ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and immunogenicity of insulin biosimilar compared to their reference products: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Is There Any Research Evidence Beyond Surveys and Opinion Polls on Automatic Substitution of Biological Medicines? A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Biosimilars of anti-VEGF agents in retinal diseases: a narrative review of regulatory, clinical, and pharmacoeconomic aspects.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Review
- The Current Use and Future Perspectives of Biosimilars in Pediatric Healthcare: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD): a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Real world evidence of insulin and biosimilar insulin therapy-Opportunities to improve adherence, outcomes and cost-effectiveness.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Review
- Biosimilars for Australian Dermatologists.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025Article
- Biosimilars versus biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: challenges and targeting strategies using drug delivery systems.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Comparing STRATIFY JCV™ DxSelect™ and IMMUNOWELL™ JCV Tests in RRMS to Assess PML Risk.Current neuropharmacology · 2025Article
- The potential for biosimilars to address unmet clinical need - Is the developed world missing out?Rheumatology and immunology research · 2024Article
- Article
- Impact of Value-Driven Healthcare Strategies for Biosimilar Adoption: The Singapore Story.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Biosimilars in the Era of Artificial Intelligence-International Regulations and the Use in Oncological Treatments.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Patient's and Consultant's Views and Perceptions on Switching from an Originator Biologic to Biosimilar Medication: A Qualitative Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- An Overview of Biosimilars-Development, Quality, Regulatory Issues, and Management in Healthcare.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Tenecteplase: biochemical and clot lysis activity comparisons.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- The totality of evidence approach in the development of AVT02 (adalimumab), a biosimilar to Humira.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Review
- Article
- Understanding Biosimilar Insulins - Development, Manufacturing, and Clinical Trials.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP's key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.