Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Study Selection
2.3. Data Collection Process
3. Results
3.1. Current Knowledge and Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals toward Biosimilar Prescription
3.2. Interchangeability
4. Discussion
4.1. Biosimilars from a Regulatory Perspective: What Should Healthcare Professionals Know?
4.1.1. Interchangeability: Switching and Substitution
4.1.2. Extrapolation
4.1.3. Post-Approval Surveillance of Biosimilars
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency (EMA) New Guide on Biosimilar Medicines for Healthcare Professionals. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/new-guide-biosimilar-medicines-healthcare-professionals (accessed on 27 May 2020).
- European Commission. 2019 IQVIA Report—The Impact of Biosimilar Competition in Europe. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38461 (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Grabowski, H.G.; DiMasi, J.A.; Long, G. The roles of patents and research and development incentives in biopharmaceutical innovation. Health Aff. 2015, 34, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Declerck, P.; Danesi, R.; Petersel, D.; Jacobs, I. The Language of Biosimilars: Clarification, Definitions, and Regulatory Aspects. Drugs 2017, 77, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biosimilars. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/therapeutic-biologics-applications-bla/biosimilars (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- World and Health Organisation (WHO). Annex 2 Guidelines on Evaluation of Similar Biotherapeutic Products (SBPs). Available online: https://www.who.int/biologicals/publications/trs/areas/biological_therapeutics/TRS_977_Annex_2.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 27 June 2020).
- Li, E.; Liu, J.; Ramchandani, M. A framework for integrating biosimilars into the didactic core requirements of a doctor of pharmacy curriculum. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2017, 81, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Multidisciplinary: Biosimilar. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/scientific-guidelines/multidisciplinary/multidisciplinary-biosimilar (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Medicines. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines (accessed on 29 July 2020).
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Search for FDA Guidance Documents. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biosimilar Product Information. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-product-information (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- World and Health Organisation (WHO). Annex 4 Guidelines on the Quality, Safety and Efficacy of Biotherapeutic Protein Products Prepared by Recombinant DNA Technology Replacement of Annex 3 of WHO Technical Report Series, No. 814. Available online: https://www.who.int/biologicals/biotherapeutics/TRS_987_Annex4.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 25 June 2020).
- Kang, H.N.; Knezevic, I. Regulatory evaluation of biosimilars throughout their product life-cycle. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018, 96, 281–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World and Health Organisation (WHO). Guidelines on Procedures and Data Requirements for Changes to Approved Biotherapeutic Products Post ECBS Version. Available online: https://www.who.int/biologicals/expert_committee/PAC_highlighted_20_Oct_2017.HK.IK.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 25 June 2020).
- Malcom, D.R.; Al-Ghananeem, A.M. Biotechnology in practice: Call for incorporation of biosimilars into pharmacy education. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2015, 7, 256–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, H.; Beydoun, D.; Chien, D.; Lessor, T.; McCabe, D.; Muenzberg, M.; Popovian, R.; Uy, J. Awareness, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Biosimilars Among Specialty Physicians. Adv. Ther. 2017, 33, 2160–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chapman, S.R.; Fitzpatrick, R.W.; Aladul, M.I. Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare professionals towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars: Result of a UK web-based survey. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e016730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Altman, D.G.; Booth, A.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, g7647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Biosimilar medicines: Overview. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/biosimilar-medicines-overview (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- World Health Organization WHO. Similar Biotherapeutic Products; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013; Volume 977, p. 40. Available online: https://www.who.int/biologicals/biotherapeutics/similar_biotherapeutic_products/en (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Aladul, M.I.; Fitzpatrick, R.W.; Chapman, S.R. Healthcare professionals’ perceptions and perspectives on biosimilar medicines and the barriers and facilitators to their prescribing in UK: A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, 11 e023603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giuliani, R.; Tabernero, J.; Cardoso, F.; McGregor, K.H.; Vyas, M.; De Vries, E.G.E. Knowledge and use of biosimilars in oncology: A survey by the European Society for Medical Oncology. ESMO Open 2019, 4, e000460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Leonard, E.; Wascovich, M.; Oskouei, S.; Gurz, P.; Carpenter, D. Factors affecting health care provider knowledge and acceptance of biosimilar medicines: A systematic review. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2019, 25, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Castañeda-Hernández, G.; Sandoval, H.; Coindreau, J.; Rodriguez-Davison, L.F.; Pineda, C. Barriers towards effective pharmacovigilance systems of biosimilars in rheumatology: A Latin American survey. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2019, 28, 1035–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karateev, D.; Belokoneva, N. Evaluation of physicians’ knowledge and attitudes towards biosimilars in Russia and issues associated with their prescribing. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Greene, L.; Singh, R.M.; Carden, M.J.; Pardo, C.O.; Lichtenstein, G.R. Strategies for overcoming barriers to adopting biosimilars and achieving goals of the biologics price competition and innovation act: A survey of managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2019, 25, 904–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teeple, A.; Ellis, L.A.; Huff, L.; Reynolds, C.; Ginsburg, S.; Howard, L.; Walls, D.; Curtis, J.R. Physician attitudes about non-medical switching to biosimilars: Results from an online physician survey in the United States. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2019, 35, 611–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micó-Pérez, R.M.; Payares-Herrera, C.; Palomo-Jiménez, P.I.; Sánchez-Fierro, J.; Avendaño-Solá, C.; Llisterri-Caro, J.L. Conocimiento sobre biosimilares en Atención Primaria: Un estudio de la Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN). Med. Fam. Semer. 2018, 44, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aladul, M.I.; Fitzpatrick, R.W.; Chapman, S.R. Differences in UK healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2019, 27, 214–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cook, J.W.; McGrath, M.K.; Dixon, M.D.; Switchenko, J.M.; Harvey, R.D.; Pentz, R.D. Academic oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and information needed before prescribing. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2019, 11, 1758835918818335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.K.; Moon, W.; Kim, E.S.; Park, S.H.; Park, D. Il Knowledge and Viewpoints on Biosimilar Monoclonal Antibodies among Asian Physicians: Comparison with European Physicians. Korean J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 74, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismailov, R.M.; Khasanova, Z.D. Biosimilar Knowledge Among Oncology/Hematology Team Members in Colorado, USA: An Educational Initiative and Follow-Up Survey. BioDrugs 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pawłowska, I.; Pawłowski, L.; Krzyżaniak, N.; Kocić, I. Perspectives of Hospital Pharmacists Towards Biosimilar Medicines: A Survey of Polish Pharmacy Practice in General Hospitals. BioDrugs 2019, 32, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hadoussa, S.; Bouhlel, M.; Soussi, M.A.; Drira, C.; Hadoussa, M.; Khrouf, M.R. Perception of hematologists and oncologists about the biosimilars: A prospective Tunisian study based on a survey. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract. 2020, 26, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarnola, K.; Merikoski, M.; Jyrkkä, J.; Hämeen-Anttila, K. Physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e034183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabir, E.R.; Moreino, S.S.; Siam, M.K.S. An empirical analysis of the perceived challenges and benefits of introducing biosimilars in Bangladesh: A paradigm shift. Biomolecules 2018, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Questions and Answers for Patients—Biosimilar Medicines Explained. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/26643 (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Avouac, J.; Moltó, A.; Abitbol, V.; Etcheto, A.; Salcion, A.; Gutermann, L.; Klotz, C.; Elhai, M.; Cohen, P.; Soret, P.A.; et al. Systematic switch from innovator infliximab to biosimilar infliximab in inflammatory chronic diseases in daily clinical practice: The experience of Cochin University Hospital, Paris, France. Semin. Arthritis Rheum. 2018, 47, 741–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smolen, J.S.; Choe, J.Y.; Prodanovic, N.; Niebrzydowski, J.; Staykov, I.; Dokoupilova, E.; Baranauskaite, A.; Yatsyshyn, R.; Mekic, M.; Porawska, W.; et al. Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2018, 77, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerdes, S.; Thaçi, D.; Griffiths, C.E.M.; Arenberger, P.; Poetzl, J.; Wuerth, G.; Afonso, M.; Woehling, H. Multiple switches between GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, with originator product do not impact efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with chronic plaque-type psoriasis: 30-week results from the phase 3, confirmatory EGALITY study. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2018, 32, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinblatt, M.E.; Baranauskaite, A.; Dokoupilova, E.; Zielinska, A.; Jaworski, J.; Racewicz, A.; Pileckyte, M.; Jedrychowicz-Rosiak, K.; Baek, I.; Ghil, J. Switching From Reference Adalimumab to SB5 (Adalimumab Biosimilar) in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Fifty-Two–Week Phase III Randomized Study Results. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018, 70, 832–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, B.; Lee, Y.; Lee, K.; Choi, Y.O.; Choe, Y.H. Long-term outcomes after switching to CT-P13 in pediatric-onset inflammatory bowel disease: A single-center prospective observational study. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2018, 24, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smits, L.J.T.; Grelack, A.; Derikx, L.A.A.P.; de Jong, D.J.; van Esch, A.A.J.; Boshuizen, R.S.; Drenth, J.P.H.; Hoentjen, F. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes After Switching from Remicade® to Biosimilar CT-P13 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2017, 62, 3117–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, W.; Suh, C.H.; Shim, S.C.; Molina, F.F.C.; Jeka, S.; Medina-Rodriguez, F.G.; Hrycaj, P.; Wiland, P.; Lee, E.Y.; Shesternya, P.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Innovator Rituximab to Biosimilar CT-P10 Compared with Continued Treatment with CT-P10: Results of a 56-Week Open-Label Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. BioDrugs 2017, 31, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- López-Siguero, J.P.; Palla García, M.; Martínez Busto, E.; Rebollo, F.J.; Pombo, M. Ten years experience with the first approved biosimilar recombinant human growth hormone drug in normal clinical practice. An. Pediatr. 2018, 88, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Belleudi, V.; Trotta, F.; Addis, A.; Ingrasciotta, Y.; Ientile, V.; Tari, M.; Gini, R.; Pastorello, M.; Scondotto, S.; Cananzi, P.; et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Switching Originator and Biosimilar Epoetins in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease in a Large-Scale Italian Cohort Study. Drug Saf. 2019, 42, 1437–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Strowitzki, T.; Kuczynski, W.; Mueller, A.; Bias, P. Safety and efficacy of Ovaleap® (recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone) for up to 3 cycles in infertile women using assisted reproductive technology: A phase 3 open-label follow-up to Main Study. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2016, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moorkens, E.; Vulto, A.G.; Huys, I. Biosimilars—Regulatory Frameworks for Marketing Authorisation of Biosimilars: Where Do We Go From Here? Eur. Pharm. Law Rev. 2018, 2, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, G.; Jefferis, R. Post-translational modifications in the context of therapeutic proteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006, 24, 1241–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzi, A.E.; Ultee, M.E. Biosimilars Drug Substance Development and Manufacturing: Effective CMC Strategy. Biosimilars 2018, 34, 173–186. [Google Scholar]
- European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-Derived Proteins as Active Substance: Non-Clinical and Clinical Issues Guideline on Similar Biological Medicinal Products Containing Biotechnology-Derived Proteins as Active Subs. (CHMP/BMWP/42832/2005 Rev 1). Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-similar-biological-medicinal-products-containing-biotechnology-derived-proteins-active_en-2.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Food and Drug Administration. Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity of a Therapeutic Protein Product to a Reference Product. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/135612/download (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Vandekerckhove, K.; Seidl, A.; Gutka, H.; Kumar, M.; Gratzl, G.; Keire, D.; Coffey, T.; Kuehne, H. Rational Selection, Criticality Assessment, and Tiering of Quality Attributes and Test Methods for Analytical Similarity Evaluation of Biosimilars. AAPS J. 2018, 20, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirchhoff, C.F.; Wang, X.Z.M.; Conlon, H.D.; Anderson, S.; Ryan, A.M.; Bose, A. Biosimilars: Key regulatory considerations and similarity assessment tools. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017, 114, 2696–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Callaghan, J.; Barry, S.P.; Bermingham, M.; Morris, J.M.; Griffin, B.T. Regulation of biosimilar medicines and current perspectives on interchangeability and policy. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 75, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rugo, H.S.; Rifkin, R.M.; Declerck, P.; Bair, A.H.; Morgan, G. Demystifying biosimilars: Development, regulation and clinical use. Futur. Oncol. 2019, 15, 777–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration (FDA); Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Considerations in Demonstrating Interchangeability With a Reference Product-Guidance for Industry. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/124907/download (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. On FDA’s Steps on Naming of Biological Medicines to Balance Competition and Safety for Patients Receiving These Products. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-fdas-steps-naming-biological-medicines-balance (accessed on 27 May 2020).
- Liu, P.M.; Zou, L.; Sadhu, C.; Shen, W.D.; Nock, S. Comparative immunogenicity assessment: A critical consideration for biosimilar development. Bioanalysis 2015, 7, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farhat, F.; Torres, A.; Park, W.; de Lima Lopes, G.; Mudad, R.; Ikpeazu, C.; Aad, S.A. The Concept of Biosimilars: From Characterization to Evolution—A Narrative Review. Oncologist 2017, 23, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gascon, P.; Krendyukov, A.; Mathieson, N.; Natek, M.; Aapro, M. Extrapolation in Practice: Lessons from 10 Years with Biosimilar Filgrastim. BioDrugs 2019, 33, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thill, M.; Thatcher, N.; Hanes, V.; Lyman, G.H. Biosimilars: What the oncologist should know. Futur. Oncol. 2019, 15, 1147–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cazap, E.; Jacobs, I.; McBride, A.; Popovian, R.; Sikora, K. Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust. Oncologist 2018, 23, 1188–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oza, B.; Radhakrishna, S.; Pipalava, P.; Jose, V. Pharmacovigilance of biosimilars—Why is it different from generics and innovator biologics? J. Postgrad. Med. 2019, 65, 227–232. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organisation (WHO). INN for Biosimilars. Available online: https://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/inn_bio_sim/en/ (accessed on 25 June 2020).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria | |
---|---|
Category | Criteria |
Year of publication | 2018–2020 |
Geography | No study was excluded because of geography; Studies from Europe, United States, Asia, Australia, UK, Africa. |
Language | English and Spanish |
Sources | Only peer-reviewed literature |
Study design | First objective: surveys, interviews and systematic reviews concerning healthcare professionals such as clinicians, pharmacists, nurses, consultants. Narrative reviews, commentaries, editorials, and protocols were excluded. Second objective: Reliable information from regulatory agencies such as European Medicines Agency (EMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO); peer-reviewed articles following snowball citation (37–65). |
Authors | Overview of Study | Objective | Outcomes | Concerns and Gaps | Limitations | Country |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Aladul et al. 2018 [21] Study induced between June–November 2017; | Methods: 30 min face-to-face, semi structured interviews; Sample size: n = 22; Sample: consultants, nurses, pharmacists; Profile: gastroenterology, rheumatology, diabetology; | “To investigate healthcare professionals’ perceptions and perspectives towards biosimilar infliximab, etanercept and insulin glargine and the potential barriers and facilitators to their prescribing”. | Good level of knowledge, and likely to initiate newly diagnosed patient on biosimilars, disagreement with automatic substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level and disagreement with multiple switching for cost reasons. | Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability, extrapolation), the use of different excipients, and different administration device, unavailability of all dosage strengths of the biosimilars. | Small sample size, diversity of specialties and organizational background, only four pharmacists responded to this interview. | UK |
2. Giuliani et al. 2018 [22] Study induced between September 2017–October 2017 | Methods: a 19-question survey; Sample size: Europe (n = 321), Asia (n = 84), US (n = 55), Africa (n = 13), Australia (n = 7); Sample: prescribers; Profile: oncology; | “To assess the current level of knowledge, understanding and comfort of use of biosimilars among prescribers”. | Most prescribers (79.2%) rate their general knowledge of biosimilars as average to high. 74.6% of prescribers were able to identify the most appropriate definition of biosimilars. 57.4% feel comfortable using an EMA-approved biosimilar. Only 62.3% understand extrapolation. 36.3% were able to identify the concept of interchangeability. | Safety concerns (interchangeability) | No hypothesis was tested, only participants of the ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology) were included and not all responded completely. | Multicentered |
3. Leonard et al. 2019 [23] Studies included between 1 January 2014–5 March 2018 | Methods: systematic review; Sample size: US (n = 3) and EU (n = 17); Sample: clinicians, pharmacists, specialty physicians, nurses. Profile: rheumatology, dermatology, gastroenterology, diabetology; | “To evaluate current U.S. and European health care provider knowledge, perceptions, and prescribing behaviors of biosimilar medicines, to assess the need for clinician-directed biosimilar education”. | Overall lack of biosimilar knowledge and awareness, biosimilars mostly used in initiative treatment. | Safety and efficacy concerns, immunogenicity (interchangeability, extrapolation). | Potential for biased interpretation of results. Limitations from the included individual studies. | US, EU |
4. Hernández et al. 2018 [24] Study induced between 6 September–8 September 2017 | Methods: short survey comprising six questions. Sample size: n = 104. Sample: clinicians; Profile: rheumatology; | “To determine awareness of biosimilars, including prescribing practices, nomenclature, automatic substitution and ADR reporting”. | Lack of awareness considering availability of biosimilars, automatic substitution and nomenclature. | Not applicable | Not sufficient data considering methodology. | Latin America |
5. Karateev et al. 2019 [25] Study conducted from 15 June–22 July 2016 | Methods: survey comprising 15 questions; Sample size: n = 206; Sample: clinicians; Profile: rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, hematologists, oncologists; | “To assess levels of knowledge and attitudes towards biosimilars and key policies on their use among Russian physicians, and to define the level of interest in new information on biosimilars, and determine what evidence drives treatment decisions in Russia”. | 80% of respondents lacked understanding of the differences between biosimilars and generics. 67% supported prescribing biologics by distinguishable names. 20% of respondents twice confirmed that biosimilars were different from generics and that they were not identical copies of the originator. 53% were against automatic substitution. | Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability). | Study findings are related to local biosimilars in Russia, and does not reflect the opinion of clinicians for international biosimilars. | Russia |
6. Greene et al. 2019 [26] Study conducted from 1–19 October 2018 | Methods: Survey comprising 16 strategies for overcoming barriers on 5 point scale; Sample size: n = 300; Sample: managed care and specialty pharmacists; | “To assess perceptions regarding strategies for overcoming barriers to biosimilar adoption among managed care and specialty pharmacy professionals”. | 84% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that FDA-approved biosimilars are safe and effective for patients who switch from a reference biologic. 54% agreed or strongly agreed with extrapolation. | (61%) Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability, extrapolation) | First 300 respondents were selected for analysis; potential for biased evaluation. | US |
7. Teeple et al. 2019 [27] Study conducted between June 2016–January 2017 | Methods: 15-min online survey; Sample size: n = 297; Sample: clinicians; Profile: rheumatology, dermatology and gastroenterology; | “To understand the level of familiarity of clinicians with biosimilars, their experience with non-medical switching (switching medications for reasons unrelated to patient health) of patients between biologics and their attitudes towards switching from a biologic to a biosimilar”. | 88% of respondents knew the definitions of biosimilar, 84% of respondents did not agree to switch stable patients from biosimilars to originators. Only 17% of respondents would feel confident with substitution of biosimilars at pharmacy level. 50% are comfortable with extrapolation. | Concerns about interchangeability, safety and efficacy, immunogenicity, patient mental health, physician office management. | Clinicians were recruited before survey, the outcomes cannot reflect the opinion of clinicians who were not recruited. | US |
8. Micó-Pérez et al. 2018 [28] Study conducted from 19 May 2016–11 September 2016 | Methods: questionnaires of 34 questions; Sample size n = 701; Sample: physicians; Profile: primary care; | “To evaluate the awareness and training needs on biosimilars”. | 42% of respondents knew the definition of biosimilar, 27% knew the difference between generics and biosimilars, 84% did not understand the biosimilar clinical development. | Not applicable | Not applicable | Spain |
9. Aladul et al. 2019 [29] Study conducted between August 2016–January 2017 | Methods: anonymized, self-administered web-based survey. Sample size n = 234; Sample: medical consultants, registrars, pharmacists, nurses; Profile: dermatology, diabetology, gastroenterology or rheumatology; | “To investigate knowledge and attitudes of different healthcare professionals in UK towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars”. | 76% of medical consultants/ registrars, 84% of pharmacists knew of the basic concepts of biosimilars. 6% of HCPs (mainly nurses)) had never heard of biosimilars, more comfortable with initiation of biosimilars than switching from the already in use originator. | Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability) | A small number of pharmacist respondents 11%, | UK |
10. Cook et al. 2019 [30] Study conducted between January–May 2018 | Method: a 12 question survey; Sample size: n = 77; Sample: physicians, pharmacists, advanced practice providers; Profile: oncology; | “To investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need prior to adoption”. | 74% of respondents didn’t know the basic definition of biosimilars; 40.3% considered biosimilars and generics as same entities. 94.8% of respondents would use an interchangeable biosimilar if it had FDA approval for interchangeability. | Knowledge gaps and the need for education regarding biosimilars is high. | Conducted at a single academic institution. | US |
11. Park et al.2019 [31] Study conducted between 24 February 2017–26 March 2017 | Method: a 17-question multiple-choice anonymous web survey; Sample size n = 151; Sample: clinicians; Profile: gastroenterologists; | “To assess the awareness of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies among Asian physicians”. | 66.2% of respondents knew of the basic concepts of biosimilars. Only 19.2% of respondents considered that originator and biosimilars are interchangeable; only 6% felt confident in the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies. 86.7% were against automatic substitution at the pharmacy level. | Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability, extrapolation, immunogenicity) | Most respondents were only from Korea, Japan, and China. | Asia |
12. Ismailov and Khasanova 2018 [32] Study conducted: Not applicable | Method: a survey of 22 questions; Sample size: n = 62 respondents; Sample: nurse, nurse practitioners‘ medical assistants, patient navigators. Profile: oncology/hematology; | “To increase oncology/hematology team members’ knowledge of biosimilars and then use an anonymous online survey to assess the knowledge gained”. | More than 90% of survey respondents identified correct answers about the definition, regulations, interchangeability, safety, cost issues, and use of biosimilars in oncology. | Knowledge gaps about safety profile, the need for education regarding biosimilars. | Did not discuss complex topics in depth (interchangeability, extrapolation, immunogenicity). | US, Colorado |
13. Pawłowska et al. 2019 [33] Study conducted in September 2017 | Method: a paper-based, self-administered questionnaire comprising 12 short questions; Sample size: n = 61; Sample: hospital pharmacists; | “To identify hospital pharmacist opinions towards biosimilars and investigate their usage in practice”. | 68% of respondents believed that biosimilars should be used in the initiation of therapy, 75 % of respondents did not agree with the substitution of biosimilars at pharmacy level. | 88% of respondents were concerned that biosimilars were not identical with originators, 48% with their immunogenicity and 44% with other pharmacokinetic properties. | The response rate was 22.5% and the results may not be representative of all hospital pharmacists in Poland. | Poland |
14. Hadoussa et al. 2019 [34] Study conducted: Not applicable | Method: anonymous questionnaire comprising 15 multiple-choice questions; Sample size n = 107; Sample: clinicians; Profile: oncology and hematology; | “To evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of Tunisian oncologists and hematologists on biosimilars”. | 71% of respondents were able to differentiate the biosimilar from the generic. 11% knew the difference between biosimilars and their originators. About 52.34% of respondents were in favor of justified substitution and interchangeability. | Safety and efficacy concerns, interchangeability, extrapolation. | Not applicable | Tunisia |
15. Sarnola et al. 2020 [35] Studies included between 2014 until the end of 2018 | Method: systematic review; Sample size n = 23 studies; Sample: Europe (n = 16); North America (n = 4); Australia (n = 1), New Zealand (n = 1) Central and South America (n = 1); Sample: clinicians; Profile: nephrology, rheumatology, dermatology, neurology, endocrinology, and oncology, gastroenterology; | “To examine physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars”. | Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes towards biosimilars vary between studies. 49%–76% were familiar with biosimilars while 2%–25% did not know what biosimilars were. 64%-95% of physicians were against substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. | Safety and efficacy concerns (interchangeability, extrapolation, immunogenicity). | The data extraction from studies was done by only one researcher. | Multicentered |
16. Kabir et al. 2018 [36] Study conducted: Not applicable | Method: questionnaire-based survey; Sample size n = 250; Sample: clinicians, academics, industry experts; | “To examine whether biosimilars introduced in the Bangladesh drug industry required any further clarification with regard to industrial manufacture, distribution and clinical prescription”. | 72% of industry experts, 54% of academics regard biosimilars as drugs with equivalent efficacy as their originators; 41% of clinicians saw biosimilars as bioequivalent with their originators, and no need for clinical trials to be approved. (74%) academics, (41%) clinicians, and (61%) industry experts were positive about interchangeability; | Gaps in knowledge, and harmonization between regulation and science. | Questions regarding the understanding of biosimilars were not clearly formulated by authors. | Bangladesh |
Clinical and Regulatory Concerns | Definitions |
---|---|
Interchangeability concepts | Europe: Interchangeability: switching and substitution describes the process of transitioning from the originator to biosimilar and back and forth or between two biosimilars. Interchangeability comprises switching (a transition implemented by the clinician) and automatic substitution (a transition implemented by the pharmacist without consulting the clinician). United States: Switching describes the process of transitioning from the originator to biosimilar and back and forth or between two biosimilars at the pharmacy level. |
Extrapolation concept | A scientific rationale used to describe transferring of the safety and efficacy data from one indication to others, without the need to conduct clinical trials for each indication. |
Pharmacovigilance reports | Crucial for the identification of adverse events. Using trade name, international nonproprietary name (INN), and batch number is critical, considering that no two biologics even with the same active substance and from the same batch are identical. |
Biosimilars | Generics | |
---|---|---|
Originated from | Biologic medicines | Conventional medicines |
Development paradigm | Highly similar and not identical to the originator (comparative studies) | Bioequivalent and identical to the originator (bioequivalence studies) |
Approval procedure | Usually approved from central regulatory authorities EMA or FDA | Usually approved from national regulatory authorities of EU or FDA |
Immunogenicity | Yes | No |
Nomenclature | Trade names or the use of distinguishable names with distinct suffixes | INN names |
Interchangeability | Not yet assessed, established or approved | Yes |
Substitution | Not yet assessed and established or approved | Yes |
ADR | Report the INN name manufacturer and batch number | Report the INN name |
Risk management plan | Yes | No |
Price discount | 20–30% discount over the originator | 80–90% discount over the originator |
Timeline development | 8–10 years | 3–5 years |
Development cost | $100–$200 M | $1–$5 M |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Halimi, V.; Daci, A.; Ancevska Netkovska, K.; Suturkova, L.; Babar, Z.-U.-D.; Grozdanova, A. Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165800
Halimi V, Daci A, Ancevska Netkovska K, Suturkova L, Babar Z-U-D, Grozdanova A. Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(16):5800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165800
Chicago/Turabian StyleHalimi, Vesa, Armond Daci, Katerina Ancevska Netkovska, Ljubica Suturkova, Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, and Aleksandra Grozdanova. 2020. "Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 16: 5800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165800