6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      A novel approach to support implementation of biosimilars within a UK tertiary hospital

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          To assess the transfer of patients treated with originator biological therapies to biosimilar products in a large UK tertiary referral hospital reflecting practice within the National Health Service (NHS) using prospectively collected data by a hospital‐based registry administered by the Biologics Steering Group (BSG).

          Methods

          We analysed data collected prospectively in a hospital‐based registry in a large NHS tertiary referral hospital in the UK. The registry was administered by the hospital's BSG, which considered requests for patients to remain on or revert to originator products. The registry contained prospectively collected data on patients switching therapy from an originator to a biosimilar. The data included clinical circumstances or rationale for each request, whether it was granted, and the results of clinical reviews at 3–6 months.

          Results

          In a 12‐month period, we identified 1299 patients who could switch to the respective biosimilar and, of these, 1196 (92%) did so. Of the 260 patients taking infliximab, 250 (96%) switched to infliximab biosimilar; of the 390 patients taking etanercept 50 mg, 298 (76%) switched to etanercept 50 mg biosimilar; and of the 649 patients taking rituximab, 648 (99%) switched to rituximab biosimilar. The BSG received 39 applications: 12 (out of 39) applications were to remain on the originator and 27 (out of 39) were to switch back to the originator. Of the applications to remain on the originator 10 (out of 12) were approved. At 3–6 month review, 2 of these approvals reported continued efficacy, 3 switched to the biosimilar, 3 switched to an alternative therapy and 2 stopped treatment. Two (out of 10) applications were not approved, both applicants reported efficacy with the biosimilar at follow up. Of the 27 applications to switch back to the originator, 16 (out of 27) applications were approved. At 3–6 months, 9 (out of 16) applicants reported regain of efficacy, 6 (out of 16) reported cessation of reported adverse effects and 1 (out of 16) switched to alternative therapy. Eight (out of 27) applications were not approved, and, at point of follow up, 50% reported efficacy with the biosimilar and 50% had switched to an alternative therapy. Three (out of 27) applications were withdrawn by the clinical team as efficacy was achieved with the biosimilar.

          Conclusion

          We have set up a system within a busy NHS clinical practice to successfully switch patients to biosimilars, and established a mechanism to guide decisions on continuing with or reverting back to the originator. Such a system could be of use more broadly within the NHS and other health care systems.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          pritesh.bodalia@nhs.net
          r.sofat@ucl.ac.uk
          Journal
          Br J Clin Pharmacol
          Br J Clin Pharmacol
          10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2125
          BCP
          British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
          John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
          0306-5251
          1365-2125
          20 December 2019
          January 2020
          : 86
          : 1 ( doiID: 10.1111/bcp.v86.1 )
          : 23-28
          Affiliations
          [ 1 ] University College London Hospital London UK
          [ 2 ] Institute of Cardiovascular Science University College London London UK
          [ 3 ] School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine University of Birmingham Birmingham UK
          [ 4 ] Centre for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Division of Medicine University College London London UK
          [ 5 ] Institute of Health Informatics University College London London UK
          Author notes
          [*] [* ] Correspondence

          Pritesh Bodalia and Reecha Sofat, University College London Hospital, London, UK.

          Email: pritesh.bodalia@ 123456nhs.net ; r.sofat@ 123456ucl.ac.uk

          Author information
          https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3379-210X
          https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-1346
          https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0242-6115
          Article
          PMC6983502 PMC6983502 6983502 BCP14150 MPT-00478-19.R1
          10.1111/bcp.14150
          6983502
          31663154
          0ac2ce2f-e1f7-494a-9085-83c79bd8f5a1
          © 2019 The British Pharmacological Society
          History
          : 17 June 2019
          : 26 September 2019
          : 01 October 2019
          Page count
          Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Pages: 6, Words: 4058
          Funding
          Funded by: National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
          Categories
          Original Article‐themed Issue
          Dtc
          Custom metadata
          2.0
          January 2020
          Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.5 mode:remove_FC converted:27.01.2020

          biosimilars,biologics,individualised treatment,service provision,implementation

          Comments

          Comment on this article