Robert Moots, Sascha Gerdes, Giampiero Girolomoni, Jonas Halfvarson, Charlotte Both, Ines Brückmann, Silvio Danese
{"title":"Switchback from biosimilar tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors to reference medicines: a review.","authors":"Robert Moots, Sascha Gerdes, Giampiero Girolomoni, Jonas Halfvarson, Charlotte Both, Ines Brückmann, Silvio Danese","doi":"10.1080/1744666X.2026.2727537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Switching from reference biologics to biosimilars usually occurs for non-medical reasons, such as cost-driven formulary changes. However, despite biosimilars having the same efficacy and similar safety profiles as their reference products, some patients discontinue treatment and 'switchback' to the reference product.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>In this narrative review, the authors examine the frequency and causes of switchback reported in journal articles and congress abstracts published between 2016 and 2023, evaluating patients who switched from biosimilars back to the reference biologic. As almost all publications focused on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and so the authors restricted their analysis to this drug class.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Evidence suggests that switchback rates are low, with most studies of at least 100 patients reporting rates of less than 20%. The main reasons for switchback are typically patient-reported loss of effectiveness (usually judged subjectively) and side effects. These findings support the view that the nocebo ('negative placebo') effect is a plausible and likely contributor to switchback. Healthcare professional and patient education on the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars is needed and will be vital to counter misinformation and minimize the nocebo effect, allowing biosimilars to continue contributing to sustainability in healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":12175,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"975-988"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2026.2727537","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Switching from reference biologics to biosimilars usually occurs for non-medical reasons, such as cost-driven formulary changes. However, despite biosimilars having the same efficacy and similar safety profiles as their reference products, some patients discontinue treatment and 'switchback' to the reference product.
Areas covered: In this narrative review, the authors examine the frequency and causes of switchback reported in journal articles and congress abstracts published between 2016 and 2023, evaluating patients who switched from biosimilars back to the reference biologic. As almost all publications focused on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and so the authors restricted their analysis to this drug class.
Expert opinion: Evidence suggests that switchback rates are low, with most studies of at least 100 patients reporting rates of less than 20%. The main reasons for switchback are typically patient-reported loss of effectiveness (usually judged subjectively) and side effects. These findings support the view that the nocebo ('negative placebo') effect is a plausible and likely contributor to switchback. Healthcare professional and patient education on the effectiveness and safety of biosimilars is needed and will be vital to counter misinformation and minimize the nocebo effect, allowing biosimilars to continue contributing to sustainability in healthcare.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Clinical Immunology (ISSN 1744-666X) provides expert analysis and commentary regarding the performance of new therapeutic and diagnostic modalities in clinical immunology. Members of the International Editorial Advisory Panel of Expert Review of Clinical Immunology are the forefront of their area of expertise. This panel works with our dedicated editorial team to identify the most important and topical review themes and the corresponding expert(s) most appropriate to provide commentary and analysis. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review, and the finished reviews provide an essential contribution to decision-making in clinical immunology.
Articles focus on the following key areas:
• Therapeutic overviews of specific immunologic disorders highlighting optimal therapy and prospects for new medicines
• Performance and benefits of newly approved therapeutic agents
• New diagnostic approaches
• Screening and patient stratification
• Pharmacoeconomic studies
• New therapeutic indications for existing therapies
• Adverse effects, occurrence and reduction
• Prospects for medicines in late-stage trials approaching regulatory approval
• Novel treatment strategies
• Epidemiological studies
• Commentary and comparison of treatment guidelines
Topics include infection and immunity, inflammation, host defense mechanisms, congenital and acquired immunodeficiencies, anaphylaxis and allergy, systemic immune diseases, organ-specific inflammatory diseases, transplantation immunology, endocrinology and diabetes, cancer immunology, neuroimmunology and hematological diseases.