Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29769386›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2018

Global Acceptance of Biosimilars: Importance of Regulatory Consistency, Education, and Trust.

Eduardo Cazap, Ira Jacobs, Ali McBride, Robert Popovian, Karol Sikora

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Demand- Versus Supply-Side Policies in Market Penetration of Biosimilars: Which is More Effective?BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Global Landscape of Manufacturers of Follow-on Biologics: An Overview of Five Major Biosimilar Markets and 15 Countries.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Eduardo CazapLatin American & Caribbean Society of Medical Oncology, Buenos Aires, Argentina ecazap@slacom.org.
Ira JacobsPfizer Inc., New York, New York, USA.
Ali McBrideThe University of Arizona Cancer Center, Department of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Robert PopovianU.S. Government Relations, Pfizer Inc., Washington, DC, USA.
Karol SikoraProton Partners International, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, biosimilars are expected to have a key role in improving patient access to biological therapies and addressing concerns regarding the escalating cost of health care. Indeed, in Europe, increased use of biologics and reduced drug prices have been observed after the introduction of biosimilars. Recently, several monoclonal antibody biosimilars of anticancer therapies have been approved, and numerous others are in various stages of clinical development. Biosimilars are authorized via a regulatory pathway separate from that used for generic drugs; they are also regulated separately from novel biologics. Biosimilar approval pathways in many major regulatory regions worldwide are, to a broad degree, scientifically aligned. However, owing to regional differences in health care priorities, policies, and resources, some important regulatory inconsistencies are evident. Acceptance of biosimilars by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients will be a key factor in the uptake of these therapies, and such regulatory variations could contribute to confusion and diminished confidence regarding the quality, efficacy, and reliability of these agents. Furthermore, the need for manufacturers to account for regulatory inconsistencies introduces inefficiencies and delays into biosimilar development programs. These issues should be addressed if biosimilars are to attain their maximal global potential. This review summarizes the evolution of the global biosimilar landscape and provides examples of inconsistencies between regulatory requirements in different regions. In addition, we review ongoing efforts to improve regulatory alignment and highlight the importance of education as a crucial factor in generating trust in, and acceptance of, biosimilars on a worldwide scale. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Biosimilars of monoclonal antibody anticancer therapies are beginning to emerge, and more are likely to become available for clinical use in the near future. The extent to which biosimilars can contribute to cancer care will depend on their level of acceptance by health care systems, health care professionals, and patients. A better understanding of the regulatory basis for the approval of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. In order to have informed discussions about treatment choices with their patients, oncologists should familiarize themselves with the biosimilar paradigm.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsEducationHumansBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsAntineoplastic agentsBiosimilar pharmaceuticalsMonoclonal antibodiesNeoplasmsOncologists

Identifiers

PMID29769386
PMCPMC6263136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.