Biosimilar Uptake: The Importance of Healthcare Provider Education

[Translated article] Knowledge of biological therapy in patients with immune-mediated diseases. BIOINFO study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree of knowledge about biological therapy and biosimilars in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated in Outpatient Pharmaceutical Care Units.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, and multicenter study during the period May 2020-March 2021. A survey (9 questions) was conducted before starting treatment in which the patients' level of knowledge about biological therapy and biosimilars was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients were included in the study. The average value for the different questions was 3.3±0.6 out of 5, while the average final result was 29.4 points out of 45. 64.5% of the patients had an acceptable level before starting the medication (>27 points). The multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant correlation (p<.05) with a better score at the beginning of treatment in those patients whose prescribing service was Rheumatology.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the level of knowledge prior to biological therapy in patients is acceptable, being higher in dosage and administration technique related-factors and what is related to the dosage and administration technique and where to find information related to the medication; the worst rated were those on biosimilars-related. The factor of being followed by rheumatology, was associated with better knowledge.

Knowledge of biological therapy for patients with immune-mediated diseases. BIOINFO Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree of knowledge about biological therapy and biosimilars in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated in Outpatient Pharmaceutical Care Units.

METHODS

Observational, prospective and multicenter study during the period May 2020-March 2021. A survey (9 questions) was conducted before starting treatment in which the patients' level of knowledge about biological therapy and biosimilars was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients were included in the study. The average value for the different questions was 3.3 ± 0.6 out of 5, while the average final result was 29.4 points out of 45. Sixty-four percent of the patients had an acceptable level before starting the medication (>27 points). The multivariate analysis showed a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05) with a better score at the beginning of treatment in those patients whose prescribing service was Rheumatology.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the level of knowledge prior to biological therapy in patients is acceptable, being higher in dosage and administration technique related-factors and what is related to the dosage and administration technique and where to find information related to the medication; the worst rated were those on biosimilars-related. The factor of being followed by rheumatology, was associated with better knowledge.

Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations

Biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic are innovative approaches in medical research. This commentary addresses the current disparities in regulations of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products across different nations. It also navigates the benefits of global regulatory alignment and challenges that may be encountered. The current discrepancies in regulations across different countries, which pose significant challenges for the development and approval of biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic products. These disparities often lead to delayed market access, increased development costs, and hindered innovation. The commentary stresses that such obstacles could be mitigated through harmonized regulations, resulting in faster approvals, reduced healthcare costs, and improved patient outcomes. Moreover, the commentary explores the specific complexities associated with biosimilar vaccines and immunotherapeutic, such as the intricate evaluation of biosimilarity due to their molecular composition and immunogenic properties. In conclusion, the editorial advocates for collaborative efforts to overcome the challenges in achieving global regulatory harmonization for biosimilars. This includes establishing uniform standards, fostering international cooperation among regulatory agencies, and promoting educational initiatives for healthcare providers and regulators. The ultimate goal is to ensure that patients worldwide have timely access to safe, effective, and affordable biosimilar treatments.

Acceptability of Cyltezo pen among biologics autoinjector patients, autoinjector naïve patients, and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Cyltezo® (Adalimumab-adbm) is an FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilar for Humira® (adalimumab reference product [RP]) that helps treat chronic inflammatory conditions. Adalimumab-adbm is administered via an autoinjector, the adalimumab-adbm pen. This study assessed user opinions related to usability, perceptions, convenience, safety features, and acceptability of the adalimumab-adbm pen.

METHODS

Ninety-eight Humira Pen users, 100 biologics pen naïve patients, and 99 healthcare professionals simulated the use of the adalimumab-adbm pen on injection pads. Opinions were captured with a validated questionnaire using Likert-type scales during moderated interviews. Binomial tests were conducted for top-two rating percentages.

RESULTS

Nearly 90% of participants found the adalimumab-adbm pen 'easy' or 'very easy' to use, handle, and learn how to use. Almost 90% of volunteers thought the pen was 'very' or 'extremely' solid and convenient to use at home. Around 80% found the pen to be 'very' or 'extremely' comfortable. Over 90% of respondents said they would be 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the safety features and the device itself. Nearly 90% of respondents indicated being 'very' or 'extremely' open to adopting the adalimumab-adbm pen.

CONCLUSIONS

The adalimumab-adbm pen provided users with a positive experience with features that benefit perceptions of usability, handling, safety, convenience, and acceptability.

An Educational Digital Tool to Improve the Implementation of Switching to a Biosimilar (Rapid Switch Trainer): Tool Development and Validation Study

Background

Switching to biosimilars is an effective and safe practice in treating inflammatory diseases; however, a nocebo effect may arise as a result of the way in which the switch is communicated to a given patient.

Objective

We aimed to design a gaming-based digital educational tool (including a discussion algorithm) to support the training of health care professionals in efficiently communicating the switch to biosimilars, minimizing the generation of a nocebo effect and thus serving as an implementation strategy for the recommended switch.

Methods

The tool was developed based on interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders, both patients and health care professionals. Messages likely to either generate trust or to trigger a nocebo effect were generated on the basis of the interviews and focus group discussions.

Results

A total 7 clinicians and 4 nurses specializing in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology, with balanced levels of responsibility and experience, as well as balance between geographic regions, participated in the structured direct interviews and provided a list of arguments they commonly used, or saw used, to justify the switching, and objections given by the patients they attended. Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who were taking biologic drugs with (n=4) and without (n=5) experience in switching attended the focus groups and interviews. Major topics of discussion were the reason for the change, the nature of biosimilars, and their quality, safety, efficacy, and cost. Based on these discussions, a list of objections and of potential arguments was produced. Patients and health care professionals rated the arguments for their potential to evoke trust or a nocebo effect. Two sets of arguments, related to savings and sustainability, showed discrepant ratings between patients and health care professionals. Objections and arguments were organized by categories and incorporated into the tool as algorithms. The educators then developed additional arguments (with inadequate answers) to complement the valid ones worked on in the focus groups. The tool was then developed as a collection of clinical situations or vignettes that appear randomly to the user, who then has to choose an argument to counteract the given objections. After each interaction, the tool provides feedback. The tool was further supported by accredited medical training on biosimilars and switching.

Conclusions

We have developed a digital training tool to improve communication on switching to biosimilars in the clinic and prevent a nocebo effect based on broad and in-depth experiences of patients and health care professionals. The validation of this implementation strategy is ongoing.

Regulatory Framework for Supporting the Integration and Use of Biosimilars in the Private Healthcare System of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Introduction Biologics are substantial in the treatment of different diseases; however, they can burden the healthcare systems due to their high cost. Biosimilars can help healthcare systems keep their financial sustainability and patients access to biological therapies. The research objective is to formulate a framework for integrating biosimilars in the private healthcare sector of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This framework was based on local stakeholders' recommendations to ensure alignment with the UAE's healthcare market dynamics and needs. Methods Stakeholders from the private sector and regulators from the public sector completed a questionnaire tailored to the UAE healthcare system, based on recommendations from local stakeholders. The questionnaire encompassed five key domains: overall perceptions of biosimilars, pricing and reimbursement strategies, financing protocols, information sharing, and monitoring practices. They filled out the questionnaire during a workshop held during the 2nd Conference of the Emirates Health Economics Society (EHES), conducted from 18th to 20th October 2022, in Jumeirah Emirates Towers, Dubai. Results Stakeholders showed a positive perception of biosimilars. They believed switching to biosimilars is safe, especially when it is medically supervised. Also, they advocated initiating treatment-naïve patients on the less expensive option. They also recommended that the first biosimilar should be priced at a minimum of 30% below the original product, with a preference for a discount of 50%. They also proposed that the price of the subsequent biosimilars is 80%-90% of the previous biosimilars. Health technology assessment (HTA) of biosimilars was deemed necessary by seven (58%) of the stakeholders only if the manufacturers submitted for expanding the reimbursed indication beyond the originator's licensed indications. They recommended introducing clinical guidelines for biosimilar switching and clinical communications to show biosimilars' effect on access to biological therapies. They advocated introducing strict financing protocols against which the prescribing patterns of the clinicians are monitored. Conclusion The policies proposed by the stakeholders are designed to enhance financial sustainability while optimizing spending efficiency within the Emirati healthcare system. In addition, it may enable budget reallocation to support reimbursement of high-value health technologies.

Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments

This research is based on three fundamental aspects of successful biosimilar development in the challenging biopharmaceutical market. First, biosimilar regulations in eight selected countries: Japan, South Korea, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, represent the four continents. The regulatory aspects of the countries studied are analyzed, highlighting the challenges facing biosimilars, including their complex approval processes and the need for standardized regulatory guidelines. There is an inconsistency depending on whether the biosimilar is used in a developed or developing country. In the countries observed, biosimilars are considered excellent alternatives to patent-protected biological products for the treatment of chronic diseases. In the second aspect addressed, various analytical AI modeling methods (such as machine learning tools, reinforcement learning, supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning tools) were analyzed to observe patterns that lead to the prevalence of biosimilars used in cancer to model the behaviors of the most prominent active compounds with spectroscopy. Finally, an analysis of the use of active compounds of biosimilars used in cancer and approved by the FDA and EMA was proposed.

Clinical Guide to Navigating the Landscape of Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Annual out-of-pocket expenditures for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are estimated to be as high as $41,000, with medications, such as biologics, being one of the main cost contributors. Although biologics have revolutionized IBD management, these medications are costly owing to their molecular makeup and manufacturing processes. Biosimilars, which are biologic medications that are highly similar to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved reference product with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency, offer the same therapeutic benefits at a reduced cost. Other additional benefits offered with biosimilars include increased treatment access and fostered development of new therapeutic options. Despite the expansion of biosimilars in IBD, their adoption and utilization have been suboptimal in the United States. This article provides an overview of the biosimilar landscape in IBD, including FDA-approved biosimilars available, and a clinical guide to navigate switching to biosimilars in various clinical scenarios based on current evidence.

Clinical and Economic Value of a Biosimilar Portfolio to Stakeholders: An Integrative Literature Review

Purpose

While the value of individual biosimilars is evident, little is known about the value of a biosimilar portfolio beyond the cost savings between biosimilars and originators. Stakeholders may consider the value of a manufacturer's biosimilar portfolio, especially when negotiating portfolio-based contracts or other rebate programs. However, little is known about what other types of value, in addition to financial benefits, decision-makers perceive regarding a manufacturer with a biosimilar portfolio compared to those without one. The objective of this integrative literature review was to describe a conceptual framework consisting of themes that may help define the value of a biosimilar portfolio.

Methods

An integrative literature review was conducted using Excerpta Medica Database (Embase) and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE). Grey literature searches of search engines, journals not indexed in Embase or MEDLINE, healthcare payers, health technology assessment bodies, value frameworks, and non-pharmaceutical industry analogs were also conducted. Eligible studies reported on the value of a biosimilar portfolio in decision-making by stakeholders. Apart from the literature, insights were gained from clinical experience and observation.

Results

No studies investigating biosimilar portfolio value were identified; however, several themes were identified that may help define the value of a biosimilar portfolio: Manufacturing; procurement, inventory, and storage; administration; education; and transaction costs. Several non-pharmaceutical industry analogs were identified: Product line length and single-supplier versus multiple-supplier procurement. Several themes were identified through other sources: Science credibility and research. Based on these themes, we developed a conceptual framework for biosimilar portfolio value.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically assess and create a framework for biosimilar portfolio value. The conceptual framework described here could be tested to quantify the clinical and economic value associated with a biosimilar portfolio.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective

OBJECTIVES

Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested.

RESULTS

Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

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.

Factors Associated with Biosimilar Exclusions and Step Therapy Restrictions Among US Commercial Health Plans

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have been introduced with the goal of competing with high-priced biologic therapies, yet their adoption has been slower than expected and resulted in limited efficiency gains. We aimed to explore factors associated with biosimilar coverage relative to their reference products by commercial plans in the United States (US).

METHODS AND DATA

We identified 1181 coverage decisions for 19 commercially available biosimilars, corresponding to 7 reference products and 28 indications from the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database. We also drew on the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry for cost-effectiveness evidence, and the Merative™ Micromedex^® RED BOOK^® for list prices. We summarized the coverage restrictiveness as a binary variable based on whether the product is covered by the health plan, and if covered, the difference of payers' line of therapy between the biosimilar and its reference product. We used a multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between coverage restrictiveness and a number of potential drivers of coverage.

RESULTS

Compared with reference products, health plans imposed coverage exclusions or step therapy restrictions on biosimilars in 229 (19.4%) decisions. Plans were more likely to restrict biosimilar coverage for the pediatric population (odds ratio [OR] 11.558, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.906-34.203), in diseases with US prevalence higher than 1,000,000 (OR 2.067, 95% CI 1.060-4.029), and if the plan did not contract with one of the three major pharmacy benefit managers (OR 1.683, 95% CI 1.129-2.507). Compared with the reference product, plans were less likely to impose restrictions on the biosimilar-indication pairs if the biosimilar was indicated for cancer treatments (OR 0.019, 95% CI 0.008-0.041), if the product was the first biosimilar (OR 0.225, 95% CI 0.118-0.429), if the biosimilar had two competitors (reference product included; OR 0.060, 95% CI 0.006-0.586), if the biosimilar could generate annual list price savings of more than $15,000 per patient (OR 0.171, 95% CI 0.057-0.514), if the biosimilar's reference product was restricted by the plan (OR 0.065, 95% CI 0.038-0.109), or if a cost-effectiveness measure was not available (OR 0.066, 95% CI 0.023-0.186).

CONCLUSION

Our study offered novel insights on the factors associated with biosimilar coverage by commercial health plans in the US relative to their reference products. Cancer treatment, pediatric population, and coverage restriction of the reference products are some of the most significant factors that are associated with biosimilar coverage decisions.

Malaysian Hospital Pharmacists' Perspectives and Their Role in Promoting Biosimilar Prescribing: A Nationwide Survey

BACKGROUND

With the increasing availability biosimilars, the role of pharmacists as drug information specialists has expanded to include promoting biosimilar acceptance among prescribers.

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to determine Malaysian hospital pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars and to identify factors influencing the successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey of hospital pharmacists across Malaysia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with pharmacists successfully promoting biosimilar use.

RESULTS

Of the 913 responses, over 60% of pharmacists believed that patients may safely be switched from the originator product to a biosimilar and would have the same clinical outcome. Many lacked training in biosimilars (62.8%); yet most (80.6%) perceived pharmacists to play a critical role in promoting biosimilar prescribing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest factor associated with pharmacists' successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers was having confidence (odds ratio [OR], 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.10-5.26). Respondents who had prior experience handling biosimilars were more likely to be successful in promoting biosimilar use than those without (OR, 1.76; 95% CI 1.16-2.66). The pharmacists' top perceived barrier to promote biosimilars in clinical practice was efficacy concerns.

CONCLUSION

Although Malaysian pharmacists are in favour of biosimilars, they lack training to promote biosimilar use. Among the factors associated with successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers are pharmacist confidence, their previous experience handling biosimilars, and prior biosimilar training.

Using family-centered communication to optimize patient-provider-companion encounters about changing to biosimilars: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether family-centered communication impacts decisions and optimizes patient-companion-provider consultations.

METHODS

A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 108 participants acting as patients with inflammatory arthritis or companions. Pairs attended a mock consultation where a physician explained the change from a bio-originator to a biosimilar using family-centered or patient-only communication. Participants reported their willingness to transition, risk perceptions, understanding and social support, and completed various scales including the Patient Perception Scale. Interviews helped understand perceptions towards the consultation.

RESULTS

Family-centered communication did not impact willingness to change or cognitive risk perceptions compared to patient-only communication. However, it improved emotional risk perceptions (p = 0.047, Cohen's d=.55) and satisfaction with communication (p = 0.015, Cohen's d=.71). Feeling the explanation was reassuring was associated with less worry (p = 0.004). Receiving emotional support (p = 0.014) and companions asking fewer questions (p = 0.046) were associated with higher recall. The intervention improved companion involvement (p < 0.001, Cohen's d= 1.23) and support (p = 0.002, Cohen's d=.86). Interviews showed that encouraging questions, inclusive body language, and acknowledging companions facilitated involvement.

CONCLUSION

Family-centered communication augments patient-companion-provider encounters but does not influence willingness to change treatment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Practitioners can use family-centered communication when discussing biosimilars but should provide reassurance, encourage emotional support, and summarize key points to improve understanding.

Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pharmaceutical policies are generally based on the assumption that involved stakeholders make rational decisions. However, behavioral economics has taught us that this is not always the case as people deviate from rational behavior in rather predictable patterns. This scoping review examined to what extent behavioral concepts have already been applied in the pharmaceutical domain and what evidence exists about their effectiveness, with the aim of formulating future applications and research hypotheses on policymaking for best-value biologicals.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted on the evidence of behavioral applications to pharmaceuticals. Scientific databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, and Scopus) were searched up to 20 October, 2021.

RESULTS

Forty-four full-text scientific articles were identified and narratively described in this article. Pharmaceutical domains where behavioral concepts have been investigated relate to influencing prescribing behavior, improving medication adherence, and increasing vaccination uptake. Multiple behavioral concepts were examined in the identified studies, such as social norms, defaults, framing, loss aversion, availability, and present bias. The effectiveness of the applied interventions was generally positive, but depended on the context. Some of the examined interventions can easily be translated into effective policy interventions for best-value biological medicines. However, some applications require further investigation in a research context.

CONCLUSIONS

Applications of behavioral economics to pharmaceutical policymaking are promising. However, further research is required to investigate the effect of behavioral applications on policy interventions for a more sustainable market environment for best-value biological medicines.

Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes towards Biosimilar Medicines as Part of Evidence-Based Nursing Practice-International Pilot Study within the Project Biosimilars Nurses Guide Version 2.0

Introduction: The increasing availability of biosimilars can increase patient access to these drugs and reduce the economic burden. Nurses play a key role in the education, administration, pharmacovigilance and management of the side effects of biosimilars. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards biosimilar drugs in different countries. Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022. The survey was carried out using Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI), sent by the CAWI panel via the website. Results: The results showed that nurses with a greater level of education felt most knowledgeable about biosimilars (χ2 = 105.813, df = 2, p < 0.001). One-third of nurses with a doctorate and a second degree said biosimilars are used in their workplace (χ2 = 48.169, df = 4, p < 0.001); most nurses with a second degree said that they had never heard of biosimilars (41%). Doctorate-level nurses thought knowledge is the key factor to increasing biosimilar uptake (97%). Conclusions: Nurses are not knowledgeable about biosimilars. Most would like to participate in training on biosimilars. This is a very important topic, because biosimilars are constantly evolving in medicine.

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While biosimilars are less expensive than their originator biologics, various factors are known to impede their uptake in clinical practice including concerns regarding their interchangeability, efficacy, and safety. Pharmacists are well positioned to promote the adoption of biosimilars, thus, the aim of the review was to assess pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars to identify the need for pharmacist-directed biosimilar education.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search for published articles indexed in MEDLINE via EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar databases. We included studies written in English from their earliest publication dates until December 2021. Only studies concerning pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the studies that included pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about interchangeability and automatic substitution of biosimilars. We also assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA) for quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies.

RESULTS

Out of the 22 studies included in the review, 19 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, and the other three were qualitative studies. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 19 to 1500 participants. The level of knowledge of biosimilars graded as good, considerable, above average, or excellent among pharmacists varied from study to study, with a range of 47-86%. Only 22-51% of pharmacists were comfortable if biosimilars were prescribed for all of the indications previously used for the originator products. Pharmacists' acceptability of switching from the originator to a biosimilar also varied, with a range of 26-84%. However, most pharmacists viewed the substitution of the originator with a biosimilar without physicians' permission as unacceptable. Data from three studies reported that 22-74% of pharmacists had attended biosimilar training. They obtained information about biosimilars from scientific publications, pharmaceutical companies, and continuing education. Based on the criteria of JBI-ACSSA and CASP, the overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The majority of the studies did not describe the sampling methods used and the strategies to deal with confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists' knowledge and perception about biosimilars varied and were limited, especially about interchangeability and substitution, efficacy, safety, and indication extrapolation. A better understanding of biosimilars amongst pharmacists could help them to encourage prescribers' acceptance of biosimilars.

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

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

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

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

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

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.