Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study.

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
BioDrugs Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1007/s40259-023-00640-3
Gyeongseon Shin, Byung Soo Kim, Do Yeun Kim, SeungJin Bae
{"title":"Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study.","authors":"Gyeongseon Shin, Byung Soo Kim, Do Yeun Kim, SeungJin Bae","doi":"10.1007/s40259-023-00640-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.</p>","PeriodicalId":9022,"journal":{"name":"BioDrugs","volume":" ","pages":"301-311"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912143/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioDrugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00640-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Biosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

Methods: A web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

Results: Among the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

Conclusion: Korean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Abstract Image

揭开韩国肿瘤学家对生物仿制药的看法和犹豫不决的悖论:基于网络的调查研究。
简介:生物仿制药为原始生物制药提供了一种具有成本效益的替代品,其疗效和安全性与原始生物制药相当。处方者对生物仿制药的认知和熟悉程度对其市场渗透率起着至关重要的作用。然而,很少有研究探讨肿瘤学家对生物仿制药的看法,在亚洲更少:本研究旨在了解肿瘤学家采用生物仿制药的障碍,并探讨在临床实践中推广使用生物仿制药的策略:方法:2022年9月至10月对韩国肿瘤学家进行了一项网络调查,评估他们对生物仿制药的认知和处方实践:在接受调查的118名肿瘤学家中,75.4%(118人中有89人)曾开过生物仿制药处方。当被问及他们的偏好时,48.3%的受访者(118 人中有 57 人)更喜欢原研药而不是生物仿制药,而 16.1%的受访者(118 人中有 19 人)更喜欢生物仿制药而不是原研药。首选原研药的主要原因是对安全性和有效性的信任(94.7%,57 人中有 54 人)。然而,一个矛盾的现象是,87.0%的受访者(54 人中有 47 人)和 85.2%的受访者(54 人中有 46 人)也承认生物仿制药具有可比的疗效和安全性。相对较少的受访者(16.1%,118 位受访者中的 19 位)根本不考虑给对生物制剂不了解的患者开具生物仿制药处方,高达 56.8%的受访者(118 位受访者中的 67 位)表示不愿意将处方从原研药转为生物仿制药。然而,如果患者面临经济压力,90.7% 的受访者(118 人中有 107 人)会考虑将处方改为生物仿制药。在有生物仿制药处方经验的肿瘤学家中,42.7%(89 人中有 38 人)对改用生物仿制药后的疗效表示担忧,而在没有此类经验的肿瘤学家中,这一比例上升至 69.0%(29 人中有 20 人):结论:韩国肿瘤学家认为生物仿制药与原研药一样安全有效。结论:韩国肿瘤学家认为生物仿制药与原研药一样安全有效,但这种看法与他们的处方实践之间存在明显的不匹配,尤其是在那些从未处方过生物仿制药的肿瘤学家中。患者的经济负担是开具生物仿制药处方的重要驱动力,但原研药和生物仿制药之间的微弱价格差异可能与韩国生物仿制药的低采用率有关。积极的价格竞争可能会提高生物仿制药的市场渗透率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BioDrugs
BioDrugs 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: An essential resource for R&D professionals and clinicians with an interest in biologic therapies. BioDrugs covers the development and therapeutic application of biotechnology-based pharmaceuticals and diagnostic products for the treatment of human disease. BioDrugs offers a range of additional enhanced features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist patients, caregivers and others in understanding important medical advances. The journal also provides the option to include various other types of enhanced features including slide sets, videos and animations. All enhanced features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. Peer review is conducted using Editorial Manager®, supported by a database of international experts. This database is shared with other Adis journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信