Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Sarnola K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7228507 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Sarnola Kati K Merikoski Merja M Jyrkkä Johanna J Hämeen-Anttila Katri K

BMJ open 20200505 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>MedLine Ovid and Scopus databases at the end of 2018.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>Original scientific studies written in English that addressed physicians' perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.<h4>Data extraction and synthesis</h4>The search resulted in altogether 451 studies and 331 after removing duplicates. Two researchers examined these based on the tit ...[more]

PMID: 32371511

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.ObjectivesTo compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.Main outcomes and measuresClinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.ResultsA total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.

Project description:Background: Nocebo refers to adverse events related to patients' negative expectations and previous experiences, mediated by several neurobiological pathways within the brain. It is common among neurological patients and affects adherence and treatment outcomes, representing a real clinical challenge. Methods: We conducted a systematic search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in MEDLINE database, using several keywords for studies that can be processed to investigate the magnitude of nocebo in generics and biosimilars used in the most common neurological diseases. The aim was to estimate its size and suggest strategies to minimize its prevalence in clinical trials and practice. Results: Of a total of 2,606 identified articles, after criteria-based selection, 35 studies were included for analysis. Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies concerning population, study design, and outcomes. Nocebo response could be estimated only in one double-blind randomized trial of generic glatiramer acetate in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis that included a placebo arm. In this trial, no significant differences observed between the three arms (innovator, bioequivalent, and placebo) in favorable and unfavorable outcomes. In the open-label phase of the trial, an increased withdrawal rate was recorded in patients switched from placebo to bioequivalent (8.4%) that may be related to nocebo. In other open-label and real-world studies evaluating biosimilars or generics for brain disorders, a similar indirect nocebo effect is assuming by several investigators. Also, knowledge gaps between health-care providers and patients exist towards generics and biosimilars. Conclusions: Despite its presence, the true burden of the nocebo response and effect cannot be accurately estimated in existing studies with generics and biosimilars in neurological diseases. Targeted strategies for clinical trials' design are needed in order to measure the exact nocebo's size.

Project description:BackgroundUsing race-a socially assigned identity that does not adequately capture human genetic variation-to guide clinical care can result in poor outcomes for racially minoritized patients. This study assessed (1) how physicians conceptualize and use race in their clinical care (race-based care) and (2) physician characteristics associated with race-based care.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies written in peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles evaluating US physicians' perceptions of race and physician factors associated with race-based care were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative studies were evaluated using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were summarized and combined with qualitative findings in a narrative synthesis.ResultsA total of 1149 articles were identified; 9 (4 qualitative, 5 quantitative) studies met inclusion criteria. Five themes emerged: (1) the belief in race as biological; (2) the use of race to contextualize patients' health; (3) the use of race to counsel patients and determine care; (4) justifications for race-based practice (evidence-based, personal experience, addresses disparities, provides personalized care, increases compliance); and (5) concerns with race-based practice (poorly characterizes patients, normalizes disparities, patient distrust, clinician discomfort, legitimized biological race). In quantitative studies, older age was positively associated with race-based care.DiscussionPhysicians had varied perceptions of race, but many believed race was biological. Concern and support for race-based practice were related to beliefs regarding the evidence for using race in care and the appropriateness of race as a variable in medical research. Older physicians were more likely to use race, which could be due to increased exposure to race-based medical literature, in addition to generational differences in conceptualizations of race. Additional research on the evolution of physicians' perceptions of race, and the role of medical literature in shaping these perceptions, is needed.

Project description:BackgroundBiologic treatments for cancer continue to place a significant economic burden on healthcare stakeholders. Biosimilar therapies may help reduce this burden through cost savings, thereby increasing patient access.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to collate all published data to assess the weight of available evidence (quantity and quality) for proposed monoclonal antibody biosimilars and intended copies, for the treatment of cancer.MethodsMEDLINE®, Embase®, and ISI Web of Science® databases were searched to September 2015. Conference proceedings (17) were searched (2012 to July 2015). Searches of the United States National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov registry were also conducted. Risk of bias assessments were undertaken to assess data strength and validity.ResultsProposed biosimilars were identified in 23 studies (36 publications) in oncology and ten studies in 14 publications in oncology and chronic inflammatory diseases for bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab originators. Based on our review of the included published studies, and as inferred from the conclusions of study authors, the identified proposed biosimilars exhibit close similarity to their originators. Published data were also retrieved on intended copies of rituximab. It remains unclear what role these agents may have, as publications on rigorous clinical studies are lacking for these molecules.ConclusionWhile biosimilar products have the potential to improve patient access to important biologic therapies, robust evidence of outcomes for monoclonal antibody biosimilars in treating cancer patients, including data from comparative efficacy and safety trials, is not yet available in the published literature. Significant data gaps exist, particularly for intended copies, which reinforces the need to maintain a clear differentiation between these molecules and true biosimilars. As more biosimilars become available for use, it will be important for stakeholders to understand fully the robustness of overall evidence used to demonstrate biosimilarity and gain regulatory approval.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians are required to assimilate, critically evaluate, and extrapolate information to support appropriate use of biosimilars across indications.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to systematically collate all published data in order to assess the weight (quantity and quality) of available evidence for each molecule and inform and support healthcare decision-making in chronic inflammatory diseases.MethodsMEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and ISI Web of Science® were searched to September 2015. Selected conference proceedings were searched from 2012 to July 2015. Studies disclosing biosimilars with unique identifiers were categorized by originator, study type, and indication. Risk of bias assessments were performed. Intended copies were differentiated as commercially available agents without evidence of rigorous comparative biosimilarity evaluations.ResultsProposed biosimilars for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab are reported in the published literature. Across indications, approved biosimilars infliximab CT-P13, SB2, and etanercept SB4 have published studies involving the largest number of patients or healthy subjects (n = 1405, 743, and 734, respectively), mostly in rheumatoid arthritis. At data cut-off, only CT-P13 had published data in ankylosing spondylitis (n = 250; randomized control trial) and ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease (n = 336; observational studies). Published data were not available for ongoing studies in psoriasis patients. Four intended copies were identified in published studies (total: n = 1430; n = 1372 in observational studies). Thematic analysis of non-empirical publications showed that indication extrapolation remains an issue, particularly for gastroenterologists.ConclusionsWhile most agents display a moderate to high degree of similarity to their originator in the published studies identified, large discrepancies persist in the overall amount and type of data available in the public domain. Significant gaps exist particularly for intended copies, reinforcing the need to maintain a clear differentiation between these molecules and true biosimilars.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets