Literature DB >> 32848349

Naming Convention, Interchangeability, and Patient Interest in Biosimilars.

Mariana P Socal1, Jace B Garrett2, William B Tayler3, Ge Bai1,4, Gerard F Anderson1.   

Abstract

Although biosimilars may offer cost savings over their comparable biologics, use of biosimilars in the United States remains relatively low. This study investigates two barriers to uptake of biosimilars in the United States. First, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that four-letter suffixes be added to the nonproprietary names of all biosimilars, as well as to the nonproprietary names of all biologics approved after March 2020. Second, biosimilars are not interchangeable with their reference biologic product at the pharmacy counter; a new prescription is needed for the biosimilar to be dispensed in place of the biologic. We conducted two behavioral experiments to examine the effects of the naming convention and interchangeability designation on patients' interest in biosimilars. We found that, absent the mention of needing a new prescription, adding four-letter suffixes to biosimilars' nonproprietary names decreased participants' likelihood of using the biosimilars. When participants were told whether a biosimilar required a new prescription, they were more interested in the biosimilar when it did not require a new prescription, and this effect was driven by participants' perceived similarity of the biosimilar to the biologic. The effect of interchangeability dominated the suffix effect. Our results suggest that both biosimilar suffixes and interchangeability issues provide signals to patients regarding the perceived similarity of biosimilars to their reference biologics and influence patient usage of biosimilars.
© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32848349      PMCID: PMC7428664          DOI: 10.2337/ds19-0065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Spectr        ISSN: 1040-9165


  7 in total

1.  Biosimilars: A consideration of the regulations in the United States and European union.

Authors:  Justin Daller
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Biosimilars and the European experience: implications for the United States.

Authors:  Francis Megerlin; Ruth Lopert; Ken Taymor; Jean-Hugues Trouvin
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods.

Authors:  David P Mackinnon; Chondra M Lockwood; Jason Williams
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Biosimilar competition in the United States: statutory incentives, payers, and pharmacy benefit managers.

Authors:  Benjamin P Falit; Surya C Singh; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Rationale, Opportunities, and Reality of Biosimilar Medications.

Authors:  Gary H Lyman; Robin Zon; R Donald Harvey; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Consumer Responses to Price Disclosure in Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising.

Authors:  Jace B Garrett; William B Tayler; Ge Bai; Mariana P Socal; Antonio J Trujillo; Gerard F Anderson
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Patient attitudes about non-medical switching to biosimilars: results from an online patient survey in the United States.

Authors:  A Teeple; S Ginsburg; L Howard; L Huff; C Reynolds; D Walls; L A Ellis; J R Curtis
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.580

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.