This is the first of a 2-part series on a study from the independent research center NORC at University of Chicago concerning biosimilar acceptance and uptake.
How valuable can patient awareness be in driving the uptake of biosimilars? A recent study from NORC, a University of Chicago research center, suggested that patients are more concerned about safety and efficacy than cost when choosing drugs, although physicians will tend to prescribe lower-cost drugs and are showing signs of being increasingly confident in biosimilars. There is an inherent tension in this.
“My doctor looking to prescribe the lowest-cost medication makes me really uncomfortable that somebody is going to cheapen what my health needs. It just makes me think that if it’s cheaper, I’m probably going to get less benefit out of it because it’s just a lower class of medication,” said a patient response that was incorporated into the NORC findings.
The study included a patient survey (N = 618), physician survey (N = 602), 2 focus groups with patients (N = 16), and interviews with physicians and other stakeholders, including payers and group purchasing organizations.
Biosimilars may have no “clinically meaningful differences” from the originator biologics they reference, but efforts to broadcast this message appear to be having more success with doctors than patients, according to the study.
“In terms of efficacy and safety, they’re so highly similar that it would be difficult to make a case that they’re less safe or less efficacious than the original branded molecules,” an unidentified gastroenterologist was reported as saying in the NORC study. More than 75% of providers surveyed said they believe biosimilars are as safe and effective as originator brands. And 77% of physicians said they expect to prescribe biosimilars more often over the next year.
For the most part, physicians stated that their patients did not know much about biosimilars, with 61% of providers reporting that “few or none” of their patients know that these lower-cost yet equivalent agents exist. However, of patients who were asked if they would have full confidence in accepting a biosimilar if recommended by their physician, 71% said yes, they would.
The authors of the NORC study concluded that, based on these findings, physicians’ recommendations and confidence “are the most important factors” influencing patients’ willingness to be treated with a biosimilar. “Continuing to focus resources on encouraging physician prescribing will be more important than broad scale patient education,” they wrote.
The NORC study echoed a concern raised at the recent Community Oncology Alliance annual meeting in which health care administrators said that biosimilars clearly have a foot in the door, but to get in much further it’s going to take a lot of long-term observation and real-world evidence. They said this is because providers want to be convinced that biosimilar equivalence demonstrated by limited studies for FDA approval doesn’t evaporate when larger, more diverse real-world populations start using these drugs.
Physicians are clearly not comfortable yet with the idea of switching patients between reference biologic and biosimilar, the NORC study suggested. “Additional data on side effects, real-world evidence about patient switches, or interchangeability designations could increase physicians’ comfort with moving established patients to biosimilars,” the authors wrote.
“I’d much prefer to start a new bio-need patient on a biosimilar agent. I have a lot of reservations trying to switch over a patient that is doing well and stable on a name-brand biologic. That is where I sort of put up a stop sign and try and avoid, if at all possible,” an unidentified dermatologist told NORC investigators.
Findings like this led the NORC investigators to conclude that rapid shifts from originator brands to biosimilars are not likely to happen, although more therapy starts on biosimilars rather than originators can be expected.
Reference
Wilde S, Schapiro L, Fletcher M, Pearson C. Understanding stakeholder perception of biosimilars. NORC. April 2021. Accessed April 13, 2021. https://www.norc.org/PDFs/Biosimilars/20210405_AV%20-%20NORC%20Biosimilars%20Final%20Report.pdf
Biosimilars Oncology Roundup for June 2024—Podcast Edition
July 7th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we review biosimilar news coming out of June, with clinical trial results from conferences and a study showcasing how to overcome economic and noneconomic barriers to oncology biosimilars.
Subcutaneous Infliximab CT-P13 Superior to Placebo as Maintenance Therapy for IBD
November 16th 2024In 2 randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the subcutaneous formulation of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 demonstrated superiority to placebo in patients with Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis.
Breaking Barriers in Osteoporosis Care: New Denosumab Biosimilars Wyost, Jubbonti Approved
June 16th 2024In this episode, The Center for Biosimilars® delves into the FDA approval of the first denosumab biosimilars, Wyost and Jubbonti (denosumab-bbdz), and discuss their potential to revolutionize osteoporosis treatment with expert insights from 2 rheumatologists.
Skyrizi Overtakes Humira: “Product Hopping” Leaves Biosimilar Market in Limbo
November 7th 2024For the first time, Skyrizi (risankizumab-rzaa) has replaced Humira (reference adalimumab) as AbbVie’s sales driver, largely due to companies encouraging “product hopping” to avoid competition, creating concerns for the sustainability of the burgeoning adalimumab biosimilar market.