Healthcare professionals' perceptions and perspectives on biosimilar medicines and the barriers and facilitators to their prescribing in UK: a qualitative 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.

Factors that Influence Healthcare Professionals' Intentions towards Biosimilars

Background: Physicians often prescribe original biologic products to patients who have not used them before and are reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Biosimilars are highly similar versions of already-approved biologics, but healthcare professionals typically hesitate to transition patients from the original products to biosimilars. This study aims to investigate the factors that influence U.S. healthcare professionals' intentions to use biosimilars. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. 510 participants were eligible healthcare professionals (279 physicians and 231 pharmacists). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is used to identify which factors affect healthcare professionals' intentions. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and the logistic regression model tested the TPB constructs as predictors of intentions toward biosimilars. Results: Among 279 physicians, most were aged 61 and above, with high (n = 142) and low (n = 137) intentions. Male physicians constituted 71% of the population. Attending physicians (66.3%) showed consistent perceptions towards biosimilars, primarily in the private sector (76.3%). Pharmacists (n = 231), a higher percentage of females demonstrated higher intentions compared to males (35.5% vs. 28.1%); the majority were community pharmacists. Associations between years of practice and intentions were significant. Positive correlations existed between beliefs and intentions, except for normative beliefs. Conclusions: This study revealed diverse attitudes among healthcare professionals towards biosimilars in the USA. Pharmacists and physicians, especially those with limited experience, require ongoing education on biosimilar manufacturing pathways. This education supports the appropriate use of biosimilars and helps standardize federal and state legislation.

The impact of an 'evergreening' strategy nearing patent expiration on the uptake of biosimilars and public healthcare costs: a case study on the introduction of a second administration form of trastuzumab in The Netherlands

In this paper, we explore dynamic market share and public healthcare costs of trastuzumab's evergreening (subcutaneous) variant during introduction of trastuzumab's competitive biosimilar variants in the Netherlands. We used a time series design to assess dynamic market share of trastuzumab's evergreening variant after introducing trastuzumab's biosimilar variants, focusing on the number of treatments and patients. The public healthcare costs of this evergreening strategy were estimated using administrative claims data. Our results show that the original trastuzumab was completely replaced by the subcutaneous and biosimilar variants. The uptake of the subcutaneous form peaked at 50% market share but after the introduction of biosimilars progressively reduced to a market share of 20%, resulting in a more competitive market structure. The public healthcare costs for trastuzumab significantly decreased after the introduction of the biosimilars. After the introduction of the biosimilars, a substantial price drop is visible, with the subcutaneous version, still under patent, also falling sharply in price but less strongly than the iv/biosimilar version. As the costs are publicly funded, we recommend a more explicit societal debate to consider if the potential benefits of subcutaneous Herceptin® (and other similar medicines) are worth the additional costs, and at which price it should be reimbursed as the part of the benefit package.

Consensus statement on the use of biosimilar drugs in immune-mediated diseases in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To improve knowledge about biosimilar medicines and to generate a consensus framework on their use.

METHODS

Qualitative study. A multidisciplinary group of experts in biosimilar medicines was established (1dermatologist, 1hospital pharmacist, 1rheumatologist, and 1gastroenterologist) who defined the sections and topics of the document. A narrative literature review was performed in Medline to identify articles on biosimilar medicines. Systematic reviews, controlled, pre-clinical, clinical, and real-life studies were selected. Based on the results of the review, several general principles and recommendations were generated. The level of agreement was tested in a Delphi that was extended to 66 health professionals who voted from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). Agreement was defined if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥7.

RESULTS

The literature review included 555 articles. A total of 10 general principles and recommendations were voted upon. All reached the level of agreement established. The document includes data on the main characteristics of biosimilar medicines (definition, development, approval, indication extrapolation, interchangeability, financing, and traceability); published evidence (biosimilarity, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, immunogenicity, efficiency, switch); barriers and facilitators to its use; and data on information for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorized biosimilar medicines meet all the characteristics of quality, efficacy, and safety. They also significantly help improve patient access to biological therapies and contribute to health system sustainability.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of electronic prescription in reducing medical and medical errors (systematic review study)

INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic systems in prescription is considered as the final solution to overcome the many problems of the paper transcription process, especially with the outbreak of Coronavirus needs more attention than before. But despite the many advantages, its implementation faces many challenges and obstacles. Therefore, the present study was conducted to review the effectiveness of computerized physician order entry systems (CPOE) on relative risk reduction on medication error and adverse drug events (ADE).

METHOD

This study is one of the systematic review studies that was conducted in 2021. In this study, searching for keywords such as E-Electronic Prescription, Patient safety, Medication Errors prescription, Drug Interactions, orginal articles from 2000 to October-2020 in the valid databases such as ISI web of Science PubMed Embase, Scopus and search engines like google was done. The included studies were based on the main objectives of the study and based on the inclusion criteria after several stages of review and quality evaluation. In fact, the main criteria for selecting articles were studies that compared the rate of medication errors with or without assessing the associated harms (real or potential) before and after the implementation of EMS.

RESULTS

Out of 110 selected studies after initial screening, only 16 articles were selected due to their relevance. Among the final studies, there was a significant heterogeneity. Only 6 studies were of good quality. Of the 10 studies prescribing error rates, 9 reported reductions, but variable denominators prevented meta-analysis. Twelve studies provided specific examples of systemic drug errors. 5 cases reported their occurrence slightly. Out of 9 cases that analyzed the effects on drug error rate, 7 cases showed a significant relative reduction between 13 and 99%. Four of the six studies that analyzed the effects on potential ADEs showed a significant relative reduction of between 35 and 98%. Two of the four studies that analyzed the effect of ADEs showed a relative reduction of between 30 and 84%.

CONCLUSION

Finally, e-prescribing seems to reduce the risk of medication errors and ADE. However, the studies differed significantly in terms of setting, design, quality and results. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to further improve the evidence of health informatics information.

Barriers and enablers to healthcare system uptake of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals and policy makers in England

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the factors influencing the uptake of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) across different health economies in National Health Service England from the perspective of health professionals and other health economy stakeholders.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study using a critical realism perspective and informed by the Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations model.

SETTING

Three health economies in the North of England, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients requiring oral anticoagulants, stakeholders involved in the implementation of DOACs and representatives of pharmaceutical industry companies and patient support groups.

INTERVENTION

Semistructured interviews (face-to-face or telephone) were conducted with 46 participants. Interviews were analysed using the Framework method.

RESULTS

Identified factors having an impact on the uptake of DOACs were grouped into four themes: perceived value of the innovation, clinician practice environment, local health economy readiness for change, and the external health service context. Together, these factors influenced what therapy options were offered and prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation. The interviews also highlighted strategies used to improve or restrict the uptake of DOACs and tensions between providing patient-centred care and managing financial implications for commissioners.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings contribute to the wider literature by providing a new and in-depth understanding on the uptake of DOACs. The findings may be applicable to other new medicines used in chronic health conditions.

Market Diffusion of Biosimilars in Off-Patent Biologic Drug Markets across Europe

Biologics are among the most expensive pharmaceuticals but have begun to lose their exclusivity rights over the past 15 years, offering the possibility for biosimilar competition. Therefore, we examine the market diffusion of biosimilars across Europe. Using revenues and sales data from IQVIA, we identified 12 biologic substances facing first biosimilar competition between 2014 and 2020 in 25 European countries. We investigated biosimilar market share depending on product and market characteristics with beta regression. Moreover, we compared market diffusion across countries using multilevel modelling. The average market share of biosimilars at first biosimilar entry was about seven percent in the retail and hospital market and grew to 34.69% and 38.29% after 16 quarters, respectively. Quarters since first biosimilar entry had a positive but decreasing effect on biosimilar market share (p<.001 for both markets). Quarterly growth ranged from 0.006 (Netherlands) to 0.026 (Slovakia) in the retail market and from 0.007 (Hungary) to 0.040 (United Kingdom) in the hospital market. The diffusion increased over time across all European markets, although at different rates. Biosimilar market share was higher in the hospital market. Compared to generics, diffusion of biosimilars is much slower. If policymakers desire to increase biosimilar diffusion, they should aim at policies that increase competition and use countries with the highest diffusion rates as benchmarks.

Outcomes Following Adalimumab Bio-originator to Biosimilar Switch-A Comparison Using Real-world Patient- and Physician-Reported Data in European Countries

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.

SB8, an approved bevacizumab biosimilar based on totality of evidence: scientific justification of extrapolation

SB8 is a biosimilar of bevacizumab based on its similarity demonstrated by physicochemical, functional, non-clinical and clinical studies. Supported by the concept of extrapolation, SB8 was authorized and is used in a similar manner across all types of tumors as reference bevacizumab. Furthermore, SB8 offers convenience with prolonged stability compared with reference bevacizumab in diluted form. Although a biosimilar must demonstrate biosimilarity to a reference product with the 'totality of evidence' in a stringent regulatory process for marketing authorization, some concerns remain among healthcare practitioners, particularly about extrapolation. This review summarizes the concepts of the totality of evidence and extrapolation in biosimilar development and the role of bevacizumab biosimilars in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer as an extrapolated indication.

Factors associated with the uptake of biosimilars for breast cancer treatment from the perspectives of physicians and patients-Evidence from China

Objective: To investigate the factors associated with the treatment of breast cancer with biosimilars from the perspectives of physicians and patients, and to generate evidence for promoting the uptake of biosimilars. Methods: This study targeted trastuzumab and its indicated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancer and included female HER2 positive breast cancer patients under treatment of trastuzumab at a provincial oncology medical center in southern China from 1 January 2021, to 31 December 2021. The study extracted patients' demographic, socioeconomic and clinical information and the basic information of their attending physicians from the hospital information system. We performed a bivariate multiple logistic regression analysis of predictive factors of the use of trastuzumab biosimilar. Results: A total of 446 patients (aged ranging between 26 and 74, 51.4 ± 9.06) were included in the analysis, and 19.1% chose biosimilar trastuzumab. Older patients, patients enrolled in the urban and rural resident health insurance program compared with those enrolled in the urban employee health insurance program, patients who initiated treatment after January 2021 when biosimilar entered clinical use compared with those who initiated treatment before, patients with female attending physicians, younger attending physicians and with chief attending physicians compared with deputy chief attending physicians were more likely to adopt biosimilar trastuzumab for treatment (p < 05). Controlling the other factors unchanged, when the patient's attending physician was deputy chief physician, increasing 1 year age of the patient was associated with an increased probability of adopting biosimilar by .8% (dy/dx = .008, 95%CI: .002-.01, p = .01). When the patient was aged between 26 and 60, the probability of adopting biosimilar for the patient whose attending physician was a chief physician was higher than for those whose attending physician was a deputy chief physician, and the gap was the largest when the patient was at the age of 45 (dy/dx = .20, 95%CI: .13-.27, p < .01). Conclusion: The uptake rate of biosimilars is still low at its initial development stage in China. Educational policies and physicians making recommendations to the indicated patients at the initiation stage of treatment are helpful to avoid reduced willingness to switch to biosimilars due to non-clinical reasons. Patients with lower ability-to-pay will have better accessibility to biologic regimens through the uptake of biosimilars. Official guidelines and professional training are critical to enhancing physicians' willingness and confidence in adopting biosimilars.

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.

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.

Healthcare Professionals' Compliance with the Standard Management Guidelines towards the Use of Biological Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is complicated, with numerous aspects influencing decision-making, including disease severity, comorbidities, and patient preferences. The present study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' (HCPs) knowledge of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and their compliance with the standard management guidelines for assuring optimal RA therapy. The cross-sectional, survey-based study was performed in various healthcare and academic settings in Karachi, Pakistan to probe HCPs' knowledge of bDMARDs and their compliance with the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA patients. Overall, n = 413 questionnaires were included in our study (response rate: 82.6%). The physicians were further well-informed about the indications (n = 276, 91.3%, p = 0.001) and monitoring requirements (n = 258, 85.4%, p = 0.004). The pharmacists were more knowledgeable about the drug targets (n = 96, 86.4%, p = 0.029) and their mechanisms of action (n = 80, 72.0%, p = 0.013). Male respondents as compared with females (41.3% vs. 35.6%, p = 0.04), and physicians as compared with pharmacists (40.7% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.012), were more confident in using bDMARDs than conventional treatment in RA patients. Our findings show that the respondents were familiar with the attributes of bDMARDs and the standard management guidelines for RA care. Our results may be relevant in creating new methods, guidelines, and treatments to enhance RA treatment adherence, satisfaction, and health outcomes.

Patients Retransitioning from Biosimilar TNFα Inhibitor to the Corresponding Originator After Initial Transitioning to the Biosimilar: A Systematic Review

Background

Transitioning patients from an originator to a corresponding biosimilar has been extensively studied in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Although transitioning is considered well-tolerated, with no negative impacts on efficacy and/or safety, 2.6–25.8% of patients restart treatment with the originator (retransitioning). Retransitioning to the originator can be considered an indication of biosimilar treatment failure or dissatisfaction with biosimilar treatment. Increasing our knowledge of patients who retransition might help to reduce the number of patients retransitioning.

Objective

Our objective was to estimate the cumulative incidence of patients who retransitioned from a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor biosimilar to originator and to explore potential patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy factors associated with retransitioning.

Method

We conducted a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials databases until March 2021. Studies on TNFα inhibitors, biosimilar transitioning, and retransitioning were included. Transitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar, and retransitioning was defined as switching from an originator to a biosimilar and back to the originator. Characteristics of the studies were descriptively analyzed. Studies were weighted by the number of patients transitioning, and the primary outcome was the median cumulative incidence of retransitioning. For each of the factors related to patient, disease, and treatment and implementation strategy, studies were stratified according to the categories of that factor. The weighted medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of the cumulative incidence of retransitioning in these studies were calculated and compared to explore whether a potential association existed between these factors and the cumulative incidence of retransitioning.

Results

Of 994 screened publications, 37 were included. The weighted median cumulative incidence of retransitioning was 7.6% (IQR 6.8–17.2). Studies that included only patients with inflammatory bowel disease (6.6 vs. 15.1–17.7% for other indications), included only patients with stable disease (7.0 vs. 13.7% for including all patients), and did not offer retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar (7.0 vs. 11.1% for studies that offered retransitioning) reported less retransitioning. In addition, the incidence of retransitioning was lower when extra laboratory monitoring was part of the implementation strategy (1.6 vs. 6.1%) and when gainsharing (patients’ healthcare directly benefits from financial savings from transitioning) (1.4 vs. 7.2% for studies without gainsharing) was applied.

Conclusions

In studies on transitioning patients from TNFα originator to biosimilar, 8% of patients retransitioned. Retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that included only patients with stable disease and in studies that did not offer patients the option of retransitioning at the introduction of the biosimilar. In addition, retransitioning appeared to be lower in studies that implemented extra laboratory monitoring as part of the biosimilar implementation strategy. Clinicians should consider implementing these suggestions as they might reduce retransitioning rates and improve the introduction of biosimilars in clinical practice.

PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021226381

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00508-4.

Current utilization patterns for long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars among selected Asian countries and the implications for the future

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus continue to rise, which, coupled with increasing costs of complications, has appreciably increased expenditure in recent years. Poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia enhances complication rates and associated morbidity, mortality and costs. Consequently, this needs to be addressed. Whilst the majority of patients with diabetes have type-2 diabetes, a considerable number of patients with diabetes require insulin to help control their diabetes. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia associated with insulin and help improve adherence, which can be a concern. However, their considerably higher costs have impacted on their funding and use, especially in countries with affordability issues. Biosimilars can help reduce the costs of long-acting insulin analogues thereby increasing available choices. However, the availability and use of long-acting insulin analogues can be affected by limited price reductions versus originators and limited demand-side initiatives to encourage their use. Consequently, we wanted to assess current utilisation rates for long-acting insulin analogues, especially biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple Asian countries ranging from Japan (high-income) to Pakistan (lower-income) to inform future strategies.

METHODOLOGY

Multiple approaches including assessing utilization and prices of insulins including biosimilars among six Asian countries and comparing the findings especially with other middle-income countries.

RESULTS

Typically, there was increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues among the selected Asian countries. This was especially the case enhanced by biosimilars in Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia reflecting their perceived benefits. However, there was limited use in Pakistan due to issues of affordability similar to a number of African countries. The high use of biosimilars in Bangladesh, India and Malaysia was helped by issues of affordability and local production. The limited use of biosimilars in Japan and Korea reflects limited price reductions and demand-side initiatives similar to a number of European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across countries is welcomed, adding to the range of insulins available, which increasingly includes biosimilars. A number of activities are needed to enhance the use of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars in Japan, Korea and Pakistan.

Biosimilar Uptake: The Importance of Healthcare Provider Education

From peptide hormones to monoclonal antibodies, advances in biotherapeutic medicines, or biologics, have brought incalculable benefits to patients, especially for conditions where previous classes of therapy were ineffective or non-existent. At the same time, the development of biologics has been accompanied by questions of access and cost. The advent of biosimilars, molecules highly similar to their reference biologics, has offered the promise of ameliorating cost and access challenges. However, issues regarding biosimilar uptake remain. Multiple factors impact the utilization of biosimilars by healthcare providers and perhaps the best recognized of these is education. This paper discusses the importance of education to biosimilar adoption and lists action-items that various stakeholders in healthcare can adopt to improve the overall understanding of this important class of therapeutics.

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

Background

Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria.

Results

Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates.

Conclusions

The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.

Exploring the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level barriers and facilitators to the provision of good quality early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) care in England and Wales

Background

Evidence from a national clinical audit of early inflammatory arthritis (EIA) shows considerable variability between hospitals in performance, unexplained by controlling for case-mix.

Objective

To explore the macro-level, meso-level and micro-level barriers and facilitators to the provision of good quality EIA care.

Methods

A qualitative study within 16 purposively sampled rheumatology units across England and Wales. Quality was assessed in relation to 11 quality indicators based on clinical opinion, evidence and variability observed in the data. Data from semi-structured interviews with staff (1–5 from each unit, 56 in total) and an online questionnaire (n=14/16 units) were integrated and analysed using the framework method for thematic analysis using a combined inductive and deductive approach (underpinned by an evidence-based framework of healthcare team effectiveness), and constant comparison of data within and between units and its relationship with the quality criteria.

Findings

Quality of care was influenced by an interplay between macro, meso and micro domains. The macro (eg, shared care arrangements and relationships with general practitioners) and meso (eg, managerial support and physical infrastructure) factors were found to act as crucial enablers of and barriers to higher quality service provision at the micro (team) level. These organisational factors directly influenced team structure and function, and thereby EIA care quality.

Conclusions

Variability in quality of EIA care is associated with an interplay between macro, meso and micro service features. Tackling macro and meso barriers is likely to have a significant impact on quality of EIA service, and ultimately patient experience and outcomes.

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries: findings and implications for the future

Aim: Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Methods: Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. Results: New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Conclusion: Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare.

The Current Situation Regarding Long-Acting Insulin Analogues Including Biosimilars Among African, Asian, European, and South American Countries; Findings and Implications for the Future

Background: Diabetes mellitus rates continue to rise, which coupled with increasing costs of associated complications has appreciably increased global expenditure in recent years. The risk of complications are enhanced by poor glycaemic control including hypoglycaemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve adherence. Their considerably higher costs though have impacted their funding and use. Biosimilars can help reduce medicine costs. However, their introduction has been affected by a number of factors. These include the originator company dropping its price as well as promoting patented higher strength 300 IU/ml insulin glargine. There can also be concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. Objective: To assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues, and the rationale for patterns seen, across multiple countries to inform strategies to enhance future utilisation of long-acting insulin analogue biosimilars to benefit all key stakeholders. Our approach: Multiple approaches including assessing the utilisation, expenditure and prices of insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine, across multiple continents and countries. Results: There was considerable variation in the use of long-acting insulin analogues as a percentage of all insulins prescribed and dispensed across countries and continents. This ranged from limited use of long-acting insulin analogues among African countries compared to routine funding and use across Europe in view of their perceived benefits. Increasing use was also seen among Asian countries including Bangladesh and India for similar reasons. However, concerns with costs and value limited their use across Africa, Brazil and Pakistan. There was though limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine 100 IU/ml compared with other recent biosimilars especially among European countries and Korea. This was principally driven by small price differences in reality between the originator and biosimilars coupled with increasing use of the patented 300 IU/ml formulation. A number of activities were identified to enhance future biosimilar use. These included only reimbursing biosimilar long-acting insulin analogues, introducing prescribing targets and increasing competition among manufacturers including stimulating local production. Conclusions: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars despite lower costs. This can be addressed by multiple activities.

The Automatic Substitution of Biosimilars: Definitions of Interchangeability are not Interchangeable

In the USA, an interchangeability designation provides biosimilar sponsors with a pathway for achieving what is standard for small-molecule generics: pharmacy-level auto-substitution for an innovator. No other major health authority links interchangeability to automatic substitution, as all require the involvement of the prescriber or patient in a medication change. This editorial considers the clinical impact and practicality of auto-substitution. First, interchangeability is linked to non-medical switching (NMS), the practice of switching treatment in patients with stable disease for non-clinical reasons. NMS may generate negative sentiment in those unwilling or reluctant to switch, which can adversely impact treatment outcomes (i.e., nocebo effect). Indeed, in real-world studies of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, discontinuation rates have been shown to be higher in patients switched to biosimilars for non-medical reasons than in historical cohorts maintained on innovators. Second, interchangeability may impede pharmacovigilance and traceability, as not all jurisdictions require innovators and biosimilars to have distinct biologic names. Third, an interchangeability designation from the US Food and Drug Administration only permits a biosimilar to be automatically substituted for its innovator, not other biosimilars (if available). Pharmacist education would be needed to avoid off-label, automatic substitution among biosimilars of a single innovator. Last, once granted, an interchangeability designation exists in perpetuity under current US federal law. However, the supply chains of innovators and biosimilars are maintained independently, with no requirement for reconfirmation of biosimilarity or interchangeability. We feel that additional guidance is needed for the auto-substitution of biosimilars and innovators to become a reality.

A Look at the History of Biosimilar Adoption: Characteristics of Early and Late Adopters of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars in Subregions of England, Scotland and Wales - A Mixed Methods Study

Background

Regions within England, Scotland and Wales show variation in rate of adoption of biosimilar infliximab and etanercept.

Objectives

This study aims to examine how local decisions and practices in regions within England, Scotland and Wales might explain initial variation in market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept.

Methods

Market data provided by the National Health Service (NHS) on biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept uptake were analysed for the 10 historical regions of England, 14 health boards in Scotland and 7 health boards in Wales (2015–2018). Findings were discussed in ten semi-structured interviews: on a national level with an industry representative (1), on a regional level with NHS employees in England (6), Scotland (1) and Wales (1), and on a local level with a representative of a clinical commissioning group in England (1).

Results

Tenders for infliximab and etanercept in England, Scotland and Wales have consistently resulted in a biosimilar as the best value biological. Early and late biosimilar adopters are seen, with overall convergence towards high biosimilar market shares over time. Qualitative results suggest that biosimilar adoption was positively influenced by (a) a price difference between biosimilar and originator product making it worthwhile to switch patients; (b) a good relationship between commissioner and provider in England resulting in gain share agreements; (c) leadership on biosimilars in regional NHS offices in England or Scottish and Welsh health boards; (d) key opinion leaders or leading hospitals that start using biosimilars early and gain experience.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the savings potential drives biosimilar use. Regions with a proactive attitude, good stakeholder relationships, and clinician engagement were identified as early adopters.

Batch-to-Batch Consistency of SB4 and SB2, Etanercept and Infliximab Biosimilars

Background

Biosimilars must meet stringent regulatory requirements, both at the time of authorization and during their lifecycle. Yet it has been suggested that divergence in quality attributes over time may lead to clinically meaningful differences between two versions of a biologic. Therefore, this study investigated the batch-to-batch consistency across a range of parameters for released batches of the etanercept biosimilar (SB4) and infliximab biosimilar (SB2).

Methods

SB4 (Benepali^®) and SB2 (Flixabi^®) were both developed by Samsung Bioepis and are manufactured in Europe by Biogen at their facility in Hillerød, Denmark. A total of 120 batches of SB4 and 25 batches of SB2 were assessed for consistency and compliance with specified release parameters, including purity, post-translational glycosylation (SB4 only), protein concentration, and biological activity.

Results

The protein concentration, purity, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) binding, and TNF-α neutralization of all batches of SB4 and SB2 were within the strict specification limits set by regulatory agencies, as was the total sialic acid (TSA) content of all batches of SB4.

Conclusions

Quality attributes of SB4 and SB2 batches showed little variation and were consistently within the rigorous specifications defined by regulatory agencies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00402-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

European Stakeholder Learnings Regarding Biosimilars: Part I-Improving Biosimilar Understanding and Adoption

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

METHOD

The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

RESULTS

Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards Biosimilars and Interchangeable Products: A Prescriptive Insight by the Pharmacists

Background

Pharmacists being the drug experts need to be well aware of the applied handling of biosimilar medicines (BSMs). They are an integral educator, trailblazer, and advocate of biosimilar integration across all clinical settings. Therefore, the current study was conducted to assess the pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude, and practices of integrating BSMs into clinical practice.

Methods

The cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to November 2019. The community pharmacies, clinical and academic settings in Karachi were approached for gathering the responses of pharmacists towards BSMs and interchangeable products using a 30-item survey form. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were used to identify the relationship among independent variables and the responses, considering p values <0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

Overall, there were 305 survey forms used with a response rate of 87.14%. More than 80% of the respondents have good knowledge about the definition, characteristics, safety and efficacy, compatibility, cost issues, and utilization of BSMs. Around half of the respondents (48.9%, [95% CI 46.6–51.2]) were confident in using BSMs in clinical practice. However, they were concerned about the BSM’s safety profile (45.2%, [95% CI 42.1–48.3]), quality (30.2%, [95% CI 28.3–32.1]), and efficacy issues (32.3%, [95% CI 31.2–37.5]).

Conclusion

The findings revealed that pharmacists were well informed about the BSMs. However, some of the responses to the attitude demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of that knowledge. The respondents persuaded that advanced patterns of diseases, product marketing stipulations, and need for better patient care drives higher demand for developing BSMs and were enthusiastic about gaining more insight to integrate BSMs into routine clinical practice.

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

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

Real-World Budget Impact of the Adoption of Insulin Glargine Biosimilars in Primary Care in England (2015-2018)

BACKGROUND

Lantus, the reference insulin glargine used for the treatment of diabetes, lost its patent protection in 2014, opening the market to biosimilar competitors.

OBJECTIVE

First, to analyze the adoption rates of insulin glargine biosimilars in primary care in England and estimate the savings realized and missed, since an insulin glargine biosimilar was first used, and second, to assess potential variations in adoption rates across Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data sets capturing information on all insulin glargine items prescribed by all general practitioners up to December 2018 were used. Total costs of insulin glargine and uptake rates of biosimilars were calculated. The real-world budget impact was estimated assuming the cost of reference insulin glargine for all items and comparing the total costs in this scenario with the total costs in the real world. The missed savings were estimated assuming the cost of biosimilars for all insulin glargine items. Choropleth maps were generated to assess potential variations in uptake across CCGs.

RESULTS

Insulin glargine biosimilars generated savings of £900,000 between October 2015 (time of first prescription) and December 2018. The missed savings amounted to £25.6 million in this period, indicating that only 3.42% of the potential savings were achieved. The analyses demonstrated a large level of variation in the uptake of insulin glargine biosimilars across CCGs, with market shares ranging from 0 to 53.3% (December 2018).

CONCLUSIONS

These results may encourage decision makers in England to promote the use of best-value treatments in primary care and to reevaluate variation across CCGs.

Uptake of Biosimilar Infliximab in the UK, France, Japan, and Korea: Budget Savings or Market Expansion Across Countries?

Objective

To compare the market dynamics of biosimilar infliximab among four Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (UK, France, Japan, and Korea) where supply-side and demand-side policies varied greatly, given high and growing expenditure on biological medicines to treat immunological diseases across countries.

Methods

A quarterly dataset covering October 2012 to March 2018 was constructed from the MIDAS-IQVIA International database. The sales value (in USD) and volume (in standard units) of originator infliximab and biosimilar products and their relative price in each country were compared.

Results

With the introduction of biosimilars, the sales value of infliximab increased approximately 2.5 times in Korea, whereas it only slightly increased (1.2 times for France and the UK) or decreased (0.9 for Japan) in other countries. While stable market size dynamics were observed in the other countries, an escalating market size, attributable to the increase in originator infliximab, was observed in Korea. In the UK and France, which have implemented demand-side policies, the sales volume of originator infliximab appreciably decreased after the entry of biosimilar infliximab while that of biosimilars increased; however, in Korea, which has supply-side policies based on price-linking with few demand-side policies, the volume of originator infliximab actually increased by 70% alongside a very limited increase in biosimilar infliximab. The lowest price ratio between biosimilar and originator infliximab was found in Japan, at 68%. In France and Korea, the ex-factory prices of biosimilar infliximab were 99 and 95%, respectively, of the originator infliximab price. In the UK, the ex-factory price of biosimilar infliximab started at 87% of that of originator infliximab and then decreased to 80% as the market matured. However, actual price differences might differ.

Conclusion

The uptake of biosimilar infliximab varied greatly, and in contrast to the UK, France, and Japan, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab resulted in market expansion in Korea, which might be explained by a lack of demand-side policies in Korea. Both supply- and demand-side measures are necessary for health authorities to achieve desired savings from the availability of biosimilars.

Physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MedLine Ovid and Scopus databases at the end of 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original scientific studies written in English that addressed physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The search resulted in altogether 451 studies and 331 after removing duplicates. Two researchers examined these based on the title, abstract and entire text, resulting in 20 studies. The references in these 20 studies were screened and three further studies were included. The data of these 23 studies were extracted. All the publications were quality assessed by two researchers.

RESULTS

Most of the selected studies were conducted in Europe and commonly used short surveys. Physicians' familiarity with biosimilars varied: 49%-76% were familiar with biosimilars while 2%-25% did not know what biosimilars were, the percentages varying from study to study. Their measured knowledge was generally more limited compared with their self-assessed knowledge. Physicians' perceptions of biosimilars also varied: 54%-94% were confident prescribing biosimilars, while 65%-67% had concerns regarding these medicines. Physicians seemed to prefer originator products to biosimilars and prescribed biosimilars mainly for biologic-naive patients. They considered cost savings and the lower price compared with the originator biologic medicine as the main advantages of biosimilars, while their doubts were often related to safety, efficacy and immunogenicity. 64%-95% of physicians had negative perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' knowledge of and attitudes towards biosimilars vary. Although physicians had positive attitudes towards biosimilars, prescribing was limited, especially for patients already being treated with biologic medicines. Perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines were often negative. Education and national recommendations for switching and substitution of biologic medicines are needed to support the uptake of biosimilars.

Clinical evidence supporting the marketing authorization of biosimilars in Europe

PURPOSE

To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

METHODS

EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins.

RESULTS

The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.

Medication safety risks to be managed in national implementation of automatic substitution of biological medicines: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore relevant Finnish stakeholders' perceptions on the automatic substitution of biological medicines with particular focus on medication safety and issues that need to be considered to create an appropriate model for automatic biological product substitution.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Data were collected in semistructured individual (n=17), pair (n=7) and group (n=8) interviews (32 interviews, 62 participants) in 2018. Participants represented a wide range of stakeholders involved in the pharmacotherapy process: community pharmacists (n=8 interviews), authorities (n=7), prescribers (n=7), pharmaceutical industry and wholesalers (n=6), patients/customers (n=2), hospital pharmacists (n=1) and nurses (n=1). Inductive content analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Benefits of automatic substitution were identified as cost savings, more patients receiving biological treatments and enhanced continuity of treatment. Six major risk categories were identified: (1) the patient's medication is interrupted or complicated temporarily or permanently, (2) the patient uses two products with the same active substance, (3) the traceability of the product is compromised, (4) the patient cannot get into healthcare in case of problems, (5) the patient does not receive substitution-related advice from a pharmacy and (6) the patient is distracted by the support material he/she receives. Several risk mitigation measures were commonly mentioned: medication and device counselling by pharmacists (n=23), infrequent substitution interval (n=15) and better knowledge on biosimilars among healthcare providers (n=13).

CONCLUSION

Automatic substitution of biologics is associated with risks that should be prospectively managed before implementing the procedure. The substitution also introduces new tasks and communication needs to those involved in actual medication use process, particularly to community pharmacists who will be responsible for substitution and counselling the patients.

Same but different? A thematic analysis on adalimumab biosimilar switching among patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Biologic medications have dramatically enhanced the treatment of many chronic paediatric inflammatory conditions. Their high cost is a factor that prohibits their broader use. Cheaper generic versions, or biosimilars, are increasingly being used. Healthcare services are switching some patients over to biosimilars for economic reasons, known as 'non-medical switching'. Some patients unsuccessfully switch due to perceived decreases in efficacy or non-specific drug effects. The implications of failed switching include exhaustion of therapeutic options, unnecessary exposure to other medications, increased healthcare utilisation, worse patient outcomes and higher overall healthcare costs. Patient perceptions almost certainly play a role in these 'failed switches'.

METHODS

A thematic analysis was performed to better understand patient and parent perceptions on non-medical biosimilar switching. The study was conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research recommendations. Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis currently taking adalimumab were included.

RESULTS

Nine families were interviewed just prior to a hospital trust-wide non-medical switch to an adalimumab biosimilar. Several common themes were identified. The most frequent concerns were regarding practical aspects of the switch including the medication administration device type; the colour of the medication and administration device; and whether the injections would sting more. The relative safety and efficacy of the biosimilar was raised although most families felt that there would be no significant difference. Anxieties about the switch were largely placated by reassurances from the medical team.

CONCLUSIONS

We derived recommendations based on existing adult literature and the observations from our study to optimise the benefits from non-medical biosimilar switching.