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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Knut Stavem
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2021-01-01
Series:Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792
id doaj-21b741ea192843559b0c98899ba794a7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-21b741ea192843559b0c98899ba794a72021-08-24T14:41:00ZengTaylor & 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
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Knut Stavem
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
author_facet Knut Stavem
author_sort Knut Stavem
title 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_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_sort switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Journal of Market Access & Health Policy
issn 2001-6689
publishDate 2021-01-01
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.
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
_version_ 1721197334918856704