Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32843051›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review.

Bruna de Oliveira Ascef, Ana Carolina de Freitas Lopes, Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Horizon scan of the clinical development landscape of biosimilar products in the UK and EU.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  3. Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Maximizing the benefits of using biosimilars in Egypt.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023
    Article
  6. Health technology assessment for oral health in the past decade: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruna de Oliveira AscefPreventive Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, The University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, sala 2228, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246-903, Brazil. brunaascef16@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2744-3974
Ana Carolina de Freitas LopesPreventive Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, The University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, sala 2228, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246-903, Brazil.
Patrícia Coelho de SoárezPreventive Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, The University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Arnaldo, 455, sala 2228, São Paulo, SP, CEP: 01246-903, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices. MAIN BODY: A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

conclusionHTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansResearch DesignBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsBiomedicalBiosimilar pharmaceuticalsEvidence-based decisionsHealth policyTechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID32843051
PMCPMC7448328
OpenAlexW3080383278

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.