Cargando…

Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions. METHODS: A systematic review...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tolonen, Hanna M., Falck, Jenni, Kurki, Pekka, Ruokoniemi, Päivi, Hämeen-Anttila, Katri, Shermock, Kenneth M., Airaksinen, Marja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8
_version_ 1784580955946614784
author Tolonen, Hanna M.
Falck, Jenni
Kurki, Pekka
Ruokoniemi, Päivi
Hämeen-Anttila, Katri
Shermock, Kenneth M.
Airaksinen, Marja
author_facet Tolonen, Hanna M.
Falck, Jenni
Kurki, Pekka
Ruokoniemi, Päivi
Hämeen-Anttila, Katri
Shermock, Kenneth M.
Airaksinen, Marja
author_sort Tolonen, Hanna M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria. RESULTS: Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates. CONCLUSIONS: The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8502744
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85027442021-10-22 Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review Tolonen, Hanna M. Falck, Jenni Kurki, Pekka Ruokoniemi, Päivi Hämeen-Anttila, Katri Shermock, Kenneth M. Airaksinen, Marja BioDrugs Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are expected to decrease growing health care expenditures. Given that uptake of biosimilars has been modest, automatic substitution has been suggested to increase their use, but the practice is not yet allowed or implemented in many jurisdictions. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching databases Scopus, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, and Web of Science. Peer-reviewed, original studies written in English and published during the period January 1, 2006 to April 24, 2021 reporting any interventions, pilots or any other studies including experiences or perceptions of any relevant stakeholders on automatic substitution of biologics were included without limitation by setting or geography. The quality of the included studies were evaluated by pre-determined criteria. RESULTS: Altogether, 27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were surveys, and four semi-structured interviews reporting mainly stakeholders’ perceptions on automatic substitution. Most of the studies (56%, 15/27) were from Europe. Studies were conducted among prescribers (n = 12), pharmacists (n = 5), patients (n = 4), payers (n = 1), and mixed stakeholders (n = 5). The primary objective of the majority (81%, 22/27) of the studies was to investigate some other biosimilar topic than automatic substitution. The reported perceptions of substitution were mainly negative. Studies evaluating risks, safety or effectiveness, or reporting real-life experiences of biologic substitution were lacking except one intervention and two prospective risk management studies. The overall quality of the studies was low to moderate, and the results were not generalizable due to convenience sampling not representing the populations of interest, and low response rates. CONCLUSIONS: The current research evidence on the automatic substitution of biologics is scarce and of low to moderate quality, reflecting low stakeholder knowledge and their cautious attitude towards biosimilars. The safe and efficient implementation of automatic substitution requires well-designed practices, pilot studies, and evolving legislation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8. Springer International Publishing 2021-08-16 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8502744/ /pubmed/34398421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Tolonen, Hanna M.
Falck, Jenni
Kurki, Pekka
Ruokoniemi, Päivi
Hämeen-Anttila, Katri
Shermock, Kenneth M.
Airaksinen, Marja
Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title_full Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title_short Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review
title_sort is there any research evidence beyond surveys and opinion polls on automatic substitution of biological medicines? a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8502744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40259-021-00493-8
work_keys_str_mv AT tolonenhannam isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT falckjenni isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT kurkipekka isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT ruokoniemipaivi isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT hameenanttilakatri isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT shermockkennethm isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview
AT airaksinenmarja isthereanyresearchevidencebeyondsurveysandopinionpollsonautomaticsubstitutionofbiologicalmedicinesasystematicreview