Assessment of pharmacists' views on biosimilar naming conventions

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.

Looking to the future and learning lessons from the recent past: changing stakeholder perceptions of biosimilars in cancer

As the patents for many biologic anticancer drugs expire, significant growth in the use of biosimilars is predicted, offering an opportunity to help combat the rising costs of treatment and increase patient access to biologic therapy. Attainment of regulatory approval, involving numerous nonclinical and clinical comparative studies versus each reference product, is only one of several barriers to realize the potential gains offered by biosimilars. It is important to understand the current perceptions and informational needs of different stakeholders if biosimilars are to be accepted and widely used in the clinic. We discuss these considerations and refer to recent experiences with CT-P13, a biosimilar of the TNF inhibitor infliximab used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory disorders.

Knowledge, behaviors and practices of community and hospital pharmacists towards biosimilar medicines: Results of a French web-based survey

This study's aims were: 1) to extract a comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experience and opinions of both community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists regarding biosimilar medicines in France; and 2) to identify the perceived problems and solutions to promoting their prescription. A 2015 web-based survey was conducted by the Observatoire des Médicaments, des Dispositifs Médicaux et de l'Innovation Thérapeutique of Alsace. A total of 802 pharmacists responded to the survey. Many (536, 66.8%, [95% confidence interval (CI) 63.6-70.1]) indicated that they were not familiar with biosimilars. Half of community pharmacists (95% CI 42.7-57.3) stated that they were not at all informed about biosimilar drugs, compared with 15.7% (95% CI 12.9-18.6) of hospital pharmacists. Almost all respondents (781, 97.4%, [95% CI 96.3-98.5]) had at least one pending question on biosimilars. Most of the questions were related to the manufacturing process, safety, substitution rules and the international non-proprietary name prescription. At the time of the study, 467 pharmacists (58.2%, [95% CI 54.8-61.6]) had already validated a prescription for a biosimilar drug, mainly for filgrastim. These latter were more comfortable in explaining the benefit of biosimilar medicines to the patient. Pharmacists were rather favorable to biosimilar drugs, and about 9 of 10 quoted healthcare cost savings as incentives to their prescription. However, many did not agree with allowing biosimilar substitution. "Patients' wishes to be treated with the originator" and "indication extrapolation" were the two main constraints identified. The survey highlighted the need to provide French pharmacists with accurate and comprehensive information regarding biosimilar medicines.

Evaluating AE Reporting of Two Off-Patent Biologics to Inform Future Biosimilar Naming and Reporting Practices

Historical studies of voluntary, spontaneous drug reports show poor attribution of adverse events to generic versions of commonly prescribed medications. As biosimilars enter the market place, it may be similarly difficult to accurately attribute adverse events to their respective reference products. At this time, lack of global consensus with regard to biosimilar naming conventions may result in drug reporting confusion, misattribution of adverse events and insufficient active monitoring of safety signals. Now, with the first biosimilar approval in the USA and many biosimilars expected to be launched globally in the near future, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on biosimilar naming conventions will be essential. To inform the FDA and the global drug development community, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) examined primary suspect reports sent to the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from US reporters for two biologics that have lost patent exclusivity--somatropin and human insulin--and extracted 4703 insulin reports and 6487 somatropin reports from FAERS. The results show that reporting practices are inconsistent between the two biologics that were evaluated and that manufacturer identifiability and traceability are lacking. Ways to improve biosimilar naming conventions and improve reporting practices are suggested.

Biosimilars: A consideration of the regulations in the United States and European union

Biosimilars are defined as biological products that are highly similar to a reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Biosimilars show no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency of the product in comparison to the reference product. With the ever looming patent expiry of some major high cost biologics, biosimilar production is becoming ever more lucrative to companies. Europe (EU) set the precedent, followed by the United States (US) in early 2012, for the approval process for biosimilars. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of the regulatory processes in the US and EU and to determine the requirements of each in the approval process of a biosimilar. The current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency's (EMA) guidance documents for biosimilars were reviewed revealing a need for further clarifications, as well as specifically addressing Celltrion's and Sandoz's application for approval for the biosimilars infliximab and filgrastim, respectively. Currently, the FDA and EMA focus on comparability in terms of the clinical, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD), preclinical, biological activity, and physiochemical characterization results, as well as requiring a robust and consistent manufacturing process. Both the EU and US have prepared guidance documents for biosimilars that will result in biotherapeutics that are as safe and efficacious as the innovator product but the necessity exists to globally harmonize international nonproprietary naming nomenclature and clarify how the concept of pharmacovigilance, extrapolation, and interchangeability will be handled and regulated in the future.

Biosimilars Are Here: A Hospital Pharmacist's Guide to Educating Health Care Professionals on Biosimilars

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are the recognized experts in pharmacotherapy. With the recent introduction of biosimilar agents into the US market, pharmacists are poised to play a pivotal role in evaluating their risks versus benefits within the framework of cost containment.

PURPOSE

This article provides hospital pharmacists with the necessary information on the principles surrounding the development, approval process, and use of biosimilars.

METHODS

Information contained in this article enables hospital pharmacists to identify concerns relating to biosimilars, implement educational components, and successfully evaluate biosimilars for the addition to the formulary. Additionally, this article reviews the European experience with biosimilars, the US Food and Drug Administration approval process, and postauthorization safety and pharmacovigilance programs.

CONCLUSION

It is important to educate health care providers about the differences between biosimilars and their reference biologics. The adoption of biosimilars is necessary to control long-term costs of biologics, increase patient access to care, and encourage innovation.