Mapping Health Technology Assessment Agency Approaches for Biosimilar Value Assessment: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: A systematic literature review undertaken by the ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group highlighted that limited guidance exists on how to assess biosimilars value and on appropriate economic evaluation techniques. This study described current health technology assessment (HTA) agency approaches for biosimilar value assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (n = 16) were carried out with HTA experts in Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe to investigate current HTA practices for biosimilars. Data categorization was based on a thematic analysis approach. Findings from the qualitative data analysis were interpreted in view of relevant published literature. RESULTS: Our research suggests that in systems in which frameworks for biosimilar regulatory approval are well established, HTA agencies can accept the regulators' comparability exercise, and reimbursement decisions can generally be based on price comparisons. This approach is accepted in practice and allows streamlining of biosimilars value assessment. Nevertheless, conducting HTAs for biosimilars can be relevant when (1) the originator is not reimbursed, (2) the biosimilar marketing authorization holder seeks reimbursement for indications/populations, pharmaceutical forms, methods and routes of administration that differ with respect to the originator, and (3) a price premium is sought for a biosimilar based on an added-value claim. Further, HTA agencies' role conducting class-review updates following biosimilar availability can support greater patients' access to biologics. CONCLUSIONS: Internationally, there are differences in how national competent authorities on pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals perceive HTA's role for biosimilars. Therefore, HTA agencies are encouraged to issue clear guidance on when and how to conduct HTAs for biosimilars, and on which economic techniques to apply.

Multistakeholder Perceptions of Additional Value Elements for United States Value Assessment of Health Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Limitations in conventional cost-effectiveness methods have led to calls for incorporation of additional value elements in assessments of health technologies. However, gaps remain in how additional value elements may inform decision making. This study aimed to prioritize additional value elements from the perspective of healthy individuals without a specific condition or indicated for a specific treatment in the United States among a multistakeholder panel and compare the importance of perspective-specific value elements. METHODS: Additional value elements were prioritized in 2 phases: (1) we identified and categorized additional value elements in a targeted literature review, and (2) we convened a multistakeholder group-based preference elicitation study (N = 28) to evaluate the description of each value element and rank and generate normalized weights of each value element for its significance in value assessment. The importance of additional value elements was also weighted relative to patient-centric value elements. RESULTS: The rank and weight of contextual value elements among 28 stakeholders were "severity of the disease" (26.2%), "disadvantaged and vulnerable target populations highly represented" (21.8%), "broader economic impact" (17.3%), "risk protection" (13.8%), "rarity of the disease" (11.3%), and "novel mechanism of action" (9.7%). Relative weight of the additional value elements versus patient-centric value elements was 52% and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings may inform priority setting for value frameworks and emerging US government assessments. The group-based elicitation method is repeatable and useful for structured deliberative processes in value assessment and may help improve the consistency and predictability of what is important to stakeholders.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Systematic review of real-world studies evaluating the impact of medication non-adherence to endocrine therapies on hard clinical endpoints in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer.

Breast cancer, one of the most common malignancies, is associated with significant economic and health burden both at the patient and societal level. Although medication non-adherence to endocrine breast cancer therapies is common, so far only limited systematic evidence has been available on its quantitative consequences, as previous systematic reviews focused mainly on factors contributing to medication non-adherence. The objective of this review was to explore the implications of medication non-adherence to endocrine therapies on hard clinical outcomes in breast cancer based on real-world studies. A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed; empirical evidence on hard clinical endpoints (i.e., survival, disease-free survival, metastasis and recurrence) were extracted from uni- or multivariate statistical analyses from retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Of the 2,360 identified records, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies identified significant positive association between medication non-adherence and the risk of distant metastasis, three articles between medication non-adherence and the recurrence of breast cancer, two studies between medication non-adherence- and non-persistence and of worse disease-free survival and eight articles between medication non-adherence and mortality. There was only one study where the positive association between medication adherence and survival did not apply to all subgroups. The strong evidence on the negative health consequences of non-adherence to breast cancer treatments indicates the need for the regular monitoring of medication adherence. Furthermore, explicit inclusion of adherence enhancing interventions into health policy agenda would be warranted to improve medication adherence also at a system level.

Proposal for capturing patient experience through extended value frameworks of health technologies.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of patient experience (PEx) in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important; however, no harmonized approach exists to help manufacturers or decision makers ensure PEx considerations are fair, consistent, and thorough within global HTA frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a proposal for including PEx in the HTA frameworks of health technologies. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) on existing value frameworks (VFs) was conducted to capture how PEx-related value judgment is currently considered. Guided by the results of the SLR, a research group including HTA experts and patient representatives used an iterative process to develop potential value domains to capture PEx, in accordance with international guidelines. Subsequently, a panel of international payer experts was used to challenge the proposed PEx domains and provide recommendations for implementation. RESULTS: The SLR found 61 VFs and multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) that considered PEx; however, PEx-related value elements were often referred to superficially, without clear definitions. Five potential PEx domains, with proposed measures for each, were developed and refined using expert feedback: (1) responsiveness to patient's individual needs, (2) improved health literacy and empowerment, (3) patient and caregiver reported outcomes, (4) household's financial burden, and (5) improved access for vulnerable patient populations. A flexible approach for framework implementation was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed PEx domains could be implemented at multiple levels of healthcare decision making to formalize consideration of PEx in the assessment of value, either through the extension of existing VFs or to create new PEx-focused VFs and more holistic decision making tools. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded and sponsored by UCB Pharma. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Charokopou, Mountain, and Szegvari are employed by UCB Pharma. Inotai, Jakab, and Kalo are employed by Syreon Research Institute, which received funding from UCB Pharma for this research. Brixner has received fees from AbbVie, Elevar, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xcenda. Campbell has received grants and contracts from the PhRMA Foundation and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. During a sabbatical leave, Campbell collaborated with Syreon Research Institute on research projects that included funding from UCB Pharma. Hawkins has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Kristensen has received speakers bureau fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and consultancy fees from UCB Pharma.

Potential Cost-Savings From the Use of the Biosimilars in Slovakia.

Objectives: To analyse the market shares of biosimilars in Slovakia and to calculate the potential cost-savings from the use of biosimilars in Slovakia based on two different data sources. Methods: National reimbursement lists from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia were used for analyzing the availability of biosimilars with public funding. In addition, the reimbursement dossiers of biosimilars, the justifications of reimbursement decisions by the Slovak Ministry of Health, and final reimbursement decrees, which are published on the webpage of the Slovak Ministry of Health, were utilized for this study. Reimbursement decisions regarding biosimilars by the Slovak Ministry of Health from 2006 to August 2019 were considered and the detailed utilization of biosimilars in 2018 was analyzed based on data from the State Institute for Drug Control. The study was validated based on data from the Slovak National Health Information Center. Results: Fifty four biosimilars were approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in August 2019. Of the total group of licensed biosimilars on the market, 29 biosimilars (54%) were available in the Czech Republic, 28 biosimilars (52%) were available in Poland, and 27 biosimilars (50%) were available in Hungary and 24 biosimilars (44%) were available in Slovakia. Our analysis, based on the data provided by distributors of medicinal products to the State Institute for Drug Control, revealed that the health fund in Slovakia could have saved 35 to 50 million euros per year if biosimilars with marketing authorisations had been available on the Slovak market. The calculations assumed a 25-35% price decrease against the original biological medical products, and that there would be no increase in the utilization of biosimilars in Slovakia. Conclusions: To achieve significant improvement in patient access to biosimilars in Slovakia, a top-down approach establishing targets and quotas for the procurement of biosimilars should be applied.

Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) is costly and only a minority of patients can access innovative medicines due to affordability constraints. Value-added medicines (VAMs) can offer potential benefits at significantly lower R&D costs. AREAS COVERED: VAMs may address different health care needs and problems, including off-label use of medicines, poor patient adherence, problems related to polypharmacy, need for home and/or personalized health care services. However, several barriers prevent societies from maximizing the benefits of incremental innovation related to VAMs. Generic manufacturers have limited budget and experience to demonstrate the value of new VAMs. Current market exclusivity options do not efficiently exclude freeridership and do not guarantee a return on investment for VAM innovators. Value propositions of VAMs are limitedly consistent with current HTA frameworks, consequently, incremental innovation is not acknowledged, nor rewarded with differential pricing by payers. Moreover, VAMs are often perceived solely as generic medicines by prescribers. EXPERT OPINION: Current practices may need to be reconsidered to exploit the full societal benefit of VAMs, including more efficient policies to guarantee market exclusivity for incremental innovation, acknowledgment of a fair price premium based on a specific value framework and the acceptance of low-cost evidence generation methods.

Influence of biosimilar infliximab launch on the utilization pattern of biological medicines: the case of Hungary.

Objectives: Utilization of multisource biological (off-patent originator and its biosimilar) medicines can improve the efficiency of resource allocation by 1) generating savings while maintaining health outcomes or 2) increasing the number of patients treated with more affordable treatments. This study evaluates the efficiency of the Hungarian biosimilar drug policy on the case of biosimilar infliximab. Methods: We analyzed the utilization of biologicals in all reimbursed indications of infliximab including initial therapy of new patients and switching patterns retrospectively based on patient-level payer's data between September 2012 and December 2016. Results: Despite the economic rationale, patent expiry did not manifest in increased utilization of multisource infliximab in an access-restricted environment: 1) Patients previously treated with original biologicals were switched mainly to other original biologicals instead of more affordable biosimilar alternatives. 2) Although some treatment-naive patients started on more affordable multisource infliximab with price competition, the majority of new patients started on other original biologicals with monopolistic price. Conclusion: Policy tools and measures should be developed to facilitate first-line use of multisource biologicals for treatment-naive patients and promoting the use of more affordable multisource biologicals in case of switching.

How to solve financing gap to ensure patient access to patented pharmaceuticals in CEE countries? - the good, the bad, and the ugly ways.

Introduction: There is significant difference in utilization of patented medicines in the EU, as pharmaceuticals at Western European price levels are usually not cost-effective in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The article reviews options to solve the 'financing gap' posed by the challenge of covering patented medicines from more restricted resources in countries with greater unmet medical need.Areas covered: Hidden volume restrictions to patented pharmaceuticals implemented by payers to facilitate financial sustainability may increase European inequity in patient access. Confidential price discounts and financial risk-sharing agreements improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with limited impact on the European floor price. Narrowing the eligible group of patients on the positive drug list can help to target the medicines to patients with potentially greater health benefit whilst reducing the budget impact. Pay-for-performance schemes can improve cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals with significant uncertainty or heterogeneity in the magnitude of added therapeutic value. Increased utilization of off-patent pharmaceuticals can increase patient access through re-investing the savings from generic or biosimilar price erosion.Expert opinion: Transparent and sustainable pharmaceutical policies aiming to improve the allocative efficiency of scarce resources should be implemented in CEE to reduce financing gap and improve patient access to high-cost medicines.

Health Technology Assessment Implementation in Ukraine: Current Status and Future Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: The need for improving healthcare decision making by implementing health technology assessment (HTA) has been a top priority in Ukraine since 2016. This study sought to provide a tailor-made HTA implementation roadmap, drawing on insights from national stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted a survey using a questionnaire already applied in previous HTA research. We assessed the status of HTA when reforms were initiated in 2016 and examined perspectives on possible future developments among policy makers and representatives of pharmaceutical companies and patient organizations. RESULTS: Thirty-two respondents answered the survey. Forty-eight percent of respondents were not aware of HTA training in Ukraine, but 91 percent preferred having either a graduate or postgraduate training. Experts stated that funding for HTA research and for critical appraisal of HTA submissions was limited, but in the future, they would increase funding mainly from public sources. A public HTA agency with academic support was the most preferred organizational structure. Eighty-eight percent of respondents opted for full transparency, making the HTA agency's recommendations and the related appraisal reports publicly available. A great majority of participants preferred mandating the use of local data in certain categories and indicated the importance of evaluating the transferability of international evidence. Healthcare priority and cost-effectiveness were the most important criteria for decisions, applied with a soft explicit threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ukraine is in the early phase of implementing HTA and our study provides a clear vision of national stakeholders about the future directions. In addition, learning from the experiences of other countries may help the implementation process.

Navigating joint HTA, procurement, and fair pricing: evidence-based insights and practical recommendations - A meeting report from ISPOR regional conference in Warsaw, 2019.

Introduction: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) organized its first Central Eastern European regional meeting in 2019 in Warsaw, Poland. Area covered: The scientific program of the two-day conference covered a broad range of topics presented from the perspective of the region. Specifically, the focus was on cross-country collaboration within different steps of health technology assessment (HTA) and the need for local HTA adaptations in decision-making. Expert commentary: Attended by approximately 200 delegates from many countries and by several high level ISPOR leaders, the conference provided a valuable opportunity to exchange knowledge and strengthen the scientific network among experts from different stakeholder groups on issues specific to the region.

Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries.

AIM: Criteria weighting is a key element of multicriteria decision analysis that is becoming extensively used in healthcare decision-making. In our narrative review we describe the advantages and disadvantages of various weighting methods. METHODS: An assessment of the eight identified primary criteria weighting methods was compiled on domains including their resource requirements, and potential for bias. RESULTS: In general, we found more complex methods to have less potential for bias; however, resource intensity and general participant burden is greater for these methods. CONCLUSION: The selection of the most appropriate method depends on the decision-making context. The simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART) method combined with swing-weighting technique and the analytic hierarchy process methods may be the most feasible approaches for low- and middle-income countries.

Behind the subcutaneous trastuzumab hype: evaluation of benefits and their transferability to Central Eastern European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Trastuzumab, the standard treatment for HER-2 positive breast cancer, may be associated with access restrictions in countries with severe economic constraints. This study aimed to compare intravenous (IVT) and subcutaneous trastuzumab (SCT) forms and to explore the transferability of value propositions to Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Areas covered: After screening 376 abstracts, 42 articles were included in the final review. Statistical test results were rarely reported; therefore, the similarity of adverse event profiles of SCT and IVT could not be validated. Potential time savings for patients due to subcutaneous administration was not validated in CEE settings, where patient's waiting time for treatment administration is fairly long. Standard patient reported outcome instruments were rarely used to confirm the preference of patients/health care professionals to SCT over IVT. Moreover, feasibility of self/home administration of SCT, especially in case of concomitant intravenous chemotherapies, was not considered. Cost comparisons considered neither the patent expiry of IVT nor the incremental cost of potential differences in adverse events. Expert commentary: Potential benefits of SCT were not tested by any studies in CEE countries. The main policy objective should be to facilitate the uptake of multisource biologicals in lower income countries with access barriers.

Development of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for off-patent pharmaceuticals - an application on improving tender decision making in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Off-patent pharmaceuticals (OPPs) hold vital importance in meeting public health objectives, especially in developing countries where resources are limited. OPPs are comprised of off-patent originals, branded generics and unbranded generics; nonetheless, these products are not identical and often there are differences in their equivalence, manufacturing quality standards and reliability of supply. This necessitates reconsideration of the lowest price policy objective in pharmaceutical decision making. The aim of this study was to develop a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework through a pilot workshop to inform the national procurement of OPPs in Indonesia. METHODS: An initial list of potentially relevant criteria was identified based on previous work and a literature review. In a 2-day pilot policy workshop, twenty local experts representing different stakeholder groups and decision-making bodies selected the final criteria, approved the scoring function for each criterion, and assigned weights to each criterion. RESULTS: An MCDA framework was proposed for OPP drug decision making in developing countries, which included price and 8 non-price criteria. Based on the pilot policy workshop 6 + 1 criteria were considered relevant for Indonesia: pharmaceutical price (40% weight), manufacturing quality (18.8%), equivalence with the reference product (12.2%), product stability and drug formulation (12.2%), reliability of drug supply (8.4%), real world clinical or economic outcomes, such as adherence or non-drug costs (4.2%) and pharmacovigilance (3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: According to the pilot policy workshop, other criteria apart from price need to be strengthened in the tendering process. The introduction of additional criteria for OPP procurement in an MCDA framework creates incentives for manufacturers to invest into improved manufacturing standards, equivalence proof, product quality, reliability of supply or even additional real-world data collection, which ultimately may result in more health gain for the society.

Guidance toward the implementation of multicriteria decision analysis framework in developing countries.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used in health care mainly because it moves decision-making from ad hoc to an evidence-based and comprehensive process. Developing countries with more restricted financial and human research capacities, however, should consider their own methods of MCDA development and implementation. Areas covered: An MCDA framework to improve procurement decisions of off-patent pharmaceuticals was developed for developing countries and adapted to Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Vietnam during three policy workshops. Based on the experience of these workshops and one joint workshop with international experts and decision makers from multiple developing countries, general recommendations were formulated on how to implement MCDA specifically in developing countries. We provide 17 practical MCDA implementation recommendations in four major areas, including (1) MCDA objectives; (2) technical considerations of MCDA tool; (3) development and customization of MCDA tool and (4) policy implementation of MCDA in decision-making. Expert commentary: These practical MCDA recommendations for developing countries contribute to feasible, transparent, stepwise, iterative and standardized decision-making in health care.

Drug Policy in Hungary.

We present a brief overview of the health care system in Hungary, focusing particularly on the pricing and reimbursement procedures of medicines. The National Institute of Health Insurance Fund Management is responsible for the administration of the health insurance system and public reimbursement of health technologies. There are two major types of reimbursement techniques in the outpatient care: the normative reimbursement is applied to all physicians and may be used for all indications listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics, and the indication-linked reimbursement is applied only to specialists who are authorized to prescribe the drug. Pharmaceuticals used in the inpatient care are fully reimbursed and are financed through diagnosis-related groups. Several cost-containment measures such as external price referencing and internal price referencing with blind bidding are applied. Proposing managed entry agreements is a mandatory condition for reimbursing innovative pharmaceuticals. Compared with other countries in the region, the implementation of health technology assessment has a relatively long history in Hungary. The health technology assessment body critically evaluates reimbursement submissions of pharmaceuticals, simple medical devices, and complex medical devices such as hospital technologies.

Overview on Patient Centricity in Cancer Care.

Successful implementation of treatment in cancer care partially depends on how patients' perspectives are taken into account, as preferences of health care professionals and patients may differ. Objectives of this exploratory research were (I) to identify patient preferences and values (PPVs) in cancer care as indicated by patient organizations (POs), (II) to determine how these PPVs are captured in cancer care guidelines and (III) to review how guidelines take into account these PPVs. Based on a survey developed and completed by 19 POs, a literature review was conducted to analyse how patient perspectives are incorporated in oncology treatment guidelines. Based on survey results traditional health technology assessment value propositions of oncology care, such as extended life, treatment-free remission and pain reduction, were also highly rated by POs. However, the heterogeneity of cancer PPVs were clearly reflected in the survey results. PPVs in cancer care guidelines were mostly limited to those micro-level aspects that are strictly related to health care provision, such as side-effects and comorbidities. Patient experience, emotional support and convenience of care were relatively neglected fields in the reviewed guidelines. Patient engagement was rarely presented in the guideline development phase. POs believe that patients should be encouraged to take an active role in their own care due to the heterogeneity of cancer patients and PPVs. Even if patient-centricity is a leading paradigm in cancer policy, based on our research it is not yet standard practice to include patients or POs at all appropriate levels of decision-making processes that are related to their health and well-being. Patient engagement should be an integral part of cancer care decision-making. This complexity must be reflected throughout policy making, avoiding a population level "one-size-fits-all" solution.

Is there a reason for concern or is it just hype? - A systematic literature review of the clinical consequences of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars.

INTRODUCTION: While prescribing biosimilars to patients naive to a biologic treatment is a well-accepted practice, switching clinically stable patients from an originator to a biosimilar is an issue for clinicians. Well-designed clinical trials and real-world data which study the consequences of switching from an originator biologic treatment to its biosimilar alternative are limited, especially for monoclonal antibodies. Areas covered: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed to identify evidence of the consequences of switching from original biologics to biosimilars. References of included papers were also scrutinized. After a title-, abstract- and full text screening, out of the 153 original hits and 77 additional ones from screening the references, 58 papers (12 empirical papers, 5 systematic reviews and 41 non-empirical papers) were included. Expert opinion: Preventing patients on biologic medicines from switching to biosimilars due to anticipated risks seems to be disproportional compared to the expected cost savings and/or improved patient access. Indeed, it is the opinion of the authors that the concern of switching to biosimilars is overhyped.