Researchers reviewed randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence studies on nonmedical switching; that is, switching patients who are doing well on their current originator therapy to a biosimilar.
The nocebo effect may contribute to treatment failures upon nonmedical switching from an originator to a biosimilar, according to a review article, whose authors recommend rigorous studies to evaluate the nocebo effect, better patient education on biosimilars, and involving patients in the decision to switch.
Researchers reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies on nonmedical switching, ie, switching patients who are doing well on their current originator therapy to a biosimilar.1
Although head-to-head trials in biologic-naive patients have generally found similar efficacy and safety of originator and biosimilar, discontinuation of biosimilar therapy due to loss of response or adverse events is somewhat common in switch studies. The authors noted the reasons for these treatment failures have not been investigated, and they explore the possibility that some of these failures are due to negative expectations of the patient who is aware they are switching from the originator to the biosimilar—the nocebo effect.
According to the authors, the currently available data does not allow for distinguishing between a true difference in pharmacologic activity and the nocebo effect as potential reasons for loss of efficacy or adverse events. They acknowledge that the clinical effects of subtle differences between originators and biosimilars are not fully known, and could cause certain individuals to respond differently; furthermore these subtle differences in the molecule potentially could trigger an immunogenic response to a biosimilar upon switching. The authors call for well-designed, blinded clinical trials on nonmedical switching with appropriate control groups and attention to the causes of therapeutic failure to accurately evaluate how much loss of response is attributable to the nocebo effect.
Nonmedical switching is most often motivated by cost. However, additional physician or hospital visits due to adverse effects or failure of treatment following nonmedical switching could negate the cost savings of switching to a biosimilar.
Negative views of biosimilars by physicians and patients remain a barrier to reducing costs. The authors cite a survey in which 84% of US physicians said they would not support switching a stable patient from an originator to a biosimilar,2 highlighting the need for more well-designed studies to improve physicians’ views of nonmedical switching. Also, since patients’ negative expectations are the driver of the nocebo effect, the authors suggest better patient education could help to reduce misconceptions about biosimilars, thereby reducing the potential for the nocebo effect.
The authors also recommend involving patients in the choice to switch. They note that in some countries and by some insurers, nonmedical switching is mandated for patients who are doing well on originator therapy. They recommend switching not be mandated, as involuntary switching may exacerbate patients’ negative expectations, leading to greater likelihood of the nocebo effect. In their review of the literature, they found the rate of discontinuation of biosimilars was lower in RWE studies in which patients were able to choose whether to switch.
References
1. Fleischmann R, Jairath V, Mysler E, Nicholls D, Declerck P. Nonmedical switching from originators to biosimilars: Does the nocebo effect explain treatment failures and adverse events in rheumatology and gastroenterology? [published online ahead of print, January 16, 2020]. Rheumatol Ther. 2020;10.1007/s40744-019-00190-7. doi:10.1007/s40744-019-00190-7
2. Teeple A, Ellis LA, Huff L, et al. Physician attitudes about non-medical switching to biosimilars: results from an online physician survey in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(4):611—617. doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1571296.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Patients With IBD Maintain Therapy 2 Years Post Switching to Infliximab Biosimilar
March 23rd 2025People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched to the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 had higher treatment persistence (84% and 91%) than those new to infliximab (66% and 53%), with no new safety concerns.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
How Vertical Integration Drives Innovation and Access in Biosimilars
December 27th 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, highlights how vertical integration in the biosimilar industry streamlines costs, improves supply reliability, accelerates market adoption, and enhances patient access, while emphasizing the value of collaboration, quality control, and value-based contracts for sustainable health care delivery.
Empowering Vulnerable Populations: The Path to Equitable Biologic Therapy Access
December 22nd 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, senior vice president and system chief pharmacy officer at Providence, discusses strategies to improve equitable access to biologic therapies, including tiered formularies, income-based cost sharing, patient assistance programs, and fostering payer partnerships.