US rheumatologists who prescribe tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are familiar with biosimilars; however, there is broad awareness only of infliximab biosimilars, according to a survey. The results suggest most are willing to prescribe a biosimilar for a biologic-naïve patient who has the condition the biosimilar’s approval was based on, but they are hesitant about extrapolated conditions and nonmedical switching.
The authors cited previous research suggesting “health-care providers in the USA and Europe remain cautious” about using biosimilars, and aimed to update the literature with current perceptions of US rheumatologists who prescribe TNF inhibitors.
The 19-question online survey was given to 320 board-certified rheumatologists in the United States. The authors thought it important to gauge the perceptions of rheumatologists because TNF inhibitors “are the cornerstones of therapy for many chronic immune-mediated diseases, such as [rheumatoid arthritis],” and “[rheumatologists] will require education about the biosimilars of these agents before they are comfortable offering them to their patients.”
Survey questions covered rheumatologists’ familiarity with biosimilars, reasons for choosing a biosimilar or its reference product, interchangeability and extrapolation, non-medical switching, and use of biosimilars in different patient scenarios. The survey was administered in May and June of 2019.
Low Awareness of All FDA-Approved Biosimilars
Most rheumatologists (85%) were familiar with the FDA definition of a biosimilar product, but their awareness of FDA-approved biosimilars was “lacking,” according to the authors. Whereas nearly all survey respondents (96%) knew the FDA had approved an infliximab biosimilar, “fewer realized that adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab biosimilars were FDA approved (56%, 62% and 39%, respectively).”
Deciding Between a Biosimilar and Its Reference
Respondents were asked to rank by importance 7 factors they might consider when choosing to prescribe a biosimilar or its reference product: effectiveness, safety, patient cost, immunogenic risk, availability of data on switching, physicochemical and functional characteristics, and durability of response. Effectiveness was ranked first or second by 77% of respondents, followed by safety by 45%, whereas 51% ranked physicochemical and functional characteristics sixth or seventh.
Notably, only 27% of rheumatologists surveyed ranked reduced cost for the patient first or second. Previous research, in contrast, found cost is a significant issue for rheumatologists, but they considered the savings with biosimilars insufficient to prescribe them in place of their reference products.
Prescribing Biosimilars for Extrapolated Conditions
Only about half (54%) of rheumatologists surveyed were familiar with the term “non-medical switching.” When asked about prescribing for a patient with the same condition the biosimilar’s approval was based on, 73% said they were likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a biologic-naïve patient, but only 35% said they were likely to switch a patient who was doing well on the reference product. For an extrapolated condition, rheumatologists were less willing to use biosimilars: 40% rated themselves as likely to prescribe a biosimilar for a biologic-naïve patient, compared with 21% if the patient was doing well on the reference product.
Most (84%) respondents knew that FDA approval does not imply interchangeability, and “86% felt it important/very important for interchangeable approval to be on the label.”
The authors said their results suggest that US rheumatologists “understand and accept” biosimilars, especially for biologic-naïve patients, but they are cautious about extrapolated conditions and non-medical switching. The authors concluded by arguing that “additional education on biosimilars is required to help inform treatment decisions by rheumatologists.”
Reference
Gibofsky A, McCabe D. US rheumatologists' beliefs and knowledge about biosimilars: a survey. Rheumatology (Oxford). Published online November 4, 2020. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaa502
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.
Eye on Pharma: Golimumab Biosimilar Update; Korea Approves Denosumab; Xbrane, Intas Collaboration
December 10th 2024Alvotech and Advanz Pharma have submitted a European marketing application for their golimumab biosimilar to treat inflammatory diseases, while Celltrion secured Korean approval for denosumab biosimilars, and Intas Pharmaceuticals partnered with Xbrane Biopharma on a nivolumab biosimilar.
Insights from Festival of Biologics: Dracey Poore Discusses Cardinal Health’s 2024 Biosimilar Report
May 19th 2024The discussion highlights key emerging trends from the Festival of Biologics conference and the annual Cardinal Health Biosimilars Report, including the importance of sustainability in the health care landscape and the challenges and successes in biosimilar adoption and affordability.
Cost and Efficacy Insights on Infliximab Biosimilars in Pediatric Uveitis
December 3rd 2024The study highlights the safety, efficacy, and cost benefits of infliximab biosimilars in managing pediatric noninfectious uveitis, showing fewer disease flares and reduced costs compared with reference infliximab, as well as the influence of insurance mandates on treatment decisions.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.