稳定期患者因非医学原因从一种参考生物制剂转用另一种参考生物制剂:文献检索和简要综述。

Q2 Medicine Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2021-08-20 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792
Knut Stavem
{"title":"稳定期患者因非医学原因从一种参考生物制剂转用另一种参考生物制剂:文献检索和简要综述。","authors":"Knut Stavem","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. <b>Objectives:</b> To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. <b>Methods:</b> A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. <b>Results:</b> 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. <b>Conclusions:</b> There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"1964792"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/eb/a5/ZJMA_9_1964792.PMC8381978.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review.\",\"authors\":\"Knut Stavem\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. <b>Objectives:</b> To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. <b>Methods:</b> A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. <b>Results:</b> 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. <b>Conclusions:</b> There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"1964792\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/eb/a5/ZJMA_9_1964792.PMC8381978.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of market access & health policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2021.1964792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:从参考生物药(原研药)到生物仿制药的非医疗转换(NMS)做法在一些国家已被广泛接受。然而,有关从一种原研药到另一种原研药的非医疗转换(NMS)的影响的文献却很少。目标:根据现有文献,评估从一种生物原研药到另一种生物原研药的 NMS 对患者的影响。重点关注三个疾病领域中 TNF-α 抑制剂的疗效和治疗成本。研究方法在Ovid(PubMed、EMBASE)和主要治疗领域会议的摘要中进行文献检索,以确定报告在原研生物制剂之间转换疗效、安全性或成本的研究。结果:确定了 167 篇参考文献并筛选了摘要;对 36 篇论文进行了全文审阅,其中 6 篇符合纳入标准。三项关于 NMS 的临床研究样本量很小,但表明 NMS 是有益的。其余三项研究使用的是行政数据,几乎没有临床信息,这表明 NMS 是不利的,会增加医疗使用率和成本。结论:关于 NMS 的文献资料非常有限,从一种原产生物到另一种原产生物,文献资料存在方法上的局限性。研究结果喜忧参半,无法得出压倒性结论。未来的研究是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review.

Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Value of Further Investment in R&D Using Mixed Methods: A Case Study of Biosensor-Integrated Arteriovenous Grafts. Managing Pharmaceutical Costs in Health Systems: A Review of Affordability, Accessibility and Sustainability Strategies. Operational Efficiency of Public Hospitals in Greece During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis Using DEA and AHP Models. Gatekeeping or Provider Choice for Sustainable Health Systems? A Literature Review on Their Impact on Efficiency, Access, and Quality of Services. Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1