During the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2019 meeting being held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 3 teams of researchers presented findings that show that, despite the fact that Europe’s biosimilars market is far more mature than that of the United States, the region still sees setbacks from stakeholder perceptions of biosimilars and from policies that do not adequately incentivize biosimilar use.
While the European experience with biosimilars is often pointed to as a model for the United States to follow in adopting and reaping the rewards of biosimilars, Europe still has room to improve with respect to these cost-saving products. This week, during the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2019 meeting being held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 3 teams of researchers presented findings that show that, despite the fact that Europe’s biosimilars market is far more mature than that of the United States, the region still sees setbacks from stakeholder perceptions of biosimilars and from policies that do not adequately incentivize biosimilar use.
First, researchers from the University of Birmingham, in Birmingham, United Kingdom, presented results of a systematic literature review of articles on the perceptions of biosimilars among European stakeholders that were published between 2006 and 2018.1 In total, they reviewed 17 articles, and found that “The level of knowledge, familiarity, and understanding of what biosimilars actually are seems to be quite satisfactory. However, there are still several misconceptions regarding biosimilars and their degree of similarity compared to the reference products.”
While most healthcare providers and patients recognized that biosimilars could reduce costs, “benefits such as opportunities for more treatment options have not been highlighted by demand-side stakeholders to such an extent,” and reluctance to select a biosimilar instead of a reference drug still persists.
A second team also found that perceptions of biosimilars continue to be a barrier for biosimilars. The researchers, from Ipsos Healthcare in the United Kingdom, presented results from a cross-sectional survey conducted in the third quarter of 2018 in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, and Germany (EU5).2
The survey assessed overall perception of brand-name biologics and biosimilars among 261 rheumatologists, most of whom practiced in teaching hospitals or urban hospitals.
In total, 73.9% of physicians said they had greater satisfaction with originator etanercept than with biosimilars, and when asked about specific attributes of rheumatoid arthritis treatment, 64.4% of rheumatologists said that brand-name rituximab was associated with inhibiting radiographic progression, but only 47.5% said that a biosimilar was associated with the same benefit.
According to the researchers, these results may be due to biosimilars’ relatively short period of availability in clinical practice.
Finally, a team from Lifescience Dynamics in London, United Kingdom, reported on an analysis of policies that impact uptake in the EU5 nations.3 The researchers interviewed 20 payers who influence policy related to biologics at a local, regional, or national level, and conducted an advisory board comprising 30 healthcare providers from oncology, gastroenterology, and rheumatology practices to assess their perceptions of biosimilars.
Among payers and physicians, there was a consensus that biosimilars are equivalent to originators, and price was a main driver for adoption of these agents. However, despite large discounts for some products, market penetration has not kept pace with anticipated uptake.
Most physicians said they did not have prescribing obligations—such as financial targets or incentivization policies—in place, and the researchers note that such policies may be needed to drive greater market penetration of biosimilars across the EU5.
References
1. Braoudaki E, Barton P. Resistance to or support of biosimilars’ market penetration? A systematic review of European stakeholders’ behaviors. Presented at: ISPOR Europe 2019; November 2-6, 2019; Copenhagen, Denmark. Abstract PBI58.
2. Baldock D, Baynton E, Zhang C. Physician perceptions of biologics versus their biosimilar counterparts in rheumatology—a multi-country study. Presented at: ISPOR Europe 2019; November 2-6, 2019; Copenhagen, Denmark. Abstract PBI92.
3. Gaffney A, Cadi-Tazi A, Ribeiro A. Payer and physician dynamics surrounding biosimilar access in the EU. Presented at: ISPOR Europe 2019; November 2-6, 2019; Copenhagen, Denmark. Abstract PBI57.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Interchangeability
November 14th 2024Part 3 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week, penned by Dracey Poore, director of biosimilars at Cardinal Health, explores the critical topic of interchangeability, examining its role in shaping biosimilar adoption and the broader implications for accessibility.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.