Patient perspectives on the British Columbia Biosimilars Initiative: a qualitative descriptive study

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Patient's and Consultant's Views and Perceptions on Switching from an Originator Biologic to Biosimilar Medication: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this study was to describe the opinions of patients undergoing treatment with originator biologics and medical consultants managing their conditions and identify the barriers and enablers to transitioning from originator biologics to equivalent biosimilars. This study was undertaken prior to biosimilar switching at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Five gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology consultants were interviewed. Two focus groups were conducted with patients prescribed infliximab (n = 2) and etanercept originators (n = 7). Four main themes emerged, as follows: (1) 'Benefit to the NHS'; (2) 'Evidence for efficacy and safety'; (3) 'Team roles'; and (4) 'Effective communication during switching', with sub-themes such as (4a) 'What patients want to know' and (4b) 'How it should be communicated'. Recognition of the ability to save NHS money was an enabler for both patients and consultants, with patients wanting to be reassured that the money saved would be used to benefit other patients. Consultants did not always believe that biosimilars had similar efficacy as the originators or that the manufacturing standards were the same. Effective interventions to address these concerns are required. Offering patients the opportunity to revert back to their originator if necessary was seen as an enabler, as was the provision of readily available mechanisms for reporting suspected adverse events resulting from switching. The role of pharmacy in the process of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars can range from educating consultants regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, explaining the rationale for switching patients, and providing a route for reporting adverse events.

Switching to biosimilars in dermatology: a patients' perspective

Biosimilars are legitimate copies of a biopharmaceuticals (originator biologics) that are no longer protected by patent and have undergone rigorous analytical and clinical assessment compared with their reference product, demonstrating efficacy and safety with significant cost savings when prescribed. This qualitative study was conducted to better understand the patient experience around the transition to biosimilars. Three main themes that influenced patient decisions were identified: the impact of disease, the information around biosimilars and patient autonomy. This study highlights the importance of counselling patients appropriately regarding transitioning to biosimilars and reinforces the importance of good communication to ensure patient empowerment and satisfaction.

Improving access to care for rheumatology services in Canada

Rheumatic diseases are becoming increasingly prevalent in Canada, and its associated strain on the healthcare system is expected to increase over the next decades. Furthermore, there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that access to rheumatology care is currently not meeting established quality of care benchmarks. To frame issues affecting access to care for rheumatology services in Canada, a proposed chronological framework from a rheumatology patient's perspective is proposed. Illustrating principles from a health policy lens including drawing from the stages heuristic framework and multiple streams theory, issues surrounding access to rheumatology assessment, to rheumatological investigations and lastly to appropriate treatment are explored. In particular, the current supply and demand mismatch within the rheumatology workforce presents challenges for patients in accessing rheumatic diseases providers. Potential policy solutions including increasing the pool of rheumatic diseases care providers, enhancing the clinical capacity with extended role providers and increasing uptake of virtual care are discussed. To ameliorate access to rheumatology investigations, the concept of provider education surrounding the appropriateness of investigations and merit-based funding are explored. Lastly, access to rheumatological treatment is framed using biologic therapies as an example, highlighting the policy challenges in biosimilar uptake and associated ethical and political considerations. By using a health policy lens to explore deficiencies within Canada's current system, the overarching goal of this analysis is to set the stage for reasoned and timely solutions in the future.

A Framework for Evaluating the Implementation of Biosimilar Drugs

Background

The introduction of biosimilar drugs has significant effects on health care systems, and a variety of approaches are required to support acceptance, adoption, and use of these drugs. Literature exists on the enablers of, and barriers to, biosimilar implementation, but frameworks that support the evaluation of biosimilar implementation strategies are currently lacking.

Objective

To develop an evaluation framework for assessing the effects of biosimilar implementation strategies on patients, clinicians, and publicly funded drug programs.

Methods

The scope of the evaluation was determined by a pan-Canadian working group through the creation of a logic model of activities and expected outcomes associated with biosimilar implementation. Each component of the logic model was considered under the RE-AIM framework, which led to a set of evaluation questions and indicators. Feedback to inform the final framework was sought from stakeholders through focus group sessions and written responses.

Results

An evaluation framework was created that articulates evaluation questions and indicators across 5 priority areas: stakeholder engagement, patient experience, patient outcomes, clinician experience, and system sustainability and affordability. Stakeholder feedback was obtained through 9 focus group sessions with a total of 87 participants. Feedback was used to refine the framework on the basis of stakeholder priorities and feasibility.

Conclusions

Through extensive stakeholder consultation, an evaluation framework was developed to measure and monitor the effects of biosimilar implementation on the 5 identified priority areas, as well as to inform future biosimilar implementations. This framework can be used as a starting point for evaluating the implementation of biosimilars across health care systems.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Key Consideration for Evaluating Biosimilar Uptake?

Purpose

This review aims to provide an overview of the impact of TNFis biosimilars, with marketing authorization, in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) scores and explore how PROMs endpoints might add value in biosimilars uptake in RA patients.

Patients and Methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, Scopus, Lilacs, and CINAHL databases was performed for papers published between January 2012 and December 2021. For inclusion, studies had to be prospective, published in a peer-reviewed journal, published in English or Spanish language; studies using PROMs as an outcome measure. After screening title and abstracts and assessing the remaining full texts fulfilling the inclusion criteria, 31 papers were used in this narrative review.

Results

PROMs were used as secondary outcomes in included studies. The most frequently employed domains to assess biosimilar efficacy include physical function, patient global assessment (PtGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. The results of randomized clinical trials uniformly showed that mean change in PROMs scores is comparable between biosimilar and reference biologic treatment groups. However, open-label and real-world studies revealed high rates of discontinuation of therapy, mainly for subjective worsening of disease activity or non-specific adverse events. Even without objective clinical evidence of inflammation, patients who are considered to have active disease (higher scores on PtGA) have higher discontinuation rates of biosimilars. The available information suggests that the nocebo effect is the most likely cause for the discontinuation of biosimilars.

Conclusion

There is scarce literature surrounding the impact of biosimilars in PROMs, especially in open-label studies. In real-life studies, biosimilars have a higher discontinuation rate than reference products. TNFis biosimilars treatment efficacy in RA depends on disease activity and other factors such as PtGA and fatigue. The nocebo effect is the best explanation for biosimilar's discontinuation.