Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212516›Full record

ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2024

Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study.

Gyeongseon Shin, Byung Soo Kim, Do Yeun Kim, SeungJin Bae

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Demand- Versus Supply-Side Policies in Market Penetration of Biosimilars: Which is More Effective?BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Gyeongseon ShinCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8048-0670
Byung Soo KimDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3657-8619
Do Yeun KimDivision of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, South Korea. smdkdy@hanmail.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5003-8475
SeungJin BaeCollege of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea. sjbae@ewha.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8993-8884

Funding

National Research Foundation NRF-2021R1F1A10502
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBiosimilars offer a cost-effective alternative to original biopharmaceuticals with comparable efficacy and safety. The perception and familiarity of prescribers toward biosimilars play a critical role in their market penetration. Yet, few studies have explored the perception of oncologists toward biosimilars, much less in Asia.

objectivesThe objective of this study is to understand barriers of adopting biosimilars among oncologists and explore strategies to promote their use in clinical practice settings.

methodsA web-based survey was conducted among Korean oncologists from September to October 2022, assessing their perception of biosimilars and prescribing practices.

resultsAmong the 118 surveyed oncologists, 75.4% (89 out of 118) had previously prescribed biosimilars. When asked about their preference, 48.3% (57 out of 118) of the respondents preferred originators to biosimilars, whereas 16.1% (19 out of 118) favored biosimilars over the originators. The primary reason for preferring the originators was trust in safety and efficacy (94.7%, 54 out of 57). Still, a paradox was noted as 87.0% (47 out of 54) and 85.2% (46 out of 54) of these also acknowledged the comparable efficacy and safety of biosimilars. A relatively small number of the respondents (16.1%, 19 out of 118) did not consider prescribing biosimilars to biologic-naïve patients at all, and up to 56.8% (67 out of 118) expressed reluctance to switch prescriptions from originators to biosimilars. However, 90.7% (107 out of 118) of respondents considered changing their prescription to biosimilars if patients faced financial stress. Concerns regarding the efficacy when switching to biosimilars were expressed by 42.7% (38 out of 89) of oncologists with biosimilar prescribing experience, increasing to 69.0% (20 out of 29) among those without such experience.

conclusionKorean oncologists perceived biosimilars to be as safe and effective as originators. However, there is a notable mismatch between this perception and their prescribing practices, particularly among those who have not prescribed biosimilars before. The financial burden of patients served as a significant driver for prescribing biosimilars, yet marginal price differences between originators and biosimilars may be associated with the low adoption rate of biosimilars in Korea. Active price competition may enhance market penetration of biosimilars.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsOncologistsHumansInternetRepublic of KoreaSurveys and QuestionnairesBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID38212516
PMCPMC10912143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.