{"title":"日本生物仿制药处方的时间趋势及个人和机构层面从原研生物药转向生物仿制药的现状","authors":"Minako Matsumoto, Ryosuke Kumazawa, Akiko Ishii-Watabe, Itsuko Horiguchi, Hiroaki Mamiya, Hiroko Shibata, Yoshiro Saito, Motohiko Adomi, Yuta Taniguchi, Jun Komiyama, Ryoko Sakai, Masao Iwagami","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00850-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the temporal trends in the prescription of biologics in Japan, with additional analysis focusing on switching from original biologics to biosimilars at the individual and institutional levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the JMDC claims database from January 2005 to May 2024, we identified patients who received at least one prescription for 17 biologics (original biologics or biosimilars). We elucidated the monthly trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars. We also estimated the proportion of patients receiving original biologics only, those receiving biosimilars only, and those switching from original biologics to biosimilars (and vice versa) during the study period. Finally, we estimated the proportion of medical institutions that started prescribing biosimilars during the study period based on the type of medical institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Temporal trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars varied widely. In May 2024, the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions was 13.6% for somatropin and 92.5% for filgrastim. At the individual level, the proportion of patients switching from original biologics to biosimilars was low (1.2-14.0%), indicating that switches do not often occur within the same patient, while more recent new users of biologics start biosimilars. At the institutional level, university-related hospitals and clinics were more and less likely, respectively to introduce biosimilars than public and other types of hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Temporal trends in the prescription of biosimilars and switching patterns varied widely by the type of biologics. The type of medical institution should be considered when assessing and promoting the use of biosimilars. Further research and strategies to increase the use of biosimilars in clinics may be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Temporal Trends in the Prescription of Biosimilars and the Status of Switching from Original Biologics to Biosimilars at Individual and Institutional Levels in Japan.\",\"authors\":\"Minako Matsumoto, Ryosuke Kumazawa, Akiko Ishii-Watabe, Itsuko Horiguchi, Hiroaki Mamiya, Hiroko Shibata, Yoshiro Saito, Motohiko Adomi, Yuta Taniguchi, Jun Komiyama, Ryoko Sakai, Masao Iwagami\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00850-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To describe the temporal trends in the prescription of biologics in Japan, with additional analysis focusing on switching from original biologics to biosimilars at the individual and institutional levels.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the JMDC claims database from January 2005 to May 2024, we identified patients who received at least one prescription for 17 biologics (original biologics or biosimilars). We elucidated the monthly trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars. We also estimated the proportion of patients receiving original biologics only, those receiving biosimilars only, and those switching from original biologics to biosimilars (and vice versa) during the study period. Finally, we estimated the proportion of medical institutions that started prescribing biosimilars during the study period based on the type of medical institution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Temporal trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars varied widely. In May 2024, the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions was 13.6% for somatropin and 92.5% for filgrastim. At the individual level, the proportion of patients switching from original biologics to biosimilars was low (1.2-14.0%), indicating that switches do not often occur within the same patient, while more recent new users of biologics start biosimilars. At the institutional level, university-related hospitals and clinics were more and less likely, respectively to introduce biosimilars than public and other types of hospitals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Temporal trends in the prescription of biosimilars and switching patterns varied widely by the type of biologics. The type of medical institution should be considered when assessing and promoting the use of biosimilars. Further research and strategies to increase the use of biosimilars in clinics may be needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00850-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00850-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Temporal Trends in the Prescription of Biosimilars and the Status of Switching from Original Biologics to Biosimilars at Individual and Institutional Levels in Japan.
Purpose: To describe the temporal trends in the prescription of biologics in Japan, with additional analysis focusing on switching from original biologics to biosimilars at the individual and institutional levels.
Methods: Using the JMDC claims database from January 2005 to May 2024, we identified patients who received at least one prescription for 17 biologics (original biologics or biosimilars). We elucidated the monthly trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars. We also estimated the proportion of patients receiving original biologics only, those receiving biosimilars only, and those switching from original biologics to biosimilars (and vice versa) during the study period. Finally, we estimated the proportion of medical institutions that started prescribing biosimilars during the study period based on the type of medical institution.
Results: Temporal trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars varied widely. In May 2024, the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions was 13.6% for somatropin and 92.5% for filgrastim. At the individual level, the proportion of patients switching from original biologics to biosimilars was low (1.2-14.0%), indicating that switches do not often occur within the same patient, while more recent new users of biologics start biosimilars. At the institutional level, university-related hospitals and clinics were more and less likely, respectively to introduce biosimilars than public and other types of hospitals.
Conclusion: Temporal trends in the prescription of biosimilars and switching patterns varied widely by the type of biologics. The type of medical institution should be considered when assessing and promoting the use of biosimilars. Further research and strategies to increase the use of biosimilars in clinics may be needed.
期刊介绍:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health.
The focus areas of the journal are as follows:
Biostatistics
Clinical Trials
Product Development and Innovation
Global Perspectives
Policy
Regulatory Science
Product Safety
Special Populations