Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review
Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patien...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | English |
| Publicado em: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-01-01
|
| coleção: | Journal of Market Access & Health Policy |
| Assuntos: | |
| Acesso em linha: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792 |
| _version_ | 1827265214269095936 |
|---|---|
| author | Knut Stavem |
| author_facet | Knut Stavem |
| author_sort | Knut Stavem |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T15:37:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-21b741ea192843559b0c98899ba794a7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2001-6689 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-03-22T03:58:24Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Market Access & Health Policy |
| spelling | doaj.art-21b741ea192843559b0c98899ba794a72024-04-28T10:46:23ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Market Access & Health Policy2001-66892021-01-019110.1080/20016689.2021.19647921964792Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief reviewKnut Stavem0Akershus University HospitalBackground: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792biologicsswitchnon-medical causeliterature searchreview |
| spellingShingle | Knut Stavem Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review Journal of Market Access & Health Policy biologics switch non-medical cause literature search review |
| title | Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review |
| title_full | Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review |
| title_fullStr | Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review |
| title_short | Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review |
| title_sort | switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non medical reasons a literature search and brief review |
| topic | biologics switch non-medical cause literature search review |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT knutstavem switchingfromonereferencebiologicaltoanotherinstablepatientsfornonmedicalreasonsaliteraturesearchandbriefreview |