ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Humans , Spain , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Objetivo: Mejorar el nivel de conocimiento sobre los medicamentos biosimilares y generar un marco consensuado sobre su uso. Métodos: Estudio cualitativo. Se seleccionó un grupo multidisciplinar de expertos en medicamentos biosimilares (una dermatóloga, un farmacéutico de hospital, un reumatólogo y un gastroenterólogo) que definieron los apartados y los temas del documento. Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura en Medline para identificar artículos sobre los medicamentos biosimilares. Se seleccionaron revisiones sistemáticas de la literatura, estudios controlados pre-clínicos, clínicos y en vida real. Con esta información se generaron varios principios generales y recomendaciones. El grado de acuerdo con los mismos se estableció mediante un Delphi que se extendió a 66 profesionales de la salud que votaron de 1 (totalmente en desacuerdo) a 10 (totalmente de acuerdo). Se definió acuerdo si al menos el 70% de los participantes votaron ≥7. Resultados: La revisión de la literatura incluyó 555 artículos. Se votaron un total de 10 principios generales y recomendaciones. Todos alcanzaron el nivel de acuerdo establecido en el Delphi. El documento incluye datos sobre las características principales de los medicamentos biosimilares (definición, desarrollo, aprobación, extrapolación de indicaciones, intercambiabilidad, financiación y trazabilidad); sobre la evidencia publicada (biosimilitud, eficacia, efectividad, seguridad, inmunogenicidad, eficiencia, switch); sobre barreras y facilitadores a su uso, y datos sobre la información para pacientes. Conclusiones: Los medicamentos biosimilares autorizados reúnen todas las características de calidad, eficacia y seguridad. Además, ayudan significativamente a mejorar el acceso de los pacientes a las terapias biológicas y contribuyen a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas sanitarios. (AU)
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. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/therapeutic use , Immune System Diseases/drug therapy , Knowledge , Spain , Consensus , Interchange of Drugs , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The introduction of biological medicines has revolutionized the management of chronic diseases. Due to the high cost of biological medicine coupled with the fact that patents of many of these medicines are on the verge of expiration, manufacturers are exploring the production of biosimilars. The introduction of biosimilars has the capacity to increase competition among manufacturers, reduce prices, and improve patient access to these medicines. Therefore, a biosimilar is a new wave in therapy and treatment for the next few years. Despite the growing number of biosimilars approved for patient care, physicians' comfort in prescribing reference products against biosimilars and patient reluctance to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar are the major barriers for biosimilar increasing use. This paper aims to highlight the role of the clinical pharmacist (CP) in the utilization of biosimilars and the need for a pharmacy specialty regarding biosimilars. Of all the healthcare providers, CP has the most holistic view of the biosimilar products' clinical profile, and logistical and supply chain considerations. Thus, CPs are uniquely positioned to better educate all biosimilar medicine key stakeholders in an effort to increase access and rational use.
ABSTRACT
Evidence from over 10 years of clinical experience demonstrates that biosimilar medicines approved in the European Union can be used for all their registered indications as safely as their originators and with no negative impact on therapeutic efficacy. The debate on the use of biosimilars in rheumatology focuses specifically on the safety of switching between biosimilars and reference products. Studies conducted to date, including randomised double-blind and open-label extension trials, have not demonstrated any significant differences in therapeutic efficacy or safety between patients switched from one medicine to another and those who were continued on a single medicine. According to the latest recommendations for the use of biosimilars in rheumatic diseases, developed by an international task force in 2017, there is no clinical evidence that a single switch from an originator to a biosimilar medicine is associated with any significant risk for patient safety or reduction in therapeutic efficacy.
ABSTRACT
Background: Biopharmaceutical medicines represent a growing share of the global pharmaceutical market, and with many of these biopharmaceutical products facing loss of exclusivity rights, also biosimilars may now enter the biopharmaceutical market. Objectives: This study aims to identify and document which investment and development strategies are adopted by industrial players in the global biopharmaceutical market. Methods: A descriptive analysis was undertaken of the investment and development strategies of the top 25 pharmaceutical companies according to 2015 worldwide prescription drug sales. Strategies were documented by collecting data on manufacturing plans, development programs, acquisition and collaboration agreements, the portfolio and pipeline of biosimilar, originator and next-generation biopharmaceutical products. Data were extracted from publicly available sources. Results: Various investment and development strategies can be identified in the global biopharmaceutical market: (a) development of originator biopharmaceuticals, (b) investment in biotechnology, (c) development of next-generation biopharmaceuticals, (d) development of biosimilars, (e) investment in emerging countries, and (f) collaboration between companies. In the top 25 pharmaceutical companies almost every company invests in originator biopharmaceuticals and in biotechnology in general, but only half of them develops next-generation biopharmaceuticals. Furthermore, only half of them invest in development of biosimilars. The companies' biosimilar pipeline is mainly focused on development of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies and to some extent on biosimilar insulins. A common strategy is collaboration between companies and investment in emerging countries. Conclusions: A snapshot of investment and development strategies used by industrial players in the global biopharmaceutical market shows that all top 25 pharmaceutical companies are engaged in the biopharmaceutical market and that this industrial landscape is diverse. Companies do not focus on a single strategy, but are involved in multiple investment and development strategies. A common strategy to market biopharmaceuticals is collaboration between companies. These collaborations can as well be used to gain access in regions the company has less experience with. With patents expiring for some of the highest selling monoclonal antibodies, this snapshot highlights the interest of companies to invest in the development of these molecules and/or enter into collaborations to create access to these molecules.
ABSTRACT
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.
