Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. METHODS: Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. RESULTS: At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table.

Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children. METHODS: Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022. RESULTS: From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety. CONCLUSION: Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children. IMPACT: In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Placing patient-reported outcomes at the centre of cardiovascular clinical practice: implications for quality of care and management.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' own perspectives about their health and medical condition, and there is evidence that their use can lead to improvements in the quality of care and to better-informed clinical decisions. Their application in cardiovascular populations has grown over the past decades. This statement describes what PROs are, and it provides an inventory of disease-specific and domain-specific PROs that have been developed for cardiovascular populations. International standards and quality indices have been published, which can guide the selection of PROs for clinical practice and in clinical trials and research; patients as well as experts in psychometrics should be involved in choosing which are most appropriate. Collaborations are needed to define criteria for using PROs to guide regulatory decisions, and the utility of PROs for comparing and monitoring the quality of care and for allocating resources should be evaluated. New sources for recording PROs include wearable digital health devices, medical registries, and electronic health record. Advice is given for the optimal use of PROs in shared clinical decision-making in cardiovascular medicine, and concerning future directions for their wider application.

European expert recommendations on clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices for children.

Several high-risk medical devices for children have become unavailable in the European Union (EU), since requirements and costs for device certification increased markedly due to the EU Medical Device Regulation. The EU-funded CORE-MD project held a workshop in January 2023 with experts from various child health specialties, representatives of European paediatric associations, a regulatory authority and the European Commission Directorate General Health and Food Safety. A virtual follow-up meeting took place in March 2023. We developed recommendations for investigation of high-risk medical devices for children building on participants' expertise and results of a scoping review of clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children. Approaches for evaluating and certifying high-risk medical devices for market introduction are proposed.

Implementation of the new EU IVD regulation - urgent initiatives are needed to avert impending crisis.

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".

Implementing the new European Regulations on medical devices-clinical responsibilities for evidence-based practice: a report from the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology.

The new European Union (EU) law governing the regulatory approval of medical devices that entered into force in May 2017 will now take effect from 26 May 2021. Here, we consider how it will change daily practice for cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and healthcare professionals. Clinical evidence for any high-risk device must be reported by the manufacturer in a Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP) that will be publicly available in the European Union Database on Medical Devices (Eudamed) maintained by the European Commission; this will facilitate evidence-based choices of which devices to recommend. Hospitals must record all device implantations, and each high-risk device will be trackable by Unique Device Identification (UDI). Important new roles are envisaged for clinicians, scientists, and engineers in EU Expert Panels-in particular to scrutinize clinical data submitted by manufacturers for certain high-risk devices and the evaluations of that data made by notified bodies. They will advise manufacturers on the design of their clinical studies and recommend to regulators when new technical specifications or guidance are needed. Physicians should support post-market surveillance by reporting adverse events and by contributing to comprehensive medical device registries. A second law on In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices will take effect from 2022. We encourage all healthcare professionals to contribute proactively to these new systems, in order to enhance the efficacy and safety of high-risk devices and to promote equitable access to effective innovations. The European Society of Cardiology will continue to advise EU regulators on appropriate clinical evaluation of high-risk devices.

Enhanced clinical phenotyping by mechanistic bioprofiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights from the MEDIA-DHF study (The Metabolic Road to Diastolic Heart Failure).

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome for which clear evidence of effective therapies is lacking. Understanding which factors determine this heterogeneity may be helped by better phenotyping. An unsupervised statistical approach applied to a large set of biomarkers may identify distinct HFpEF phenotypes.Methods: Relevant proteomic biomarkers were analyzed in 392 HFpEF patients included in Metabolic Road to Diastolic HF (MEDIA-DHF). We performed an unsupervised cluster analysis to define distinct phenotypes. Cluster characteristics were explored with logistic regression. The association between clusters and 1-year cardiovascular (CV) death and/or CV hospitalization was studied using Cox regression.Results: Based on 415 biomarkers, we identified 2 distinct clusters. Clinical variables associated with cluster 2 were diabetes, impaired renal function, loop diuretics and/or betablockers. In addition, 17 biomarkers were higher expressed in cluster 2 vs. 1. Patients in cluster 2 vs. those in 1 experienced higher rates of CV death/CV hospitalization (adj. HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.12-3.32, p = 0.017). Complex-network analyses linked these biomarkers to immune system activation, signal transduction cascades, cell interactions and metabolism.Conclusion: Unsupervised machine-learning algorithms applied to a wide range of biomarkers identified 2 HFpEF clusters with different CV phenotypes and outcomes. The identified pathways may provide a basis for future research.Clinical significanceMore insight is obtained in the mechanisms related to poor outcome in HFpEF patients since it was demonstrated that biomarkers associated with the high-risk cluster were related to the immune system, signal transduction cascades, cell interactions and metabolismBiomarkers (and pathways) identified in this study may help select high-risk HFpEF patients which could be helpful for the inclusion/exclusion of patients in future trials.Our findings may be the basis of investigating therapies specifically targeting these pathways and the potential use of corresponding markers potentially identifying patients with distinct mechanistic bioprofiles most likely to respond to the selected mechanistically targeted therapies.

Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices: legal requirements and ethical principles - ESC Regulatory Affairs Committee/EHRA joint task force report.

The European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes legal responsibilities concerning the collection and processing of personal information from individuals who live in the EU. It has particular implications for the remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). This report from a joint Task Force of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Regulatory Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends a common legal interpretation of the GDPR. Manufacturers and hospitals should be designated as joint controllers of the data collected by remote monitoring (depending upon the system architecture) and they should have a mutual contract in place that defines their respective roles; a generic template is proposed. Alternatively, they may be two independent controllers. Self-employed cardiologists also are data controllers. Third-party providers of monitoring platforms may act as data processors. Manufacturers should always collect and process the minimum amount of identifiable data necessary, and wherever feasible have access only to pseudonymized data. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities have been reported concerning the security of transmission of data between a patient's device and the transceiver, so manufacturers should use secure communication protocols. Patients need to be informed how their remotely monitored data will be handled and used, and their informed consent should be sought before their device is implanted. Review of consent forms in current use revealed great variability in length and content, and sometimes very technical language; therefore, a standard information sheet and generic consent form are proposed. Cardiologists who care for patients with CIEDs that are remotely monitored should be aware of these issues.

When does the E/e' index not work? The pitfalls of oversimplifying diastolic function.

Since the E/e' ratio was first described in 1997 as a noninvasive surrogate marker of mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, it has gained a central role in diagnostic recommendations and a supremacy in clinical use that require critical reappraisal. We review technical factors, physiological influences, and pathophysiological processes that can complicate the interpretation of E/e'. The index has been validated in certain circumstances, but its use cannot be extrapolated to other situations-such as critically ill patients or children-in which it has either been shown not to work or it has not been well validated. Meta-analyses demonstrated that E/e' is not useful for the diagnosis of HFpEF and that changes in E/e' are uninformative during diastolic stress echocardiography. A similar ratio has been applied to estimate right heart filling pressure despite insufficient evidence. As a composite index, changes in E/e' should only be interpreted with knowledge of changes in its components. Sometimes, e' alone may be as informative. Using a scoring system for diastolic function that relies on E/e', as recommended in consensus documents, leaves some patients unclassified and others in an intermediate category. Alternative methods for estimating left heart filling pressures may be more accurate, including the duration of retrograde pulmonary venous flow, or contractile deformation during atrial pump function. Using all measurements as continuous variables may demonstrate abnormal diastolic function that is missed by using the reductive index E/e' alone. With developments in diagnostic methods and clinical decision support tools, this may become easier to implement.

Carotid artery wave intensity in mid- to late-life predicts cognitive decline: the Whitehall II study.

AIMS: Excessive arterial pulsatility may contribute to cognitive decline and risk of dementia via damage to the fragile cerebral microcirculation. We hypothesized that the intensity of downstream-travelling pulsatile waves measured by wave intensity analysis in the common carotid artery during mid- to late-life would be associated with subsequent cognitive decline. METHODS AND RESULTS: Duplex Doppler ultrasound was used to calculate peak forward-travelling compression wave intensity (FCWI) within the common carotid artery in 3191 individuals [mean ± standard deviation (SD), age = 61 ± 6 years; 75% male] assessed as part of the Whitehall II study in 2003-05. Serial measures of cognitive function were taken between 2002-04 and 2015-16. The relationship between FCWI and cognitive decline was adjusted for sociodemographic variables, genetic and health-related risk factors, and health behaviours. Mean (SD) 10-year change in standardized global cognitive score was -0.39 (0.18). Higher FCWI at baseline was associated with accelerated cognitive decline during follow-up [difference in 10-year change of global cognitive score per 1 SD higher FCWI = -0.02 (95% confidence interval -0.04 to -0.00); P = 0.03]. This association was largely driven by cognitive changes in individuals with the highest FCWI [Q4 vs. Q1-Q3 = -0.05 (-0.09 to -0.01), P = 0.01], equivalent to an age effect of 1.9 years. Compared to other participants, this group was ∼50% more likely to exhibit cognitive decline (defined as the top 15% most rapid reductions in cognitive function during follow-up) even after adjustments for multiple potential confounding factors [odds ratio 1.49 (1.17-1.88)]. CONCLUSION: Elevated carotid artery wave intensity in mid- to late-life predicts faster cognitive decline in long-term follow-up independent of other cardiovascular risk factors.

How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the 'HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm'. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e'), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e', left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2-4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

The need for transparency of clinical evidence for medical devices in Europe.

To use medical devices rationally, health-care professionals must base their choices of which devices to recommend for individual patients on an objective appraisal of their safety and clinical efficacy. The evidence submitted by manufacturers when seeking approval of their high-risk devices must be publicly available, including technical performance and premarket clinical studies. Giving physicians access to this information supplements the peer-reviewed scientific literature and might be essential for comparing alternative devices within any class. Interested patients should be encouraged to review the evidence for any device that has been recommended for them. The new EU law on medical devices states that the manufacturer is to prepare a summary of the evidence for any implantable or high-risk device. Defining its content, however, has been delegated to implementing legislation, which is now being considered. From a clinical perspective, it is imperative that all evidence reviewed by notified bodies and regulatory authorities is disclosed-with the exception, if justified, only of technical specifications that are considered confidential or manufacturing details that are protected as intellectual property-and public access to this evidence must be guaranteed by EU law. From ethical and other perspectives, there are no grounds for less clinical evidence being available to health-care professionals about the medical devices that they use than is already available for new pharmaceutical products. Full transparency is needed; without it, informed decisions relating to the use of new medical devices will remain impossible.

Longitudinal evaluation of myocardial function in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.

AIM: Preterm births and respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) are associated with pulmonary vascular disease and altered myocardial function. We serially assessed up to 1 year of age the effects of RDS on global and regional myocardial function of preterm infants, compared to preterm and term controls using conventional echocardiography parameters, tissue Doppler velocities and deformation analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 120 infants (30 preterm [PT] with RDS, 30 PT controls without RDS, and 60 term controls) underwent conventional and tissue Doppler echocardiography within 72 hours of birth, at corrected term age for the preterm infants, at 1 month corrected, and at 1 year corrected age. At birth, compared to preterm and term controls, the PT-RDS group had decreased right ventricular (RV) long-axis function, systolic velocity, peak systolic strain, shorter pulmonary arterial acceleration time (PAAT), and lower ratio of PAAT to RV ejection time (PAAT:RVET). Preterm infants had left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction at birth (lower early diastolic myocardial velocity, mitral E velocity, and mitral E:A ratio), and reduced long-axis systolic velocities and shortening. Differences between groups disappeared by 1 month corrected age, except PAAT:RVET which remained lower in the PT-RDS group. At 1 year, RV function was normal in PT-RDS apart from systolic strain rate, and LV function was normal apart from lower stroke volume and shortening, relative to body weight. CONCLUSION: PT-RDS had lower left and right ventricular systolic and diastolic function at birth which improved over time, suggesting postnatal maturation of cardiac function and resolution of lung disease.

Impact of glycemic control on aortic stiffness, left ventricular mass and diastolic longitudinal function in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Poor glycemic control is associated with impaired left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Inappropriate LV mass increase and accelerated aortic stiffening were suggested to participate on deterioration of diastolic function. The present study investigated the inter-relationships between glycemic control, early diastolic and systolic longitudinal velocity of mitral annulus, LV mass and aortic stiffness in T2DM patients free of cardiovascular disease and with preserved LV ejection fraction, and compared them with those observed in healthy volunteers of similar age and sex distribution. METHODS: 125 T2DM patients and 101 healthy volunteers underwent noninvasive measurement of systolic (s') and early diastolic (e') velocities of mitral annulus, LV mass, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) and local carotid blood pressure (BP). RESULTS: Forty-four (35.2%) T2DM patients had e' velocity lower than that expected for age (against 7.9% in healthy volunteers; P < 0.0001), 34 (27.2%) had cfPWV higher than that expected for age and mean BP (against 5.9% in healthy volunteers; P < 0.0001), and 71 (56.8%) had LV mass higher than that expected for body size and stroke work (against 17.6% in healthy volunteers; P < 0.0001). Carotid systolic BP was higher in T2DM patients (124 ± 14 vs 111 ± 11 mmHg; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, e' velocity was independently related to age, carotid BP and s' velocity in healthy volunteers, and to male sex, age, carotid BP, heart rate and LV mass in T2DM. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was independently related to cfPWV and LV mass in T2DM patients. T2DM patients with HbA1c ≥6.5% (N = 85) had higher cfPWV (P < 0.05), central BP (P = 0.01), prevalence of LV hypertrophy (P = 0.01) and lower e' and s' velocity (P = 0.001 and <0.05, respectively) as compared to those with HbA1c <6.5%. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of T2DM patients with preserved LV ejection fraction has sign of subclinical LV diastolic dysfunction. HbA1c levels are positively associated with LV mass and aortic stiffness, both of which show a negative independent impact on early diastolic velocity e', the latter through an increase in afterload. T2DM patients with suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%) have lower diastolic and systolic LV longitudinal performance, together with increased aortic stiffness and a higher prevalence of LV hypertrophy.

Medical specialists' attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologics that could improve patients' access to expensive biological medicines. Currently, there are little data on doctors' perceptions of biosimilars and in what situations they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars. In this study, we investigated medical specialists' perceptions of biosimilars and the factors associated with the acceptance of biosimilars. METHODS: A national sample of 110 of 327 medical specialists working in the areas of rheumatology, dermatology, gastroenterology, oncology and haematology completed an online questionnaire examining attitudes towards prescribing biosimilars, indication extrapolation and switching patients to a biosimilar. RESULTS: Most specialists held positive views of biosimilars, with between 54 and 74% confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Seventy-one percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria. Specialists were less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic. Acceptance of biosimilars was significantly associated with a lower perceived time to explain a biosimilar to a patient and lower number of weekly patient appointments. The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32%), or evidence of adverse effects (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists held generally positive attitudes towards biosimilars but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from a biologic. Providing clinicians with guidance on how to explain biosimilars to patients and written patient material may help overcome some of the barriers to the use of biosimilars. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.