ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
A comparative analysis of biologics market dynamics in 12 countries: (Bio)similar and sustainability.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Recombinant Protein Drugs: A 2025 Update.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We sought to evaluate the relationship between biosimilar introduction and the prices and expenditures of biologics in high-income countries. Methods: This study examined IQVIA-MIDAS sales data for biologics and biosimilars from January 2018 to June 2020 across 12 high-income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). We selected seven biologics that fall under the World Health Organization Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code L (Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents), and categorized them into two groups based on the availability of biosimilar data. Group A consisted of biologics with biosimilars-etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, while Group B comprised biologics without biosimilars, including cetuximab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. A descriptive analysis was conducted to investigate the association between biosimilar introduction and trends in Fisher price index and relative expenditure. In addition, two-sample t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to assess the statistical significance of differences in growth rates between the two groups. Results: Group A exhibited a declining trend in the Fisher price index, whereas Group B remained stable across most countries, with average compound quarterly growth rates being -2.19% and -0.54%, respectively (p < 0.001). Relative expenditure trends also revealed contrasting patterns between the groups across most countries, further highlighting the differences. The average compound quarterly growth rates for relative expenditures was -1.78% for Group A and 7.66% for Group B (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The introduction of biosimilars was significantly associated with reductions in the prices and expenditures of biologics in high-income countries. This underscores the potential role of biosimilars in supporting the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system.
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.