ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Temporal Trends in the Prescription of Biosimilars and the Status of Switching from Original Biologics to Biosimilars at Individual and Institutional Levels in Japan.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe the temporal trends in the prescription of biologics in Japan, with additional analysis focusing on switching from original biologics to biosimilars at the individual and institutional levels.
methodsUsing the JMDC claims database from January 2005 to May 2024, we identified patients who received at least one prescription for 17 biologics (original biologics or biosimilars). We elucidated the monthly trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars. We also estimated the proportion of patients receiving original biologics only, those receiving biosimilars only, and those switching from original biologics to biosimilars (and vice versa) during the study period. Finally, we estimated the proportion of medical institutions that started prescribing biosimilars during the study period based on the type of medical institution.
resultsTemporal trends in the proportions of original biologics and biosimilars varied widely. In May 2024, the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions was 13.6% for somatropin and 92.5% for filgrastim. At the individual level, the proportion of patients switching from original biologics to biosimilars was low (1.2-14.0%), indicating that switches do not often occur within the same patient, while more recent new users of biologics start biosimilars. At the institutional level, university-related hospitals and clinics were more and less likely, respectively to introduce biosimilars than public and other types of hospitals.
conclusionTemporal trends in the prescription of biosimilars and switching patterns varied widely by the type of biologics. The type of medical institution should be considered when assessing and promoting the use of biosimilars. Further research and strategies to increase the use of biosimilars in clinics may be needed.
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.