Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28871421›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2017

Biosimilar uptake by British local formularies: a cross sectional study.

Saja Alnahar, Rachel A Elliott, Murray D Smith

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Saja AlnaharDivision of Pharmacy Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, East Drive, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. Saja.alnahar@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1950-3073
Rachel A ElliottManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Murray D SmithCommunity and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Biological medicines are starting to lose their patent protection, so similar, inexact copies (biosimilars) are being developed and licensed. The high acquisition costs of biologics for healthcare providers could be reduced by switching to biosimilars, thus alleviating budgetary pressures and increasing patient access. Therefore, the acceptance of biosimilars by prescribers in Great Britain (GB; England, Scotland, Wales) needs to be described and understood. Objective To determine uptake of the first wave of biosimilars (somatropin, epoetin, filgrastim) by local formularies (lists of preferred medicines for prescribing in local healthcare settings). Settings This study targeted local formularies in GB. Method In November 2014, local formularies (medicines formularies of Acute Trusts and Health Boards in GB) were screened for their approach to listing of biologics and their biosimilars as well as recommendations on usage of these pharmaceuticals. Main Outcomes Measures Listing frequencies of biosimilars. Results One hundred and forty-six British local formularies were screened. Amongst the 80% of formularies in which brand names were specified, biosimilar filgrastim was the most frequently listed when compared to the other targeted biosimilars. Biosimilars were listed in preference to reference biologic medicine in 49% of local formularies for filgrastim, 11% for somatropin and in only 6% for epoetin. Conclusion Although the market for biosimilars can act in parallel to the generic market, their uptake measured using local British formularies was less than what is expected given that the British market for medicines has a strong focus on generics. Finally, geographical variability within GB requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsCross-Sectional StudiesFormularies as TopicHumansUnited KingdomBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsBiological medicinesBiosimilarsGreat BritainLocal formularies

Identifiers

PMID28871421
PMCPMC5686267
OpenAlexW2743174881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.