232 Clinical outcomes of a multi-disciplinary switching programme to biosimilar etanercept for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Shah, Kavina; Flora, Kalveer; Penn, Henry

doi:10.1093/rheumatology/key075.456

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Study characteristics are described in Supplementary Table 6. 28 studies were performed in patients with IA; 18,19,26-28,30-36,47,49-51,55-57, 59-63,67,79,80,83 25 in patients with RA; 7,16,17,23,24,37,39,40,[42][43][44][45]53,54,58,66,68,70,[73][74][75][76][77][78]84 5 in patients with AS; 21,25,46,48,65 4 in patients with PsA; 41,64,71,81 4 in patients with UC; 22,69,72,82 2 in patients with IBD (with results reported separately for UC); 38,52 and one in patients with SpA. 29 Most studies were retrospective (n=37), while 28 were prospective and one was cross-sectional.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four studies on patients with IA presented direct, patientreported data on patient experience of switching treatment. 27,36,57,77 All four studies deployed a ranking tool, the results of which are summarized in Table 2. While the ranking categories used differed between studies, the majority of patients reported a neutral or positive switching experience across studies.…”

Section: Directly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the studies including patients with IA, 21 studies included some form of PRO, 18,20,21,23,24,27,[29][30][31]36,48,49,54,57,59,65,75,77,78,80,84 of which 10 studies reported PROs prior to the switch only and therefore did not provide any information on the patient experience of switching treatment. 20,21,23,24,[29][30][31]49,59,78 The PRO measurement tools used are summarized in Figure 3.…”

Section: Indirectly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,21,23,24,[29][30][31]49,59,78 The PRO measurement tools used are summarized in Figure 3. The most commonly used tool was the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (12 studies), 18,20,23,24,31,48,49,54,65,75,77,84 while the least common measurement methods were Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), each of which were used in one study only. 48 No study on patients with UC presented data on PROs before or after treatment switch.…”

Section: Indirectly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the four studies listed in Table 2 reporting direct patient experience of switching treatment, two reported reasons for switching back to the originator biologic from the etanercept biosimilar; in both of these, the most common reason was adverse events. 27,77 These two studies are included in Table 3.…”

Section: Investigator-reported Reason For Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

<p>Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis – A Systematic Literature Review</p>

Luttropp¹,

Dalén²,

Svedbom³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To obtain an up-to-date overview of the measurement of patient experience of switching biologic treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Secondary objectives included summarizing the types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used (if any), and related findings; and summarizing medical and non-medical reasons for treatment switch and/or discontinuation. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, searching Medline and Embase for relevant publications. Results: In total, 70 relevant publications were identified. While the majority of these reported reasons for switching and/or discontinuing treatment, only four provided information explicitly regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. All four utilized ranking tools to assess patient experience of switching biologic treatment. The most common reason for switching and/or discontinuing treatment was loss of efficacy, while the least common reason was patient preference. Conclusion: Although the number of available treatments in IA and UC have increased, there is a sparsity of information regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. Further research regarding patient preference and/or experience would benefit this therapeutic area and help guide treatment choices.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Directly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indirectly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indirectly Reported Patient Experience Of Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Investigator-reported Reason For Switchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

<p>Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis – A Systematic Literature Review</p>

Luttropp¹,

Dalén²,

Svedbom³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

Feagan

Marabani

et al. 2020

Adv Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the increasing availability of biosimilars, the practice of switching therapies for non-medical reasons between an originator biologic and an analogous biosimilar has become more common. The evidence to support this practice mostly comes from single-switch randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world (RW) evidence studies. However, as more biosimilars of the same originator enter the market, multiple switching events between originators and biosimilars is becoming a reality, despite limited evidence to support the efficacy and safety of such practice. Some countries have established guidelines, policies, or laws related to interchangeability and/or automatic substitution, whereas others have left these practices unregulated or controlled by other components of the healthcare system. Collectively, guidelines on single non-medical switching are often vague, with even less focus given to multiple non-medical switching, leaving this practice mostly unregulated. This narrative review will first discuss the current regulatory perspectives on non-medical switching and challenges associated with switching therapies, particularly with the availability of multiple biosimilars. We will then review the current evidence from RCTs and RW studies in the light of three different multiple-switch scenarios currently taking place in clinical practice: switching between an originator and a single biosimilar, switching between biosimilars of the same originator, and the clinical practice of switching back to the originator (i.e., switchbacks) after a failure of the initial non-medical switch to the analogous biosimilar.

show abstract

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

Hillhouse¹,

Mathurin

Parison

et al. 2021

Adv Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction To save costs to the healthcare system, forced non-medical switch (NMS) policies that cut drug coverage for originator biologics and fund only less expensive biosimilars are being implemented. However, costs related to the impact of NMS on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) must also be considered. This study aims to summarize the evidence on the economic impact of an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. Publications reporting on HCRU or costs associated with originator-to-biosimilar NMS in the real-world setting were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2008 to February 2020. In addition to hand searching the reference lists of relevant publications and SLRs, key conference websites, PubMed, and various government sites were also searched for the 2 years preceding the search (2018–2020). Results A total of 1845 citations were identified, of which 49 were retained for data extraction. Most studies reporting on the HCRU associated with NMS reported on post-NMS HCRU alone without a comparison pre-NMS. However, four studies described a difference in HCRU (i.e., investigations pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers vs switchers), all of which reported a relative increase in HCRU, including laboratory testing, imaging, medical visits, and hospitalizations, amongst patients who underwent an originator-to-biosimilar NMS. Most studies reporting on the costs associated with NMS reported significant savings following NMS on the basis of drug costs alone. However, four studies specifically reporting on the difference of costs following originator-to-biosimilar NMS all demonstrated an increase in HCRU-related costs associated with NMS (increase in HCRU-related costs of 4–37% or 148–2234 2020 Canadian dollars). Conclusion Amongst the studies that reported on the difference in HCRU pre- vs post-switch or between non-switchers and switchers, all showed an increase in HCRU and related costs associated with NMS, suggesting that the expected overall savings due to less costly drug prices may be reduced as a result of an increase in HCRU and its associated costs post-switch. Nevertheless, more real-world studies that include NMS-related healthcare costs in addition to drug costs are needed. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01951-z.

show abstract

232 Clinical outcomes of a multi-disciplinary switching programme to biosimilar etanercept for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

<p>Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis – A Systematic Literature Review</p>

<p>Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis – A Systematic Literature Review</p>

The Challenges of Switching Therapies in an Evolving Multiple Biosimilars Landscape: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence

The Economic Impact of Originator-to-Biosimilar Non-medical Switching in the Real-World Setting: A Systematic Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About