Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Discussion - Public policy

6081 - Biosimilar Substitution: European Prescriber Perspectives

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Discussion - Public policy

Presenters

Michael Reilly

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v671-v682. 10.1093/annonc/mdz263

Authors

M.S. Reilly

Author affiliations

  • Health Policy, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, 22307 - Alexandria/US

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 6081

Background

As countries seek to control health costs and expand access to biologic therapies, biosimilars are a valuable tool. With the automatic subsitution of biosimilars banned in much of Europe, building physician confidence in biosimilars is critical to promoting their uptake and reaping their cost savings benefits. This study is a refresh of a study done in 2013, and documents the perspectives of European prescribers regarding biosimilar substitution and related issues, to serve as a guide to policymakers.

Methods

579 prescribers were recruited from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, UK. Drawn from Dermatology, Endocrinology, Gastrointestinal, Hematology oncology, Immunology, Nephrology, Neurology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Rheumatology. 15 minute web-based survey, offered in multiple languages. The data was collected in March 2019.

Results

Respondents consider it very important or critical that there are multiple suppliers for government tenders. They also consider it important/critical that tenders include factors besides price. Sole prescription authority is considered very important/critical, as is authority to prevent a substitution. Physicians are more comfortable switching bio-naïve patient to biosimilar, but less comfortable switching a stable patient. Physicians are more comfortable switching a patient for non-medical reasons, but less so when switching is done by a third-party.

Conclusions

In countries with a government tender, physicians consider it important to have several therapeutic options available, and consider factors beyond price to be important. As physicians’ familiarity has increased since the 2013 survey, so has the percentage of physicians characterizing sole prescription authority as "very important or critical". The percentage of prescribers characterizing the ability to prevent/deny a substitution very important or critical has also risen. While comfortable making biosimilar substitutions- including for cost reasons- with new/bio-naive patients, physicians remain cautious about doing so with stable patients. Physicians remain uncomfortable with third-party switching of patients for non-medical (e.g. cost) reasons.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines.

Funding

Alliance for Safe Biologics which receives some funding from manufacturers of originators and biosimilars.

Disclosure

The author has declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.