Überblick über Maßnahmen zur Förderung des Einsatzes von Biosimilars in europäischen Ländern

TNF inhibitors have improved treatment of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, but are expensive therapies. The aim of NOR-SWITCH was to examine switching from originator infliximab to the less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Background Across European countries, differences exist in biosimilar policies, leading to variations in uptake of biosimilars and divergences in savings all over Europe. Objectives The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different initiatives and policies that may influence the uptake of biosimilars in different European countries. Recommendations will be formulated on how to create sustainable uptake. Methods An overview of policies on biosimilars was obtained via a questionnaire, supplemented with relevant articles. Topics were organized in five themes: availability, pricing, reimbursement, demand-side policies, and recommendations to enhance uptake. Results In all countries studied, biological medicines are available. Restrictions are mainly dependent on local organization of the healthcare system. Countries are willing to include biosimilars for reimbursement, but for commercial reasons they are not always marketed. In two thirds of countries, originator and biosimilar products may be subjected to internal reference pricing systems. Few countries have implemented specific incentives targeting physicians. Several countries are implementing pharmacist substitution; however, the scope and rules governing such substitution tend to vary between these countries. Reported educational policies tend to target primarily physicians, whereas fewer initiatives were reported for patients. Recommendations as proposed by the different country experts ranged from the need for information and communication on biosimilars to competitive pricing, more support for switching and guidance on substitution. Conclusions Most countries have put in place specific supply-side policies for promoting access to biosimilars. To supplement these measures, we propose that investments should be made to clearly communicate on biosimilars and educate stakeholders. Especially physicians need to be informed on the entry and use of biosimilars in order to create trust. When physicians are well-informed on the treatment options, further incentives should be offered to prescribe biosimilars. Gainsharing can be used as an incentive to prescribe, dispense or use biosimilars. This approach, in combination with binding quota, may support a sustainable biosimilar market.

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real‐world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open‐label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect.