Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025
In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Evolving Perceptions, Utilization, and Real-World Implementation Experiences of Oncology Monoclonal Antibody
Jingyan Yang1,2, Kelly Blinzler3, Joshua Lankin3
1Patient Health and Impact (PHI), Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA. Jingyan.Yang@pfizer.com.
Background:
The adoption of oncology biosimilars has been slow in the USA, which may be attributed in part to stakeholder perceptions and lack of operational guidance that supports favorable access to biosimilars.
Objective:
Our objective was to understand the real-world implementation experiences with oncology biosimilars of US payers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) as their experience with biosimilars has evolved.
Methods:
In-depth qualitative interviews with payers (n = 20) and HCPs (n = 17 physicians, n = 3 practice managers) were conducted. Payers included managed care organizations (MCOs), integrated delivery networks, and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Physicians were affiliated with a healthcare network or were community based, specialized in hematology/oncology, and had prescribed oncology biosimilars. Audio transcripts of the interviews were coded using MaxQDA software to enable descriptive analysis of the qualitative data.
Results:
Over 80.0% of physicians perceived the efficacy and safety of biosimilars to be highly comparable to that of originators. Up to 87.5% of physicians reported using biosimilars in > 50% of their treatment-naïve patients and were comfortable using biosimilars in all approved indications. To encourage utilization, 75.0% of MCOs/PBMs preferred biosimilars over originators in treatment-naïve patients and implementation via step therapy. Physician involvement in choosing biosimilars was minimal, which was largely dependent on practice protocols or insurance preferences. The major factor influencing payers' coverage decisions and biosimilar adoption was potential cost savings.
Conclusions:
US payers and physicians who have experience with biosimilars have favorable views of oncology biosimilars, particularly for treatment-naïve patients. A framework for integrating biosimilars into oncology practice is developing, primarily driven by insurance coverage, contracting, and cost benefits.
Insights
Oncology biosimilar adoption is increasing among US healthcare professionals and payers due to favorable perceptions of efficacy, safety, and cost savings, especially for treatment-naïve patients.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Pharmacoeconomics
- Healthcare Policy
Background:
- Oncology biosimilar uptake in the USA has been limited, influenced by stakeholder perceptions and operational challenges.
- Lack of clear guidance hinders favorable access to oncology biosimilars.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the real-world implementation experiences of US payers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with oncology biosimilars.
- To understand how HCP and payer experiences with biosimilars have evolved over time.
Main Methods:
- Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 payers (managed care organizations, integrated delivery networks, pharmacy benefit managers) and 20 healthcare professionals (17 physicians, 3 practice managers).
- Physicians specialized in hematology/oncology and had experience prescribing oncology biosimilars.
- Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis with MaxQDA software.
Main Results:
- Over 80% of physicians found oncology biosimilars highly comparable in efficacy and safety to originators.
- Approximately 87.5% of physicians used biosimilars in over 50% of treatment-naïve patients and were comfortable with all approved indications.
- Payers (75% of MCOs/PBMs) favored biosimilars over originators for treatment-naïve patients, often through step therapy, with cost savings being a primary driver for coverage decisions.
Conclusions:
- US payers and physicians with experience hold positive views on oncology biosimilars, particularly for treatment-naïve patients.
- The integration of biosimilars into oncology practice is progressing, driven by insurance coverage, contracting strategies, and demonstrated cost benefits.
More Related Videos
10:50Purification and Analytics of a Monoclonal Antibody from Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells Using an Automated Microbioreactor System
Published on: May 1, 2019
08:53In Vivo Immunofluorescence Localization for Assessment of Therapeutic and Diagnostic Antibody Biodistribution in Cancer Research
Published on: September 16, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:28Drug Products: Biologics, Biosimilars and Interchangeables
01:16Bioequivalence: Overview
01:29Issues And Trends In Healthcare Delivery System
Cost Containment
Payment for healthcare services has historically promoted adoption of costly and often unnecessary or inefficient...
01:13Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers
01:28Biopharmaceutics and Pharmacokinetics: Overview
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...