ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 220

Non-Medical Switch to Biosimilars: What Have We Learned?

José Marona1,2, Santiago Rodrigues Manica1,2, Carina Lopes1,2, João Lagoas Gomes1,2, Tiago Costa1,2, Agna Neto1,3, Inês Silva1,2, Ana Filipa Mourão1,2, Sandra Falcao1,2, Margarida Mateus4, Paula Araújo1, Walter Castelão1, Manuela Costa1, Jaime Cunha Branco1,2 and Fernando Pimentel-Santos1,2, 1Rheumatology, Hospital de Egas Moniz - Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, EPE, Lisbon, Portugal, 2CEDOC, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, 3Rheumatology, Hospital Central do Funchal - Serviço de Saúde da Região Autónoma da Madeira, E.P.E, Funchal, Portugal, 4Hospital de Egas Moniz - Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, EPE, Lisbon, Portugal

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Biologic agents and biosimilars

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018

Title: Epidemiology and Public Health Poster I: Rheumatoid Arthritis

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Biosimilars intend to be as effective and safe as the originator product and would increase patients’ access to biological agents. The decision for switching to a biosimilar is not always promoted by the physicians and, although there is emerging evidence from randomized controlled trials concerning this issue, data from real world clinical practice is still lacking.

Our objective was to learn about physicians’ and patients’ perspectives concerning biosimilars in the context of non-medical switch.

Methods: A standardized questionnaire was conducted aimed at physicians´ perspectives and to patients who experienced a switch to a biosimilar.

Results: The survey was applied to 51 physicians (39% male), both residents and specialists of rheumatology (public and private practice). All of them considered theirselves to be at least reasonably informed about the concept of biosimilar and more than half (n=31; 61%) were reasonably familiar with its prescription. Among the factors influencing biosimilars prescription, efficacy was considered the most relevant (reduction of symptoms n=16, 31%; disease progression n=9, 18%), followed by safety (n=16, 31%) and cost (n=12; 24%). Even though the large majority believes that prescription of these therapies will increase in the near future (especially in RA, PsA and AS), they would prescribe them as first, second or third line therapy in only 22, 24 and 29%, respectively. Almost half the physicians (n=25; 49%) had only a mild to moderate degree of confidence in the switching process. Globally, economic reasons were assumed to have determined the switching process (costs n=17, 33%; savings n=16, 31%).

Regarding the 22 patients who answered the telephone survey, most of them (n=15; 68.2%) claimed to have been at least ‘reasonably’ informed about biosimilars. Several health care providers were involved in this process. The patients´ main worries about switching were safety (n=11; 50%) and efficacy (n=6; 27.3%). Most patients were at least moderately confident about biosimilars’ efficacy and safety (50% and 36.4%, respectively). Nearly half of the patients (n=10) accepted the switch without apprehension while the other half (n=11) believed they had no other choice, and 50% (n=11) considered that the switch was made by economic reasons. Globally, most patients didn’t change the degree of satisfaction after switching to the biosimilar.

Conclusion: In this case-study, physicians seem to still be cautious about biosimilar prescription, worrying particularly about their efficacy. On the other hand, patients do not seem to have changed their satisfaction with biological agents (before and after the switch), yet still worry mostly about the safety of biosimilars. Economic issues were the main reason to justify the switching process in both physicians’ and patients’ perspectives. However, switching should remain a case-by-case clinical decision made primarily by the physician and patient on an individual basis.


Disclosure: J. Marona, None; S. Rodrigues Manica, None; C. Lopes, None; J. Lagoas Gomes, None; T. Costa, None; A. Neto, None; I. Silva, None; A. F. Mourão, None; S. Falcao, None; M. Mateus, None; P. Araújo, None; W. Castelão, None; M. Costa, None; J. C. Branco, None; F. Pimentel-Santos, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Marona J, Rodrigues Manica S, Lopes C, Lagoas Gomes J, Costa T, Neto A, Silva I, Mourão AF, Falcao S, Mateus M, Araújo P, Castelão W, Costa M, Branco JC, Pimentel-Santos F. Non-Medical Switch to Biosimilars: What Have We Learned? [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/non-medical-switch-to-biosimilars-what-have-we-learned/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/non-medical-switch-to-biosimilars-what-have-we-learned/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology