ReviewBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2022
Qualitative Analysis of the Design and Implementation of Benefit-Sharing Programs for Biologics Across Europe.
Review 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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitigating the Nocebo Effect in Biosimilar Use and Switching: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Policy measures and instruments used in European countries to increase biosimilar uptake: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Application of Actor Network Theory to Evaluate Supply and Demand Strategies Used to Encourage International Biosimilar Uptake.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- Navigating the Transition: A Scoping Review of System-Level Factors in Biosimilar Integration for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- Individual Prescribing Incentives for Biosimilars in Selected European Countries and the USA: a Scoping Literature Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Article
- Beyond Cost: Observations on Clinical and Patient Benefits of Biosimilars in Real-World Settings.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Defining a Framework for Sustainable Global Biosimilars Markets Using Findings from a Targeted Literature Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development by Overcoming Existing Differences in Regional Regulatory Requirements - Outcomes of a Descriptive Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Review
- Risk-sharing agreements for medical devices: a stakeholder-based qualitative study in Czechia.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Article
- Can Endangered Biosimilar Markets be Rescued? The Need to Bridge Competing Interests for Long-Term Gain.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Article
- Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2023Article
- What About Offering a Financial Incentive Directly to Clinical Units to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars? Results of a Two-Year National Experiment in France.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Article
- A picture is worth a thousand words: advancing the use of visualization tools in implementation science through process mapping and matrix heat mapping.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Determinants of prescribing decisions for off-patent biological medicines in Belgium: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Levelling the playing field of RMD research across Europe to address patients' needs: the emerging EULAR Research Centre.RMD open · 2022Article
- An exploration of biosimilar TNF-alpha inhibitors uptake determinants in hospital environments in Italy, Portugal, and Spain.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo encourage the rational prescribing of biologics, payers across Europe have experimented with the implementation of benefit-sharing programs. Benefit-sharing programs are incentive programs that promote the use of 'best-value' off-patent biologics and biosimilars by driving changes in prescribing practices. The aim of these programs is to generate savings that can be shared among stakeholders involved (e.g. health authorities/payers, health care professionals, hospital managers/administration) and are generally used to improve the quality of health care and to increase patients' access to innovative services and medicines. However, the scarcity of information concerning the design, implementation and outcomes of benefit-sharing programs limits the transfer of knowledge to institutions aiming to adopt these types of incentive schemes in the future.
objectiveThe aim of our study was to map benefit-sharing experiences across Europe, to compare their design and implementation characteristics and to assess the impact of the different benefit-sharing strategies on the use of 'best-value' biologics.
methodOur approach was based on a literature review and on semi-structured interviews with payers/insurers, regulators, health care professionals and industry representatives.
resultsOur analysis revealed variable design characteristics for benefit-sharing programs, depending on the organization of the health care system, the specific timeframe, the care setting and the policy environment. All these aspects can influence the robustness of benefit-sharing initiatives and their potential to stay in effect over time. We also noted a generalized lack of transparency regarding the distribution of savings and how they are reinvested. This lack of transparency has raised questions on how to optimally implement benefit-sharing in the future.
conclusionsTo realize the full potential of benefit-sharing programs, we identify the importance of (i) setting up and timely monitoring success indicators for these programs; (ii) including quality of care and access to care parameters as success indicators; (iii) establishing clear pathways for the transparent redistribution/reinvestment of savings and (iv) transparently communicating with patients about the outcomes of benefit-sharing programs.
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.