 2015. Recently, the FDA also approved the four interchangeable biosimilar products for diabetes, certain inflammatory diseases, and certain ophthalmic diseases. Given the current market dynamics and the regulatory landscape, this ASCO manuscript now seeks to propose several policy recommendations across the scope of value, interchangeability, clinician barriers, and patient education and access. This policy statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies and serves to affirm our commitment to providing education to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting.

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.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Clinical Diagnosis and Pharmaceutical Management

Inflammatory bowel disease has an enormous impact on public health, medical systems, economies, and social conditions. Biologic therapy has ameliorated the treatment and clinical course of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The efficacy and safety profiles of currently available therapies are still less that optimal in numerous ways, highlighting the requirement for new therapeutic targets. A bunch of new drug studies are underway in inflammatory bowel disease with promising results. This is an outlined guideline of clinical diagnosis and pharmaceutical therapy of inflammatory bowel disease. Outline delineates the overall recommendations on the modern principles of desirable practice to bolster the adoption of best implementations and exploration as well as inflammatory bowel disease patient, gastroenterologist, and other healthcare provider education. Inflammatory bowel disease encompasses Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two unsolved medical inflammatory bowel disease-subtypes condition with no drug for cure. The signs and symptoms on first presentation relate to the anatomical localization and severity of the disease and less with the resulting diagnosis that can clinically and histologically be non-definitive to interpret and establish criteria, specifically in colonic inflammatory bowel disease when the establishment is inconclusive is classified as indeterminate colitis. Conservative pharmaceuticals and accessible avenues do not depend on the disease phenotype. The first line management is to manage symptoms and stabilize active disease; at the same time maintenance therapy is indicated. Nutrition and diet do not play a primary therapeutic role but is warranted as supportive care. There is need of special guideline that explore solution of groundwork gap in terms of access limitations to inflammatory bowel disease care, particularly in developing countries and the irregular representation of socioeconomic stratification with a strategic plan, for the unanswered questions and perspective for the future, especially during the surfaced global COVID-19 pandemic caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV2 impacting on both the patient's psychological functioning and endoscopy services. Establishment of a global registry system and accumulated experiences have led to consensus for inflammatory bowel disease management under the COVID-19 pandemic. Painstakingly, the pandemic has influenced medical care systems for these patients. I briefly herein viewpoint summarize among other updates the telemedicine roles during the pandemic and how operationally inflammatory bowel disease centers managed patients and ensured quality of care. In conclusion: inflammatory bowel disease has become a global emergent disease. Serious medical errors are public health problem observed in developing nations i.e., to distinguish inflammatory bowel disease and infectious and parasitic diseases. Refractory inflammatory bowel disease is a still significant challenge in the management of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. There are gaps in knowledge and future research directions on the recent newly registered pharmaceuticals. The main clinical outcomes for inflammatory bowel disease were maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Use of follow-on disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: Consensus recommendations

BACKGROUND

As patents for multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies expire, follow-on disease-modifying treatments (FO-DMTs) become available at reduced cost. Concerns exist that cheaper FO-DMTs are used simply to reduce healthcare costs. However, the well-being of people with MS should take priority.

OBJECTIVES

To identify best practices for FO-DMT development and use by agreeing on principles and consensus statements through appraisal of published evidence.

METHODS

Following a systematic review, we formulated five overarching principles and 13 consensus statements. Principles and statements were voted on by a multidisciplinary panel from 17 European countries, Argentina, Canada and the United States.

RESULTS

All principles and statements were endorsed by >80% of panellists. In brief, FO-DMTs approved within highly regulated areas can be considered effective and safe as their reference products; FO-DMTs can be evaluated case by case and do not always require Phase III trials; long-term pharmacovigilance and transparency are needed; there is lack of evidence for multiple- and cross-switching among FO-DMTs; and education is needed to address remaining concerns.

CONCLUSION

Published data support the use of FO-DMTs in MS. The consensus may aid shared decision-making. While our consensus focused on Europe, the results may contribute to enhanced quality standards for FO-DMTs use elsewhere.

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.

Reassurance Techniques Do Not Significantly Impact Confidence in Biosimilars for Psoriasis: A Survey of a Convenience Sample of Individuals with Self-Identified Psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are underutilized, and negative perceptions may hinder their acceptance by patients. Psychologic interventions have not been extensively studied in the context of alleviating biosimilar hesitancy. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of psychologic interventions on biosimilar confidence.

METHODS

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, 1285 subjects with self-reported psoriasis were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing platform. Participants were randomized to one of ten groups. Group A started with a hypothetical bio-originator; group B started with a hypothetical biosimilar. The remaining groups were provided a hypothetical scenario in which they were switching to a biosimilar after achieving great results with a bio-originator, and were randomized to receive either no reassurance (group C) or one of the following psychologic interventions: reassurance of comparable effectiveness (group D), an illustration implying comparable effectiveness (group E), anecdote of great results obtained in "other psoriasis patients" (group F), anecdote of great results obtained in another psoriasis patient "a lot like you" (group G), reassurance of the rigorous evaluation process to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (group H), engagement in a task designed to facilitate recognition of biosimilars' comparability through answering multiple choice (group I) or free response questions (group J). Confidence levels were assessed using six-point Likert scales and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and two-group t-tests.

RESULTS

While no statistically significant differences were detected, illustrations implying comparability (mean 4.19), explanations of the rigorous process to gain FDA approval (mean 4.21), testimonials of treatment success in another psoriasis patient "a lot like you" (mean 4.07) and "other psoriasis patients" (mean 4.01), and engagement with multiple choice (mean 4.02) and free response answers (mean 4.08) improved biosimilar confidence compared with the biosimilar switch control group (mean 3.96).

CONCLUSION

Identifying highly impactful methods of improving biosimilar confidence remains a challenge.

Patient perspectives of successful adalimumab biosimilar transitioning in Crohn's disease: an interview study

OBJECTIVES

Transition from originator biological medicines to their biosimilar equivalents is now part of routine clinical practice, but there is little understanding of patient experiences, which influence adherence and overall satisfaction with care. Understanding this will help ensure future switches adequately address patients' concerns and expectations leading to better outcomes for all stakeholders.

METHOD

35 patients participating in a clinical trial including an open-label transition event from originator to biosimilar adalimumab, mimicking what would be encountered in a real-world setting, took part in semi-structured interviews exploring their experience of biosimilar transition.

RESULTS

Opinions expressed were often heterogeneous, but common experiences and themes were identified. Five themes were identified following thematic analysis. (1) Understanding and awareness of biosimilars: prior awareness of biosimilars and knowledge of the biosimilar concept was low, indicating a disparity between healthcare professionals and patients. (2) Motivation to undertake transition: patients accept a biosimilar transition to minimise drug expenditure. (3) Initial concerns: before undertaking biosimilar transition away from the brand they had experienced, anticipated loss of efficacy and adverse effects from the biosimilar were common concerns for patients. (4) Reassuring factors: trust in the healthcare team is critical to patient acceptance of biosimilars. Important reassurances include a point of contact, education about biosimilars and monitoring. (5) Experiences during the transition: on reflection, participants described consistent efficacy and tolerability (although 22 participants specifically mentioned injection pain) following brand transition.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients felt comfortable with future transition to another adalimumab biosimilar. Injection experience was an important component of patient satisfaction.

Patient and Caregivers' Perspectives on Biosimilar Use in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient perspectives on biosimilar use revealed that most were unfamiliar with biosimilars and had a negative perception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perspectives of pediatric patients with IBD and their caregivers regarding biosimilar use and non-medical switches.

METHODS

A survey was given to a cross section of patients with IBD ages 11-21 years receiving the intravenous anti-tumor necrosis factor originator and caregivers of patients with IBD ages 3-21 years receiving the originator. Recruitment occurred via mail, during clinic visits, and infusions. Fisher exact tests were used to test for statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

Response rate amongst caregivers was 49% (n = 98) and among patients was 35% (n = 67). Sixty-four percent of caregivers and 79% of patients had never heard of biosimilars. There was increased discomfort surrounding the use of biosimilars and switching to a biosimilar amongst caregivers who had previously heard of biosimilars compared to caregivers who had not previously heard of biosimilars ( P < 0.05). Similar concerns were not seen in patient respondents. The length of time on the originator had no effect on patient or caregiver concerns related to biosimilar efficacy, adverse effects, or switches.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pediatric patients and caregivers had never heard of biosimilars. Caregivers that had heard of biosimilars before the study were more likely to have a negative perception of them. This study highlights the importance of providing thorough and accurate education to pediatric patients and families regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.

"Biosimilar, so it looks alike, but what does it mean?" A qualitative study of Danish patients' perceptions of biosimilars

Biosimilars are highly similar follow‐on products for biologics that can foster biologics competition. Questionnaire studies have attempted to gauge the patient perspective on biosimilars, but none have delved deeper into how patients view biologics and switching of these. Considering Denmark has one of the highest biosimilar uptakes worldwide, the aim of this study was to investigate how Danish patients with psoriasis, arthritic diseases or inflammatory bowel disease perceive biosimilars. Twelve participants were semi‐structurally interviewed in either a focus group or an internet‐based, individual interview between May 2019 and July 2019. Content analysis was inductively applied. Participants on originators voiced more reluctance towards using biosimilars than those already using them. Both participants using originator and biosimilar products expressed concerns about reoccurrence of disease symptoms due to differences in effectiveness and safety. Participants generally struggled with understanding biosimilarity, and they voiced a need to be well‐informed about switching. They were all aware of and accepted how healthcare budget restrictions played a role in the push to use biosimilars. To improve biosimilar uptake and willingness to switch to a biosimilar, patient‐centred information on efficacy and safety and explanation of the societal benefits of the savings from using biosimilars must be carefully communicated.

Moving forward: Implementing health psychology research to improve patient acceptance of biosimilars

As more biosimilars enter the pharmaceutical market, patient acceptance remains a significant barrier to their uptake. Psychological factors, such as negative expectations, are important causes of patient hesitancy. As a result, patients can develop nocebo responses following a transition, discontinue biosimilar treatment early, or have poor adherence. These negative outcomes may offset some of the cost-saving potential of biosimilars. Key healthcare professionals such as pharmacists, physicians, and nurses already play a noteworthy role in educating and transitioning patients. However, given the psychological aspect of biosimilar acceptance, it is logical for healthcare professionals and researchers to draw on research and theory from health psychology. This commentary outlines how a multidisciplinary approach can add to the understanding of the mechanisms behind patient resistance to biosimilars and help engage patients in the transitioning process. It also explores how health psychology strategies that have been successful in similar areas can be translated to help conduct more effective transitions. Future directions in research are discussed.

Effectiveness of SB4 Transition from Originator Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Subgroup Analysis from the BENEFIT Study

OBJECTIVES

The pan-European BENEFIT study of patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who transitioned from reference etanercept to SB4 found no clinically meaningful changes in disease control after transition. The analysis aims to illustrate the peculiarities of the Italian cohort of patients compared with the whole population to provide a more real-life approach to the data for the Italian rheumatologists, ruling out possible local confounding factors.

METHODS

A prospective study for up to 6 months following transition was conducted. Outcome measures of interest include clinical characteristics at time of transition and disease activity scores (Disease Activity Score-28 [DAS28] for RA, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] for axSpA) over time and safety.

RESULTS

One-hundred and eleven subjects (out of the 557 in total enrolled in the study) were derived from 8 Italian sites, including 79 with RA and 32 with axSpA. In both cohorts, the efficacy was maintained at 3 months and 6 months from the transition to the biosimilar with no significant change in mean DAS28 and BASDAI scores: at the end of the 6 months of observation the mean DAS28 and BASDAI was similar to baseline (confidence interval [CI] -0.22, 0.22), while the mean variation of the BASDAI was -0.14. Of note, 100.0% (95% CI 89.1, 100.0) in the axSpA and 90.8% (95% CI 81.5, 95.5) in the RA cohort of patients continued to receive SB4 at month 6 (binary variable with 95% Clopper-Pearson CI).

CONCLUSIONS

Italian patients with stable RA or axSpA who transitioned from originator Etanercept to SB4 maintained clinical response at 6 months post-transition. Both the cohorts are representative of typical patients with long-standing established diagnoses. Most of the patients transitioned to the same dose regimen of biosimilar as that received for the originator, and the regimen remained unchanged at 6 months, supporting the effectiveness of the transition.

The Real-World Experience of the Biosimilar (Grastofil®) to the Reference Biologic (Neupogen®) in Breast Cancer and Lymphoma: A Canadian Single-Centre Retrospective Study

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy that may result in poor treatment outcomes. The short acting granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) act to stimulate granulocytes to increase production of white blood cells. The filgrastim biosimilar is useful, as it may provide a cheaper and equally effective treatment to FN. This study explored the usage of the filgrastim biosimilar (Grastofil^®) and the reference biologic (Neupogen^®) in breast cancer and lymphoma patients. A retrospective chart review of patients receiving Grastofil^® from January 2017 to June 2019 or Neupogen^® for primary prophylaxis of FN from January 2013 to December 2017 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN and the occurrence of dose reduction (DR) and dose delay (DD). One hundred and fifty-three Grastofil^® patients were matched to 153 Neupogen^® patients. This cohort was further split into breast cancer (n = 275) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 31) cohorts. After adjusting for chemotherapy cycles, the biosimilar filgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

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.

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

PURPOSE

The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate.

The cost savings of biosimilars can help increase patient access and lift the financial burden of health care systems

BACKGROUND

Biologics have provided improved clinical benefits to patients, but they come at a huge expense due to the high costs associated with their development and manufacturing. Biosimilars, which have been clinically studied and have demonstrated to be efficacious and safe, are more cost-effective versions of biologics, however, their uptake has been slow in the United States (US) compared to in the European Union (EU).

OBJECTIVES

In this analysis, we review the challenges to increased biosimilar use in the US and the successful strategies employed to increase biosimilar uptake in the EU.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater utilization of biosimilars in the US is an achievable goal but the federal government, pharmaceutical companies, and medical associations/institutions will need to work together to address patient and physician concerns and to remove incentives for using more expensive treatment options.

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.

A bio-what? Medical companions' perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology

Patient perceptions influence biosimilar uptake in non-mandatory transitions. Companions (support people) are often actively involved in the patient's medical journey and are likely to have unique perceptions of biosimilars, which may shape patient attitudes. This study explores the congruence between patient and companion perceptions towards biosimilars and their information needs. Patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic diseases (59% for rheumatoid arthritis) and their companions received an explanation about biosimilars. Participants (N = 78) completed questionnaires assessing their familiarity with biosimilars, perceptions, concerns, and benefits of being accompanied. Contingency tables and paired sample t-tests were used to explore differences in familiarity, confidence in knowledge, and perceptions. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of congruence for perceptions towards biosimilars. Companions were significantly less familiar with biosimilars (p = 0.014, Cramer's V = 0.28) and reported lower confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.47) than patients. Companions and patients had moderate to good congruency for perceptions toward confidence in biosimilar use and safety, efficacy, and side-effect expectations (intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.81). Companions and patients were most concerned about safety and effectiveness. Companions also reported concerns about cost savings driving the transition, while patients had concerns about uncertainty and testing. Patients reported the ability for discussion, improved understanding, and validation as benefits of being accompanied. Companions and patients have similar levels of perceptions and expectations towards biosimilars but report some unique information needs. Future educational interventions should involve companions and address their concerns to help improve biosimilar acceptance.

The mode of delivery and content of communication strategies used in mandatory and non-mandatory biosimilar transitions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Effective patient-provider communication is crucial to promote shared decision-making. However, it is unclear how to explain treatment changes to ensure patient acceptance, such as when transitioning from a bio-originator to a biosimilar. This review investigates communication strategies used to educate patients on transitioning to biosimilars and explores whether the willingness to transition and treatment persistence differs for the delivery (verbal or written) and the amount of information provided. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and relevant conference databases were systematically searched. Communication strategies from 33 studies (88% observational cohort studies) published from 2012 to 2020 were synthesized and willingness to transition, persistence, and subjective adverse events explored. Patients only received information verbally in 11 studies. The remaining 22 studies also provided written information. Cost-saving was the main reason provided for the transition. Patients were most willing to transition when receiving written and verbal information (χ² = 5.83, p = .02) or written information that only addressed a few (3-5) concerns (χ² = 16.08, p < .001). There was no significant difference for persistence or subjective adverse events (p's > .05). Few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Available data shows more willingness to transition when patients received written and verbal information. Initial documents should contain basic information and consultations or telephone calls used to address concerns.

Does Biosimilar Bevacizumab Offer Affordable Treatment Options for Cancer Patients in the USA? A Budget Impact Analysis from US Commercial and Medicare Payer Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab remains the most widely used and most thoroughly characterized angiogenesis inhibitor for a range of advanced cancers. Bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev®), a biosimilar of bevacizumab, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which provides a less costly option. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing bevacizumab-bvzr from US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was developed over a 5-year time horizon. Target population was patients to be treated with bevacizumab for FDA-approved indications. Drug costs (2020 US$) were based on average sales price and wholesale acquisition cost, accounting for payer-specific reimbursement models and provider settings. Drug dosing and duration were based on prescribing information and pivotal trial publications.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical 10-million-member health plan, 503 and 723 patients were estimated to be treated with bevacizumab in year 1 and year 5, respectively. Assuming an annual market shift of 1.7%, 3.6%, 6.7%, 9.4%, and 11.9% to bevacizumab-bvzr, an annual cost saving of $313,363 ($0.003 per member per month [PMPM]) was estimated for a commercial payer and $92,880 ($0.001 PMPM) for Medicare in year 1. Cumulative 5-year cost savings were $7,030,924 ($0.012 PMPM) for a commercial payer and $4,059,257 ($0.007 PMPM) for Medicare. More than half of the cost savings was attributed to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr was estimated to provide substantial cost savings for US payers, which would allow additional patients access to bevacizumab treatment.

Who is afraid of biosimilars? Openness to biosimilars in an Australian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Biosimilars are increasingly adopted to improve affordability of biologics. An effective introduction of biosimilars requires an understanding of patient acceptance of these agents. We performed a cross-sectional study of 132 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to the introduction of biosimilar switching or prescribing in this cohort. Despite being unfamiliar with biosimilars, most patients are willing to accept biosimilar medicines if recommended by their rheumatologist. Patient concerns about biosimilar uptake mainly focus on concerns about its efficacy. There is a significant correlation between patient attitudes towards biosimilar and generic medicines.

The Great Debate With IBD Biosimilars: Pro: Biosimilars Should Be Routinely Used as a First Line Biologic and May Be Switched From Reference Biologics

The relatively high cost of anti-TNF agents and looming or actual expiry of patents for several biologics have led to the development of "highly similar" versions of the "originator" drugs called "biosimilars." The approval of biosimilars has been based on "extrapolation," whereby approval is granted in licensed indications for the reference product without the need for clinical trials. We discuss efficacy and safety data in support of biosimilar use from prospective studies, switching from originator biologic, impact on immunogenicity, pharmaco-economic, and practical considerations for clinicians.

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.

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.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions

The EU, the USA, and Japan account for the majority of biological pharmacotherapy use worldwide. Biosimilar regulatory approval pathways were authorised in the EU (2006), in Japan (2009), and in the USA (2015), to facilitate approval of biological drugs that are highly similar to reference products and to encourage market competition. Between 2007 and 2020, 33 biosimilars for oncology were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 16 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and ten by the Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Some of these approved applications were initially rejected because of manufacturing concerns (four of 36 [11%] with the EMA, seven of 16 [44%] with the FDA, none of ten for the PMDA). Median times from initial regulatory submission before approval of oncology biosimilars were 1·5 years (EMA), 1·3 years (FDA), and 0·9 years (PMDA). Pharmacists can substitute biosimilars for reference biologics in some EU countries, but not in the USA or Japan. US regulation prohibits substitution, unless the biosimilar has been approved as interchangeable, a designation not yet achieved for any biosimilar in the USA. Japan does not permit biosimilar substitution, as prescribers must include the product name on each prescription and that specific product must be given to the patient. Policy Reviews published in 2014 and 2016 in The Lancet Oncology focused on premarket and postmarket policies for oncology biosimilars before most of these drugs received regulatory approval. In this Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, we identify factors preventing the effective launch of oncology biosimilars. Introduction to the market has been more challenging with therapeutic than for supportive care oncology biosimilars. Addressing region-specific competition barriers and educational needs would improve the regulatory approval process and market launches for these biologics, therefore expanding patient access to these products in the EU, the USA, and Japan.

Greater awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado, United States: Real-world data

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies and educational programs focused on biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients diagnosed with various rheumatic diseases.

AIM

To improve knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado as well as to assess a rheumatology patient’s interest in discussing biosimilars as well as shared decision-making with others (e.g., medical professionals, family members, friends).

METHODS

Our goal was to work with 80 rheumatology teams in Colorado.  We developed and distributed 2000 multi-page brochures to each participating office and later conducted an online anonymous survey.

RESULTS

There were a total of 49 (2.5%) rheumatology patients who responded to our survey. After reading our educational booklet, many survey respondents identified the correct answer in most questions focused on biosimilars or shared decision-making. Our survey results suggest that patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado are generally not involved in discussions with their providers regarding treatment plans or options. The improvement in scores after reading our educational materials was statistically significant for biosimilars and shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the level of knowledge and awareness of biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices in Colorado was low. More educational programs as well as follow up trainings to measure changes in knowledge and awareness regarding biosimilars and shared decision-making among patients attending rheumatology practices are recommended.

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients' preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients' preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients' perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients' preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients' preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients' beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients' decision-making processes.

A retrospective review of the real-world experience of the Pegfilgrastim biosimilar (Lapelga®) to the reference biologic (Neulasta®)

Introduction

Cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy are vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) which contributes to poor treatment outcomes. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The introduction of biosimilars has allowed for greater cost-savings while maintaining safety and efficacy. This retrospective study assessed the incidence of FN and related treatment outcomes and the cost minimization of a pegfilgrastim biosimilar and its reference.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of breast cancer patients receiving (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy from February 2017 to May 2020 was conducted. The endpoints included the incidence of FN, the occurrence of dose reduction (DR), dose delay (DD) and pain. A cost minimization analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective.

Results

One hundred Neulasta® and 74 Lapelga® patients were included in the first-cycle analysis. The rate of FN in cycle 1 for Neulasta® and Lapelga® was 2/100 and 4/74, respectively; risk difference (RD)  =  3.4%; 95% CI: –2.4 to 9.2%. Eighty-three Neulasta® and 59 Lapelga® patients were included in the all-cycle analyses, where DR was reported in 76 (15%) Neulasta® cycles vs 33 (10%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –3.6, 95% CI: –10.2 to 2.9). DD was reported in 20 (4%) Neulasta® cycles vs. 11 (3.5%) Lapelga® cycles (RD = –0.3; 95% CI: –2.7 to 2.0). Adverse events were similar between groups. Cost minimization using a cohort of 20,000 patients translated into an incremental savings of $21,606,800 CAD for each cycle.

Conclusion

The biosimilar pegfilgrastim was non-inferior to the reference biologic based on FN incidence in addition to related outcomes including DR and DD.

Trastuzumab Biosimilars in the Therapy of Breast Cancer - "Real World" Experiences from four Bavarian University Breast Centres

Introduction With the introduction of the first trastuzumab biosimilar in the summer of 2018, biosimilar antibodies for breast cancer have found their way into the area of gynaecological oncology. The switch of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy from the reference drug Herceptin ^® to a biosimilar has presented challenges to the clinics. In addition to structural and organisational measures, training of employees as well as patient briefing and acceptance were major challenges. The study presented here records - within the context of quality assurance - how the switch to a trastuzumab biosimilar was implemented at four Bavarian university clinics in the Purchasing Association of Bavarian University Pharmacies. Materials/Methods Questionnaires on treatment figures and the switching process were sent to breast centres and pharmacies of four Bavarian university clinics between July and December 2019. The neoadjuvant, adjuvant and metastasised anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab was recorded, evaluated and summarised. Results In the anti-HER2-therapy, trastuzumab was used intravenously (i. v.) and subcutaneously. Between July and December 2018, all four clinics in the Purchasing Association switched the i. v. trastuzumab therapy from the reference drug (Herceptin) to a biosimilar (for 2018: Kanjinti ^® ). Over 200 patients were treated with trastuzumab i. v. in each of the two half-years of 2018 (before and after the switch). The spectrum of side effects and pCR rates under therapy with the biosimilar were comparable to the experiences made with the reference drug. Three out of four clinics provided training to employees and informed patients by means of a defined information leaflet. Patient acceptance was high. Summary The anti-HER2 therapy could be switched successfully and safely to trastuzumab biosimilars at the Bavarian university hospitals. This may serve as guideline for the further implementation of biosimilars. The structures necessary for this initial switching process have been prepared with trastuzumab as an example.

Effects of Message Framing on Patients' Perceptions and Willingness to Change to a Biosimilar in a Hypothetical Drug Switch

OBJECTIVE

Patients often hold negative perceptions toward biosimilars that can create barriers to their uptake. Physicians also report uncertainty in how best to explain biosimilars. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of differently framed explanations on patients' perceptions of and willingness to change to a biosimilar in a hypothetical drug switch.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients with rheumatic diseases taking an originator biologic were randomized to receive 1 of 4 biosimilar explanations: positive framing with and without an analogy, and negative framing with and without an analogy. Willingness to switch to a biosimilar, perceptions about biosimilars, and the effectiveness of the explanation were measured after the information delivery.

RESULTS

Positive framing led to more participants being willing to switch (67%) than negative framing (46%). Framing significantly predicted willingness to switch to a biosimilar, with participants in the positive framing group being 2.36 times more willing to switch (P = 0.041). The positive framing group also reported significantly greater perceived efficacy of biosimilars (P = 0.046) and thought the explanation was more convincing (P = 0.030). The analogy did not enhance willingness to switch or increase understanding (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Positive framing can improve perceptions of and willingness to switch to a biosimilar in patients currently taking biologic treatments.

Patients' beliefs and behaviours are associated with perceptions of safety and concerns in a hypothetical biosimilar switch

Although patient acceptance is important for biosimilar adoption and reducing healthcare costs, many patients perceive biosimilars to be unsafe and have concerns about switching. Studies show that patients' characteristics influence negative perceptions toward generic drugs, but little research has explored biosimilar acceptance. This study examines which demographic and psychological characteristics are associated with patients' safety perceptions and concerns about switching to biosimilars. Ninety-six patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic conditions (65% for rheumatoid arthritis) completed the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire, Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale. Demographic factors, information seeking, concerns about switching and safety perceptions were also assessed. Pearson's correlations and hierarchical linear regressions were conducted to explore whether patient characteristics are associated with perceptions of biosimilars. Negative safety perceptions were associated with being female, short-term bio-originator use, illness beliefs, seeking health information online, high perceived sensitivity to medicines and negative beliefs about medicines. Only being female (β = 0.24, P = 0.02) was independently associated. More concerns about switching were associated with being female, illness beliefs, high perceived sensitivity to medicines, information-seeking behaviours and preferring innovator drugs. Seeking health information online (β = 0.20, P = 0.04), preferring innovator drugs (β = 0.29, P = 0.004) and stronger emotional responses (β = 0.26, P = 0.01) were independently associated. Perceived bio-originator effectiveness was inversely associated with preferring biosimilars (r_s=  - 0.33, P < 0.001). Patients who have stronger emotional responses to their condition, are females, seek health information online and prefer innovator drugs that have more negative perceptions about biosimilars. Experiences with bio-originators influence attitudes towards switching.

A survey of global biosimilar implementation practice conducted by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners

Background

The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Biosimilars Task Force was charged to develop educational activities and resources to assist members when implementing biosimilar medicines into their local practice. To facilitate the process, the task force conducted a survey in order to understand biosimilar implementation practice by ISOPP members across the world and the challenges that oncology pharmacists face when adopting biosimilars into their clinical practice.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 20 April 2019 and 27 May 2019. Members of ISOPP and a number of national oncology pharmacy groups were invited to complete the survey. The survey contained 29 items and consisted of three sections: respondents’ demographics, respondents’ institutional practice relating to biosimilar implementation and post implementation practice at the respondents’ institutions. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the survey results.

Results

A total of 265 ISOPP members were surveyed, with 50 members providing a response (response rate = 19%). In addition, 40 nonmembers participated in the survey, bringing the total to 90 respondents. The most common factors that influence the decision to implement use of a biosimilar as reported by respondents are medication costs/pricing (92%), available clinical data (73%), and product availability (63%). Respondents also commented on the barriers to biosimilar implementation at their institutions, which included a reluctance of prescribers to use biosimilars (due to the lack of familiarity or perceived inferiority), a reluctance to switch established patients from an originator to a biosimilar and the preferences of insurance companies or funding bodies.

Conclusion

The results of this survey reinforce the need for greater education and training for health care professionals in the use of biosimilars, the importance of sharing good practice, and a need for standardization.

Process and Clinical Outcomes of a Biosimilar Adoption Program with Infliximab-Dyyb

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the FDA approved infliximab-dyyb (IFX-dyyb) as a biosimilar to infliximab (IFX). Deemed to have comparable efficacy and safety to IFX, IFX-dyyb is 20%-30% less expensive, allowing significant cost savings for institutions and some payers. In 2018, IFX was reported to be the drug with the highest spend since 2013, costing $3.8 billion; however, transition to IFX-dyyb would save $1.1 billion. Regardless, many institutions have not transitioned to IFX-dyyb or other IFX biosimilars (e.g., IFX-abda) because of concerns about clinical outcomes, uncertainty regarding financial impact, and barriers to operationalizing biosimilar adoption. At Boston Medical Center, a decision was made in March 2018 to adopt IFX-dyyb and transition patients who have been on IFX for ≥ 6 months for all indications to IFX-dyyb.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe a biosimilar adoption process of IFX-dyyb in patients on IFX for ≥ 6 months; (b) characterize cost savings of transitioning patients to IFX-dyyb; and (c) evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who transitioned to IFX-dyyb.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients eligible for the IFX-dyyb switch from March 2018 to June 2019 at a large academic medical center. For process outcomes, we collected the proportion of patients who transitioned to IFX-dyyb and calculated the cost savings generated. To assess clinical outcomes of adult IBD patients who transitioned, we collected IFX and IFX-dyyb dosage, Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) scores, c-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and colonoscopy results. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's test were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Of 151 eligible patients, 146 (97%) successfully transitioned to IFX-dyyb. Based on our conversion rate to IFX-dyyb, our health system is forecasted to save approximately $500,000 annually. From March to June 2018, 63 of 75 (84%) eligible IBD patients transitioned from IFX to IFX-dyyb. In this cohort, of the 40 patients with HBI or SCCAI scores before and after transition, 36 (90%) maintained remission. For 32 patients, the mean CRP (SD) before transition was 11.2 (22) and 4.1 (4.8) after transition (P = 0.09). Since the IFX-dyyb transition, 9 patients had a colonoscopy, of which 5 (56%) were in endoscopic remission. As of October 2018, 56 (89%) patients continued with IFX-dyyb after transition. Of the 46 patients who had 12-15 months posttransition data, 38 (83%) remained on IFX-dyyb.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a biosimilar adoption program can be successful and result in significant cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. A model that uses actionable strategies and embraces collaboration among stakeholders is described here, with outcomes demonstrating successful IFX-dyyb uptake and no changes in clinical outcomes of transitioned adult patients with IBD.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Farraye reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. Shah reports speaker fees from Pfizer. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Impact of a medical interview on the decision to switch from originator infliximab to its biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

To lighten the burden on health-care spending, switching from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is advocated. However, the uptake of biosimilars lacks initiatives aimed at educating patients.

AIMS

To explore the impact of a gastroenterologist's interview on IBD patients' acceptance for switching from infliximab bio-originator Remicade® to its biosimilar CT-P13 Inflectra®.

METHODS

After the interview of 138 included patients, 120 properly responded to a self-administered questionnaire to collect consent about the switch and relevant data. French national IBD patients' association (Association François Aupetit) provided an information sheet on biosimilars.

RESULTS

93 (67.0%) out of 138 and 82 (68.3%) out of 120 patients switched treatment. 114 (79.8%) had never heard about biosimilars. Paradoxically, having heard about biosimilars was associated with a poorer chance to switch (Odds Ratio OR [95% CI] = 0.13 [0.02-0.72]). On the contrary, the more satisfied about generics, the more patients accepted the switch (OR [95% CI] = 1.31 [1.01-1.69]). There were 1.47 (Relative Risk RR [95% CI] = 1.47 [1.07-2.01]) times more chance to agree to the switch if the interview modified the patient's opinion on biosimilars.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that an organized information provided to the patient is a contributive way to enhance patient's acceptance of biosimilars in IBD.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to biosimilar CT-P13 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A 12-month prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to a biosimilar have yet to be assessed.

AIM

To assess patients' perspectives in a prospective manner after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.

METHODS

113 consecutive patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on maintenance therapy with infliximab were switched to CT-P13. Patients' perspectives were assessed by questionnaires, including the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and FACIT-F (questionnaire regarding fatigue), and patient-reported outcomes (IBD disability index) at the inclusion and after the fourth CT-P13 infusion.

RESULTS

After one year, the patients' perspectives did not change after the switch according to BMQ-general, BMQ-specific necessity and BMQ-specific concerns subscales. No difference was observed in the mean IBD-DI score, while a significant improvement in fatigue was observed according to the FACIT-F questionnaire. Patients' concerns were raised about the use of biosimilars and the risks of switching with a significant improvement after switching (65% vs. 42%, respectively, p = 0.01). Fourteen (12.4%) patients experienced loss of response to CT-P13, including 12 with restoration of steroid-free clinical remission after CT-P13 dose optimization.

CONCLUSION

Although some concerns were reported, no difference was observed in patients' perspectives after switching from infliximab to CT-P13.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Descriptive Analysis of Long- and Intermediate-Acting Insulin and Key Safety Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

As new biosimilar and follow-on insulins enter the market, more data are needed on safety, effectiveness, and patterns of use for these products to inform prescriber and patient decision-making regarding treatment. Additionally, data are needed regarding real-world patterns of use to inform future studies comparing the safety and effectiveness of bio-similars to already approved agents for diabetes treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the medication use patterns, adverse events, and availability of glycated hemoglobin (A1c) values for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use long-acting insulin (LAI) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), an intermediate-acting insulin.

METHODS

We used the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's (BBCIC) distributed research network (DRN) for this descriptive analysis. The analysis time frame was January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015, and included patients continuously insured for at least 183 days before the first date of a filled prescription for LAI or NPH insulin alone or with rapid- or short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, whether newly starting insulin or switching to a different product. Insulin exposure episodes were the unit of analysis, and patients were classified in cohorts according to treatment. We followed patients until end of health plan enrollment or the end of the study period. We used occurrence of a study outcome, switch to another medication regimen, discontinuation of the current medication, or study end date to mark the end of an insulin episode. We describe demographics and availability of A1c values for analysis. Study outcomes included severe hypoglycemic events and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

We identified 103,951 patients with T2DM from a database of 39.1 million patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage pharmacy and medical benefits, who contributed 279,533 unique insulin exposure episodes. Most episodes (89%) included patients using LAI, and 52% of patients contributed data to 2 or more exposure cohorts. Insulin episodes lasted an average of 3.5 months, and patients had an average follow-up of 8.6 months. The unadjusted rate of severe hypoglycemic events requiring medical attention was 96.9 per 10,000 patient-years at risk (10kPYR). The unadjusted incident MACE rate was 676.9 events per 10kPYR. 38,330 T2DM patients in the BBCIC DRN had a baseline A1c available, and of those, less than 50% had a follow-up A1c result.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with T2DM, our observed insulin patterns of use and rates of severe hypoglycemic outcomes and MACE are consistent with other studies. We noted a paucity of A1c results available, which implies that additional data sources may be needed to augment the BBCIC DRN.

DISCLOSURES

This study was coordinated and funded by the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) and represents the independent findings of the BBCIC Insulins Principal Investigator and the BBCIC Insulins Research Team. Lockhart is employed by the BBCIC and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP). Eichelberger was employed by the BBCIC and AMCP at the time of this study. McMahill-Walraven is employed by Aetna, a CVS Health business. Panozzo, Marshall, and Brown are employed by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute. Aetna was reimbursed for data and analytic support from Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute and the Reagan Udall Foundation for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aetna receives external funding through research grants and subcontracts with Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, which are funded by the FDA, NIH, PCORI, BBCIC, Pfizer, and GSK; the Reagan-Udall Foundation for IMEDS; and PCORI for the ADAPTABLE Study. This work was previously presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 22-25, 2018; in Orlando, FL.

Harnessing the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium to Evaluate Patterns of Care

INTRODUCTION

As clinical trials test efficacy rather than effectiveness of medications, real-world effectiveness data often vary from clinical trial data. Given the recent market entry of multiple biologics and biosimilars, a dedicated assessment of these diverse agents is needed to build the evidence base regarding efficacy and safety of innovator biologics and biosimilars.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy's Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) was convened to address the lack of real-world, postmarket outcome evidence generation for innovator biologics and corresponding biosimilars. The BBCIC is a multistakeholder scientific research consortium whose participants prioritize topics and collaboratively conduct research studies. The BBCIC conducts a wide range of analyses, including population characterization, epidemiologic studies, and active observational studies, and develops best practices for conducting large-scale studies to provide real-world evidence.

OBSERVATIONS

Over the past 3 years, we undertook multiple descriptive analyses with the goal of characterizing data availability and demonstrating the feasibility and efficacy of using the BBCIC distributed research network (DRN), which includes commercial claims data from 2008-2018 covering approximately 100 million lives, with approximately 20 million active members in 2017 from 2 major U.S. health plans and 3 regional integrated delivery networks. We analyzed 4 medication classes of particular interest to biologics and biosimilars development: insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, erythropoietic-stimulating agents, and anti-inflammatories. We were able to identify exposures and user characteristics in all 4 categories. Herein we describe the successes and challenges of conducting some of our analyses, specifically among insulin users with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

IMPLICATIONS

Our results demonstrate the BBCIC DRN's ability to identify and characterize exposures, cohorts, and outcomes that can contribute to more sophisticated comparative surveillance of biosimilars and innovator biologics in the future. Additional linkages to laboratory data and a wider range of insurance carriers will further strengthen the BBCIC DRN.

DISCLOSURES

This study was coordinated and funded by the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) and represents the independent findings of the BBCIC Insulins Principal Investigator and the BBCIC Insulins Research Team. Lockhart is employed by the BBCIC; Eichelberger was employed by the BBCIC at the time of this study. McMahill-Walraven is employed by Aetna, a CVS Health business. Panozzo, Marshall, and Brown are employed by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute. Aetna receives external funding through research grants and subcontracts with Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, which are funded by the FDA, NIH, PCORI, BBCIC, Pfizer, and GSK; the Reagan-Udall Foundation for IMEDS; and PCORI for the ADAPTABLE Study. Aetna was reimbursed for data and analytic support from Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute and the Reagan Udall Foundation for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This work was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 22-25, 2018; in Orlando, FL.

Biosimilars in rheumatology

Biotechnologicals are an invaluable resource in the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) non-responsive or intolerant to conventional therapies. However, they are the main driver for increase in direct costs and represent a significant economic burden to healthcare systems worldwide. Since biosimilars are similar and more affordable versions of previously licenced biotechnologicals, they are expected to contribute to healthcare system sustainability and reduce inequities in treatment access. The landmark approval of CT-P13 as the first infliximab biosimilar paved the way for new infliximab but also etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab biosimilars. In Europe, North America and some countries of Asia, development is strictly regulated and only those presenting a totality-of-evidence dossier with highly similar physicochemical, biological and clinical performances are endorsed by regulatory agencies as biosimilars. The current article addresses the importance of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of IRD, as well as their innovative development and regulatory pathways, clinical evidence of similarity and challenges that may undermine their widespread use and success.

Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) perspective: the role of biosimilars in hematopoietic cell transplant: current opportunities and challenges in low- and lower-middle income countries

Health care costs attributed to biologics have increased exponentially in the recent years, thus biosimilars offer a possible solution to limit costs while maintaining safety and efficacy. Reducing expenditure is vital to health care especially in developing countries where affordability and access to health care is a major challenge. We discuss the opportunities and the challenges of biosimilars in the field of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in low- and lower-middle income countries. Developing countries can potentially invest in the forecasted costs reduction by utilizing biosimilars. This can be used to decrease the costs of procedures such as HCT, which is a rapidly growing field in many developing regions. The introduction of biosimilars in the developing regions faces many challenges which include, but are not limited to: legal and regulatory issues, lack of research infrastructure, and the presence of educational barriers. Thus, collaborative efforts are needed to ensure an effective and safe introduction of biosimilars into low- and lower-middle income countries.