The Importance of Countering Biosimilar Disparagement and Misinformation
biosimilar limited use in some health systems for biosimilars are not well understood by many health professionals and patients. This knowledge gap is exacerbated by the humiliation of biosimilars and the spread of misinformation, intentional or otherwise.
There are several kinds of insults and misinformation directed biosimilars as a class, including statements about science or biosimilar policy that factually incorrect; misleading information, where the information is correct, it is provided out of context; information that is incomplete, in which only a partial or a limited set of facts provided; the creation of a false narrative, especially in the medical and scientific literature, that provides a set of references to support the wrong conclusions; and framing a negative message from a factual statement to create a negative perception.
Insults and misinformation about biosimilars can be countered by education efforts, proper oversight and regulatory activities with the option of enforcement action by the public authorities, if necessary. balanced educational materials on biosimilars should be made easily accessible. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and patient advocacy groups must work together to provide patients with consistent, positive messages about the value of biosimilars.
The introduction of biosimilars to shed our therapy has revolutionized the accessibility of biological treatment for patients with psoriasis, especially from an economic standpoint. En este punto resulta interesante evaluar cual es su posicionamiento truth. Areas covered: A literature review was carried out covering the technical sheets of different drugs, the criteria for the use of biosimilars, the current situation of the countries main prescription and clinical data on the actual practice in the period 2015-2020 using Pubmed and Embase ® database. ®.Accessibility vary from country to country, regardless of the standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA), due to the need for biosimilars to be submitted for approval to the local regulatory agencies.
Retention Rate and Efficacy of biosimilar CT-P13 Reference Versus Infliximab in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A trend-score matched analysis of Korea College of Rheumatology Biologics Registry
Background: Long-term, real-world data that is necessary to support the use of CT-P13 in chronic conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis. However, real-world evidence may be influenced by selection bias, which can confound the results. The purpose of this analysis is to confirm the long-term comparability of CT-P13 and reference infliximab treatment in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, using propensity score matching to adjust the basic difference between the groups.
Methods: A propensity score-matching analysis performed on data from patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Korea College of Rheumatology Biologics registry who received CT-P13 or reference infliximab. retention of the drug, the reason for discontinuation of therapy or biological changes, and the overall success parameters analyzed and line treatment with up to 4 years of follow-up. Side effects were recorded for each treatment group.
Results: Propensity score matching effective in matching patients with 124 CT-P13-treated and 124 infliximab-treated reference. The median treatment duration and retention of the drug were similar between CT-P13 and reference infliximab. a three-year retention rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 64.2% (53.5 to 73.0) for CT-P13 and 55.6% (42.9 to 66.6) for reference infliximab.
Overall, 17.1% (CT-P13) and 29.3% (reference infliximab) of patients discontinued therapy, biological, and 20.0% (CT-P13) and 15.2% (reference infliximab) changed biologic therapy. assessment of efficacy was similar between groups; both treatments were well tolerated.