Use of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review of Published Position Statements and Recommendations from Health Organisations and Societies.

BACKGROUND: Hesitation about using biosimilars still exists among healthcare professionals (HCPs), despite extensive experience with their use. Globally, several health organisations and societies from various specialties have issued biosimilar position statements to guide the use of biosimilars in their specialties. However, it is uncertain how similar or different their positions or recommendations are or whether these positions have evolved with the increased experience and availability of new evidence. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance. RESULTS: The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited. CONCLUSIONS: Across specialties, the variability among the position statements is seen for extrapolation of indications for biosimilars and interchangeability (including switching). This requires a revision, considering the latest evidence and growing experience with the use of biosimilars in extrapolated indications and with switching.

The use of technology in vaccine safety communication: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To identify technologies used in vaccine safety communication and evaluate their impact on vaccination intention, uptake, knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of consumers. METHODS: We searched 6 electronic databases to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the impact of using technology in vaccine safety communication. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate each study. RESULTS: We included 22 studies involving 27,109 participants from 8 countries; 15 studies assessed the use of videos and 7 examined innovative technologies. Using videos significantly improved knowledge (n = 3) and participant engagement (n = 2) compared to printed material. Among the innovative technologies, the use of virtual reality, and smartphone applications incorporating social networking or gamification significantly increased vaccination knowledge, confidence, and engagement. The studies showed that narrative messaging increased perceived disease severity (n = 2) and vaccination intention (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: While the use of innovative technologies is increasing, videos currently remain the most popular technology for vaccine safety communication. Communication technology, particularly with narrative messaging, improves patient engagement and comprehension. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health authorities should increase focus on using videos and smartphone applications for vaccine safety communication. Collaboration among stakeholders is essential to develop guidelines on effective message content to complement the technology.

Malaysian Hospital Pharmacists' Perspectives and Their Role in Promoting Biosimilar Prescribing: A Nationwide Survey.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing availability biosimilars, the role of pharmacists as drug information specialists has expanded to include promoting biosimilar acceptance among prescribers. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to determine Malaysian hospital pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars and to identify factors influencing the successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey of hospital pharmacists across Malaysia. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with pharmacists successfully promoting biosimilar use. RESULTS: Of the 913 responses, over 60% of pharmacists believed that patients may safely be switched from the originator product to a biosimilar and would have the same clinical outcome. Many lacked training in biosimilars (62.8%); yet most (80.6%) perceived pharmacists to play a critical role in promoting biosimilar prescribing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the strongest factor associated with pharmacists' successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers was having confidence (odds ratio [OR], 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.10-5.26). Respondents who had prior experience handling biosimilars were more likely to be successful in promoting biosimilar use than those without (OR, 1.76; 95% CI 1.16-2.66). The pharmacists' top perceived barrier to promote biosimilars in clinical practice was efficacy concerns. CONCLUSION: Although Malaysian pharmacists are in favour of biosimilars, they lack training to promote biosimilar use. Among the factors associated with successful promotion of biosimilars to prescribers are pharmacist confidence, their previous experience handling biosimilars, and prior biosimilar training.

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: While biosimilars are less expensive than their originator biologics, various factors are known to impede their uptake in clinical practice including concerns regarding their interchangeability, efficacy, and safety. Pharmacists are well positioned to promote the adoption of biosimilars, thus, the aim of the review was to assess pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars to identify the need for pharmacist-directed biosimilar education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search for published articles indexed in MEDLINE via EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar databases. We included studies written in English from their earliest publication dates until December 2021. Only studies concerning pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the studies that included pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about interchangeability and automatic substitution of biosimilars. We also assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA) for quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies. RESULTS: Out of the 22 studies included in the review, 19 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, and the other three were qualitative studies. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 19 to 1500 participants. The level of knowledge of biosimilars graded as good, considerable, above average, or excellent among pharmacists varied from study to study, with a range of 47-86%. Only 22-51% of pharmacists were comfortable if biosimilars were prescribed for all of the indications previously used for the originator products. Pharmacists' acceptability of switching from the originator to a biosimilar also varied, with a range of 26-84%. However, most pharmacists viewed the substitution of the originator with a biosimilar without physicians' permission as unacceptable. Data from three studies reported that 22-74% of pharmacists had attended biosimilar training. They obtained information about biosimilars from scientific publications, pharmaceutical companies, and continuing education. Based on the criteria of JBI-ACSSA and CASP, the overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The majority of the studies did not describe the sampling methods used and the strategies to deal with confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists' knowledge and perception about biosimilars varied and were limited, especially about interchangeability and substitution, efficacy, safety, and indication extrapolation. A better understanding of biosimilars amongst pharmacists could help them to encourage prescribers' acceptance of biosimilars.

Cell and gene therapy products in Malaysia: a snapshot of the industry's current regulation preparedness.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Cell and gene therapy products (CGTPs) are anticipated to bring many benefits for the treatment of conditions with limited or no satisfactory treatment options. However, they are associated with concerns of potential safety risks because of their high complexity. The National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) of Malaysia took the first step toward the regulation of CGTPs by publishing the Malaysian Guidance Document and Guidelines for CGTPs in 2016. As mandatory registration and enforcement of CGTPs were scheduled to begin January 1, 2021, the aim of this study was to ascertain the industry's readiness for the regulation of CGTPs in terms of awareness of the guidelines, challenges and acceptance of the regulatory requirements. METHODS: The authors invited 48 CGTP companies to participate in the survey between October 2019 and June 2020, and 30 companies responded. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were aware of the mandatory CGTP regulatory control and the availability of the guidelines. Many CGTPs were in the early development phase, and the most difficult registration barriers were dossier preparation and compliance with the pre-clinical and clinical requirements. CONCLUSIONS: These findings represent the current CGTP landscape in Malaysia from the industry's viewpoint, enabling the NPRA to implement initiatives to facilitate registration and enforcement.

Biosimilars in Malaysia: Regulatory Framework, Approved Products, and Adverse Effects.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to original biologic medicines that allow patients access to biologic therapies for various chronic diseases. Our paper aims to provide an overview of biosimilars in Malaysia with emphasis on the comparison of Malaysian guidelines with guidelines from well-established regulatory agencies, a review of biosimilars' market approval and their reported adverse effects (AEs) as well as clinical trials conducted in Malaysia. METHODS: We searched the official websites of the National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) Malaysia and three other well-established agencies, online databases of Medline® and EMBASE for guidelines on legislation and regulations of biosimilars. Meanwhile, we extracted the reports of AEs involving biosimilars in Malaysia from the NPRA database and for global AEs from the World Health Organisation VigyLize database. The ClinicalTrials.gov Website by the U.S. National Library of Medicines was the source for data on clinical trials. RESULTS: Malaysia followed the principles of the European Medicines Agency biosimilar regulations and issued their guideline in 2008. Since then, NPRA has approved 24 biosimilar products and recorded 499 AE reports, of which 43 (8.6%) were serious. NPRA has also approved ten Phase III clinical trials in Malaysia with four trials still ongoing. CONCLUSION: Malaysia follows a stringent regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars enacted by well-established regulatory agencies to maintain the quality, efficacy and safety of biosimilars. Introducing biosimilars to the Malaysian market would improve patients' accessibility to biologic therapies.