Cargando…

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology’s effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira, Lopes, Ana Carolina de Freitas, de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7448328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32843051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00611-y
_version_ 1783574477555105792
author Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira
Lopes, Ana Carolina de Freitas
de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
author_facet Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira
Lopes, Ana Carolina de Freitas
de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
author_sort Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology’s effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices. MAIN BODY: A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015–2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed. CONCLUSION: HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7448328
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74483282020-08-27 Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira Lopes, Ana Carolina de Freitas de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho Health Res Policy Syst Review BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology’s effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices. MAIN BODY: A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015–2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed. CONCLUSION: HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making. BioMed Central 2020-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7448328/ /pubmed/32843051 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00611-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Ascef, Bruna de Oliveira
Lopes, Ana Carolina de Freitas
de Soárez, Patrícia Coelho
Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title_full Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title_fullStr Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title_short Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
title_sort health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7448328/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32843051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00611-y
work_keys_str_mv AT ascefbrunadeoliveira healthtechnologyassessmentofbiosimilarsworldwideascopingreview
AT lopesanacarolinadefreitas healthtechnologyassessmentofbiosimilarsworldwideascopingreview
AT desoarezpatriciacoelho healthtechnologyassessmentofbiosimilarsworldwideascopingreview