Jonathan D Santoro, Jonathan Crowe, Cale H Coppage, Emily Klatte, Benjamin Tolchin, Claire Riley, David A Evans, A Gordon Smith
{"title":"Biosimilar Therapeutics Substitution: American Academy of Neurology Position Statement.","authors":"Jonathan D Santoro, Jonathan Crowe, Cale H Coppage, Emily Klatte, Benjamin Tolchin, Claire Riley, David A Evans, A Gordon Smith","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biologic therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of disorders for which there were previously limited options. Biologic products are typically very expensive. However, the emergence of biosimilars (a biologic product that is nearly identical to a Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved \"branded\" version) offers an opportunity to reduce costs after the branded product's period of patent protection ends. Despite the promise of biosimilars, some physicians have expressed concern regarding interchangeability, especially in specific patient populations. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) supports the cost-saving potential of biosimilar therapeutics while emphasizing the importance of a balance between reducing costs, maintaining clinical efficacy, and preserving the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. This position statement from the AAN offers a framework to aid neurologists in deciding whether to switch a patient from a branded biologic product to a biosimilar therapeutic. This framework aligns with broader AAN policies on drug pricing and medical decision-making autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"16 2","pages":"e200574"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12802970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200574","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Biologic therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of disorders for which there were previously limited options. Biologic products are typically very expensive. However, the emergence of biosimilars (a biologic product that is nearly identical to a Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved "branded" version) offers an opportunity to reduce costs after the branded product's period of patent protection ends. Despite the promise of biosimilars, some physicians have expressed concern regarding interchangeability, especially in specific patient populations. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) supports the cost-saving potential of biosimilar therapeutics while emphasizing the importance of a balance between reducing costs, maintaining clinical efficacy, and preserving the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. This position statement from the AAN offers a framework to aid neurologists in deciding whether to switch a patient from a branded biologic product to a biosimilar therapeutic. This framework aligns with broader AAN policies on drug pricing and medical decision-making autonomy.
期刊介绍:
Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.