ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2022
Evolving Perceptions, Utilization, and Real-World Implementation Experiences of Oncology Monoclonal Antibody Biosimilars in the USA: Perspectives from Both Payers and Physicians.
Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and Enablers Affecting the Uptake of Biosimilar Medicines Viewed Through the Lens of Actor Network Theory: A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2022Pooled it
- The Path to Accessible Care: Development and Impact of Eculizumab Biosimilars for Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria and Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Contextual factors in value-based decision support to enhance health technologies adoption: the case of biosimilars.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Current Expertise, Opinions, and Attitude toward TNF-⍺ Antagonist Biosimilars among Physicians: A Self-Administered Online Survey in Western Switzerland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Understanding US Physician and Pharmacist Attitudes Toward Biosimilar Products: A Qualitative Study.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of oncology biosimilars has been slow in the USA, which may be attributed in part to stakeholder perceptions and lack of operational guidance that supports favorable access to biosimilars.
objectiveOur objective was to understand the real-world implementation experiences with oncology biosimilars of US payers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) as their experience with biosimilars has evolved.
methodsIn-depth qualitative interviews with payers (n = 20) and HCPs (n = 17 physicians, n = 3 practice managers) were conducted. Payers included managed care organizations (MCOs), integrated delivery networks, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Physicians were affiliated with a healthcare network or were community based, specialized in hematology/oncology, and had prescribed oncology biosimilars. Audio transcripts of the interviews were coded using MaxQDA software to enable descriptive analysis of the qualitative data.
resultsOver 80.0% of physicians perceived the efficacy and safety of biosimilars to be highly comparable to that of originators. Up to 87.5% of physicians reported using biosimilars in > 50% of their treatment-naïve patients and were comfortable using biosimilars in all approved indications. To encourage utilization, 75.0% of MCOs/PBMs preferred biosimilars over originators in treatment-naïve patients and implementation via step therapy. Physician involvement in choosing biosimilars was minimal, which was largely dependent on practice protocols or insurance preferences. The major factor influencing payers' coverage decisions and biosimilar adoption was potential cost savings.
conclusionsUS payers and physicians who have experience with biosimilars have favorable views of oncology biosimilars, particularly for treatment-naïve patients. A framework for integrating biosimilars into oncology practice is developing, primarily driven by insurance coverage, contracting, and cost benefits.
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.