Search

Erwin C Vasbinder,1 Svetlana V Belitser,2 Patrick C Souverein,2 Liset van Dijk,3 Arnold G Vulto,1 Patricia MLA van den Bemt1 1Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Rotterdam, 2Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 3NIVEL, Utrecht, the Netherlands Background: Non-adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is a major risk factor for poor asthma control in children. However, little is known about the effect of adherence to ICS on the incidence of asthma exacerbations. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of poor adherence to ICS on the risk of exacerbations in children with asthma. Methods: In this nested case–control study using data from the Dutch PHARMO Record Linkage System, children aged 5–12 years who had an asthma exacerbation needing oral corticosteroids or hospital admission were matched to patients without exacerbations. Refill adherence was calculated as medication possession ratio from ICS-dispensing records. Data were analyzed using a multivariable multiplicative intensity regression model. Results: A total of 646 children were included, of whom 36 had one or more asthma exacerbations. The medication possession ratio was 67.9% (standard deviation [SD] 30.2%) in children with an exacerbation versus 54.2% (SD 35.6%) in the control group. In children using long-acting beta-agonist, good adherence to ICS was associated with a higher risk of asthma exacerbations: relative risk 4.34 (95% confidence interval: 1.20–15.64). Conclusion: In children with persistent asthma needing long-acting beta-agonist, good adherence to ICS was associated with an increased risk of asthma exacerbations. Possible explanations include better motivation for adherence to ICS in children with more severe asthma, and reduced susceptibility to the consequences of non-adherence to ICS due to overprescription of ICS to children who are in clinical remission. Further study into the background of the complex interaction between asthma and medication adherence is needed. Keywords: asthma exacerbation, children, database, inhaled corticosteroids, refill adherence pharmacoepidemiology, observational study, the Netherlands

CYP2C19 converts the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine to its active metabolite desipramine, which is subsequently inactivated by CYP2D6. The novel CYP2C19*17 allele causes ultrarapid metabolism of CYP2C19 substrates. We genotyped 178 depressed patients on imipramine for CYP2C19*17, and measured steady-state imipramine and desipramine plasma concentrations. Mean dose-corrected imipramine plasma concentration was significantly dependent on CYP2C19 genotype (Kruskal–Wallis test, P=0.01), with circa 30% lower levels in CYP2C19*17/*17 individuals compared with CYP2C19*1/*1 (wild-type) patients. The mean dose-corrected imipramine+desipramine plasma concentrations and imipramine/desipramine ratios were not significantly different between genotype subgroups (Kruskal–Wallis tests, P0.12). In a multivariate analysis, we found a significant, but limited effect (P=0.035, η2=0.031) of the CYP2C19*17 genotype on imipramine+desipramine concentrations. Although the CYP2C19*17 allele is associated with a significantly increased metabolism of imipramine, CYP2C19*17 genotyping will, in our view, not importantly contribute to dose management of patients on imipramine therapy guided by imipramine+desipramine plasma concentrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We studied nosocomial infections due to Mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) Onco-TICE bacteria, transmitted by contamination of medication prepared in BCG Onco-TICE-contaminated hoods in the pharmacy, in 5 immunocompromised patients at 3 hospitals. The BCG strains cultured from the patients had the same DNA profile as the BCG Onco-TICE strain used for bladder instillation. To prevent these infections, a change from open to closed preparation was made; strictly separated preparation in time of BCG Onco-TICE instillation and chemotherapy was enforced, the biological safety cabinet was disinfected between preparations, and gloves were changed between preparations. Copyright © 2003 The University of Chicago [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets., Areas Covered: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers., Expert Opinion: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Introduction: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics., Methods: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders., Results: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe ( N  = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature., Conclusions: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Pompe disease is a lysosomal storage disorder caused by deficiency of acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA), resulting in glycogen accumulation with profound pathology in skeletal muscle. We recently developed an optimized form of lentiviral gene therapy for Pompe disease in which a codon-optimized version of the GAA transgene (LV-GAAco) was fused to an insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2) peptide (LV-IGF2.GAAco), to promote cellular uptake via the cation-independent mannose-6-phosphate/IGF2 receptor. Lentiviral gene therapy with LV-IGF2.GAAco showed superior efficacy in heart, skeletal muscle, and brain of Gaa -/- mice compared to gene therapy with untagged LV-GAAco. Here, we used quantitative mass spectrometry using TMT labeling to analyze the muscle proteome and the response to gene therapy in Gaa -/- mice. We found that muscle of Gaa -/- mice displayed altered levels of proteins including those with functions in the CLEAR signaling pathway, autophagy, cytoplasmic glycogen metabolism, calcium homeostasis, redox signaling, mitochondrial function, fatty acid transport, muscle contraction, cytoskeletal organization, phagosome maturation, and inflammation. Gene therapy with LV-GAAco resulted in partial correction of the muscle proteome, while gene therapy with LV-IGF2.GAAco resulted in a near-complete restoration to wild type levels without inducing extra proteomic changes, supporting clinical development of lentiviral gene therapy for Pompe disease. SIGNIFICANCE: Lysosomal glycogen accumulation is the primary cause of Pompe disease, and leads to a cascade of pathological events in cardiac and skeletal muscle and in the central nervous system. In this study, we identified the proteomic changes that are caused by Pompe disease in skeletal muscle of a mouse model. We showed that lentiviral gene therapy with LV-IGF2.GAAco nearly completely corrects disease-associated proteomic changes. This study supports the future clinical development of lentiviral gene therapy with LV-IGF2.GAAco as a new treatment option for Pompe disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest A.T. van der Ploeg received funding for research, clinical trials and as advisor from Sanofi-Genzyme, Amicus Therapeutics, Biomarin, Ultragenix, Sarepta, Audentes and Spark Therapeutics on enzyme replacement therapy or next-generation therapies in the field of Pompe disease, and other lysosomal storage diseases or neuromuscular disorders, under agreements with Erasmus MC University Medical Center. N. van Til has been employee of and advisor to Avrobio. W.W.M. Pim Pijnappel and A.T. van der Ploeg are advisors of LentiCure B.V. W.W.M.Pijnappel, E. Vlaar, and A.T. van der Ploeg are inventors on patents in the field of gene therapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Belgian government has taken several measures to increase the uptake of biosimilars in past years. However, no formal evaluation of the impact of these measures has been made yet. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the implemented measures on biosimilar uptake., Methods: An interrupted time series analysis was performed using an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model with the Box-Jenkins method. All data were expressed as defined daily doses (DDD) per month/quarter and obtained from the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). Three molecules were included in the analysis: etanercept (ambulatory), filgrastim (hospital), and epoetin (hospital). A significance level of 5% was used for all analyses., Results: In the ambulatory care, the effect of a financial prescriber incentive of 2019 was investigated. After this intervention, 44.504 (95% CI -61.61 to -14.812; P < 0.001) fewer etanercept biosimilar DDDs were dispensed monthly than expected in the absence of the intervention. Two interventions were modelled for biosimilars in the hospital setting. The first intervention of 2016 includes prescription targets for biosimilars and monitoring of hospitals on adequate tendering. The second intervention involves an information campaign on biosimilars. After the first intervention, a small decrease in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 449.820 DDD (95% CI -880.113 to -19.527; P = 0.05) was observed. The second intervention led to a larger increase in quarterly epoetin biosimilar uptake of 2733.692 DDD (95% CI 1648.648-3818.736; P < 0.001). For filgrastim, 1809.833 DDD (95% CI 1354.797-2264.869; P < 0.001) more biosimilars were dispensed immediately after the first intervention and 151.639 DDD (95% CI -203.128 to -100.150; P < 0.001) fewer biosimilars each quarter after the first intervention. An immediate and sustained increase of 700.932 DDD (95% CI 180.536-1221.328; P = 0.016) in quarterly biosimilar volume was observed after the second intervention. All other parameter estimates were not statistically significant., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the impact of past policy interventions to increase the uptake of biosimilars has been variable and limited. A holistic policy framework is required to develop a competitive and sustainable off-patent biologicals market in Belgium., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Factors like the number of biosimilar competitors and competitive pricing strategies from originator companies may influence price competition and biosimilar uptake. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze multiple facets of biosimilar competition of TNF-alpha inhibitors in Europe by exploring the existence of a biosimilar first-mover advantage, pricing strategies of originator companies, and the evolution in patient access. Methods: Sales and volume data on biosimilar and originator infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between 2008 and 2020 were provided by IQVIA. Countries included 24 European Union Member States, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sales value was expressed as ex-manufacturer price per defined daily dose (DDD), and volume data were transformed into the number of DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Descriptive analyses were conducted based on the evolution in price per DDD, trends in biosimilar and originator market shares and utilization trends. Results: Market entry of the first biosimilars of infliximab and adalimumab resulted in a decrease of the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) per DDD by 13.6% and 0.9% on average, whilst the second biosimilars resulted in a decrease by 26.4% and 27.3%, respectively. The first and second etanercept biosimilars generated a similar decrease in the VWAP per DDD by 9.3% and 9.1% on average, respectively. Average market share captured by the first biosimilars was at least twice as large as the second biosimilars for all molecules. In addition, sharp reductions in price per DDD of Humira ® in most countries indicated a pricing strategy resulting in low uptake of adalimumab biosimilars. Lastly, utilization of infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab following biosimilar entry increased by an average of 88.9%, 14.6%, and 22.4%, respectively. However, introduction of (multiple) biosimilar competitors did not necessarily translate into increase in treatment access for all three molecules across some European countries indicating a shift in utilization from one molecule towards the other(s). Conclusion: Overall, this study revealed that biosimilar entry results in increased utilization and price reduction, although at a heterogenous rate among TNF-alpha inhibitors. Observed trends in market shares indicate a biosimilar first-mover advantage whereas pricing strategies considered to be anti-competitive can limit market uptake., Competing Interests: SS, IH and AV founded the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL Fund). AV is involved in consulting, advisory work and speaking engagements for a few companies, i.e., Accord, Amgen, Biogen, Effik, Medicines for Europe, Pfizer/Hospira, Mundipharma, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz. SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer, Organon, and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma, and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion, Organon, and Sandoz. EC declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Car, Vulto, Houdenhoven, Huys and Simoens.)

Objectives: To develop evidence-based points to consider for cost-effective use of biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis., Methods: Following EULAR procedures, an international task force was formed, consisting of 13 experts in rheumatology, epidemiology and pharmacology from seven European countries. Twelve strategies for cost-effective use of b/tsDMARDs were identified through individual and group discussion. For each strategy, PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant English-language systematic reviews and, for six strategies, additionally for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thirty systematic reviews and 21 RCTs were included. Based on the evidence, a set of overarching principles and points to consider was formulated by the task force using a Delphi procedure. Level of evidence (1a-5) and grade (A-D) were determined for each point to consider. Individual voting on the level of agreement (LoA; between 0 (completely disagree) and 10 (completely agree)) was performed anonymously., Results: The task force agreed on five overarching principles. For 10 of 12 strategies, the evidence was sufficient to formulate one or more points to consider, leading to 20 in total, regarding response prediction, drug formulary use, biosimilars, loading doses, low-dose initial therapy, concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, route of administration, medication adherence, disease activity-guided dose optimisation and non-medical drug switching. Ten points to consider (50%) were supported by level 1 or 2 evidence. The mean LoA (SD) varied between 7.9 (1.2) and 9.8 (0.4)., Conclusion: These points to consider can be used in rheumatology practices and complement inflammatory rheumatic disease treatment guidelines to incorporate cost-effectiveness in b/tsDMARD treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BvdB: speakers bureau for UCB, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Galapagos, Amgen and Eli Lilly. DA: speakers bureau for Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz; consultant of Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz; research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, SoBi and Sanofi. RA: speakers bureau for Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfize and Roche; paid instructor for Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; consultant of Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; research support from Abbvie, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. KC: consultant of Eli Lilly, AbbVie and Pfizer. JI: speakers bureau for AbbVie, Gilead, Roche and UCB; research support from GSK, Janssen and Pfizer. DM: invitation to attend congress: Celltrion Healthcare and GSK. PV: speakers bureau for Eli Lilly, MSD, Galapagos and Roularta; consultant of Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Sidekick Health, Eli Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Abbvie, Celltrion, BMS and UCB; research support from Pfizer. AGV: speakers bureau for Amgen, Biogen Idec, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Effik Benelux, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Eli Lilly, Febelgen/Medaxes, Medicines for Europe AISBL, Mundipharma, Pfizer/Hospira and Hexal/Sandoz; paid instructor for Effik Benelux, Fresenius/Kabi, Amgen and Sandoz/Novartis; consultant of Biogen Idec, Effik Benelux, Fresenius/Kabi, Pfizer/Hospira, Sandoz/Novartis and Samsung Bioepis. AAdB: research support from Abbvie, Galapagos, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi and Gilead. CJTvdT, JG, PMJW and LV have no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The availability of biosimilar medicines in Southern European markets has allowed purchasing biologics at a lower cost for healthcare systems. However, the capacity to seize this cost-reduction opportunity in the long run depends on fostering a sustainable competitive environment for all the market players involved. Diverse policies and information campaigns have been launched in Italy, Portugal and Spain to support uptake of "best-value" biologics (BVB). Despite these measures, the utilization of lower-cost biologics in certain regions is low, especially when it comes to the treatment of chronic conditions., Objective: We aim to identify biosimilar uptake determinants in hospital environments in Italy, Portugal and Spain, using the class of TNF-alpha inhibitors as an example., Methods: This is a mixed-methods study based on (1) the quantitative analysis of regional uptake data for TNF-alpha inhibitor biosimilars and (2) the qualitative processing of semi-structured interviews capturing experts' views on uptake determinants for biosimilars., Results: The organization of multi-stakeholder information campaigns supporting TNF-alpha inhibitor biosimilars use in Italy, Portugal and Spain has resulted in an increased familiarity of healthcare professionals and patients with the prescription/use of these products. However, barriers persist that impede high biosimilars uptake, especially in chronic patient populations eligible for a switch. These are: (1) the late publication of position statements on biosimilars interchangeability by regulatory health authorities; (2) the vague positioning of (national/regional) health authorities on best switching practices (including multiple biosimilar-to-biosimilar switches); (3) the existence of policy frameworks that do not necessarily support the initiation of switching protocols; (4) the establishment of sometimes inefficient purchasing procedures that limit biosimilars potential to compete for market shares. Diverse approaches taken regionally to address these barriers have contributed to heterogeneous TNF-alpha inhibitor biosimilars uptake across Southern Europe., Conclusion: Our research signaled the limited reach of biosimilar policies implemented locally, if not supported by a national policy framework. This study highlights the need for the coordinated implementation of policy measures fostering biosimilars use at the regional and national level in Italy, Portugal and Spain. These measures should account for the particularities of off-patent biologic and biosimilar markets and should jointly address supply- and demand-side challenges., Competing Interests: SS, IH, and AV are founders of the KU Leuven MABEL Fund. SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer, and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma, and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion, and Sandoz. AV is involved in consulting, educational work, and speaking engagements for a number of companies, i.e., AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, Effik, EGA, Pfizer/Hospira, Fresenius-Kabi, Mundipharma, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Barcina Lacosta, Vulto, Huys and Simoens.)

Background: The level of competition achieved following biosimilars market availability varies by country, care setting and molecule. Hence, biosimilars contribution to attaining price reductions and extended access to treatments can also vary. Objective: The aim of this study is to capture market dynamics for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors and competing molecules in Southern European markets (2011-2020), and to evaluate the benefits of the competition generated by the availability of biosimilars. Methods: This study is based on a literature review examining market characteristics for TNF-alfa inhibitors and competing immunomodulator molecules, and on the quantitative analysis of market data for these molecules in Italy, Portugal and Spain. Results: Following biosimilars availability in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish markets, there has been an expansion in the overall access to TNF-alfa inhibitor pharmaceuticals. Further, savings have been generated within the TNF-alfa inhibitors class even after the increased use of these molecules. However, the potential of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab biosimilars to generate price competition outside of their own drug class appeared limited in the studied markets. Considering this limitation and that shifts towards on-patent and higher-cost therapies have occurred after TNF-alfa inhibitor biosimilars availability, the importance of investing in biosimilars development for still on-patent immunology biologics is emphasized. Conclusion: This study highlights the need for policies that do not only seek higher utilization of biosimilars, but that also support a sustainable market for these products. This is expected to foster the future development of biosimilar medicines., Competing Interests: SS, IH, and AGV are founders of the KU Leuven MABEL Fund. SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion and Sandoz. AG is involved in consulting, educational work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, i.e., AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, Effik, EGA, Pfizer/Hospira, Fresenius-Kabi, Mundipharma, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, Boehringer Ingelheim. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Barcina Lacosta, Vulto, Huys and Simoens.)

Purpose: With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment., Summary: The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process., Conclusion: The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2022.)

Background: A competitive market for off-patent biologicals leads to more affordable and high-quality healthcare. In recent years, Belgium has been characterized by its low use of biosimilars and by its shifts from off-patent biologicals toward new alternative therapies. Yet, the prescribing decisions involved in these observations are poorly understood. This study aims to better understand prescribing choices among Belgian physicians in the ambulatory care setting., Methods: This study consisted of two phases. First, a scoping literature review to identify determinants of prescribing choices was conducted. Scientific databases (Embase and PubMed) were searched until 4 November 2021. Second, the nominal group technique (NGT) was employed during focus group discussions with Belgian physicians to consider and validate these determinants for off-patent biologicals in the Belgian context. The qualitative data resulting from the literature review and focus group discussions were analyzed using the thematic framework method., Results: Fifty-three scientific articles that discussed elements that determine prescribing choices were identified. Out of these, 17 determinants of prescribing choices were found. These were divided into five categories: (1) product-related, (2) physicians' personal, (3) healthcare system-related, (4) patient-related, and (5) determinants related to the pharmaceutical company or brand. Nineteen Belgian physicians from different therapeutic areas that regularly prescribe biologicals then participated in focus group discussions. Using the NGT, the group discussions revealed that prescribing choices for off-patent biologicals are determined by a complex set of elements. Clinical data, geographical region, working environment, pharmaceutical marketing, patient profile, clinical guidelines, and preference of key opinion leaders (KOL) were considered most influential. Physicians indicated that the importance of these determinants differs depending on product classes or therapeutic domain., Conclusions: Multiple elements determine the choice of an off-patent biological or biosimilar product. The importance of each of these determinants varies depending on the context in which the prescribing choice is made. To increase the prescription of best-value biologicals in the Belgian ambulatory care, a set of synergistic measures is required including information for healthcare providers (HCP) and patients, prescribing feedback, prescribing targets, tangible incentives, KOL involvement, guidelines regarding pharmaceutical promotion, and regular revision of reimbursement modalities., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Pompe disease is caused by deficiency of acid α-glucosidase (GAA), resulting in glycogen accumulation in various tissues, including cardiac and skeletal muscles and the central nervous system (CNS). Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) improves cardiac, motor, and respiratory functions but is limited by poor cellular uptake and its inability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Previously, we showed that hematopoietic stem cell (HSPC)-mediated lentiviral gene therapy (LVGT) with codon-optimized GAA (LV- GAAco ) caused glycogen reduction in heart, skeletal muscles, and partially in the brain at high vector copy number (VCN). Here, we fused insulin-like growth factor 2 ( IGF2 ) to a codon-optimized version of GAA (LV- IGF2.GAAco ) to improve cellular uptake by the cation-independent mannose 6-phosphate/IGF2 (CI-M6P/IGF2) receptor. In contrast to LV- GAAco , LV- IGF2.GAAco was able to completely normalize glycogen levels, pathology, and impaired autophagy at a clinically relevant VCN of 3 in heart and skeletal muscles. LV- IGF2.GAAco was particularly effective in treating the CNS, as normalization of glycogen levels and neuroinflammation was achieved at a VCN between 0.5 and 3, doses at which LV- GAAco was largely ineffective. These results identify IGF2.GAA as a candidate transgene for future clinical development of HSPC-LVGT for Pompe disease., Competing Interests: A.v.d.P. has received consulting fees from Sanofi Genzyme and has provided consulting services, participated in advisory board meetings, and received grants for premarketing studies and research from industries via agreements between Erasmus MC and the industry. N.v.T. is currently an employee of AVROBIO, Inc., Cambridge, MA, United States. M.S. is currently an employee of ProPharma Group, Leiden, the Netherlands. Contributions from N.v.T. and M.S. were made during their employment at Erasmus MC and were made independent of their current affiliations., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: By improving the affordability and accessibility of biologicals, biosimilar competition provides important benefits to healthcare systems and patients. In Belgium, biosimilar uptake and competition is limited compared to other European markets. Whereas other countries have initiated structured biosimilar introduction or switching plans, no such framework or guiding principles are yet available in Belgium. Objective: This study aims to develop recommendations that can inform policy action in Belgium on biosimilar use, especially in the context of switch decision-making, and this by drawing from the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in procuring, prescribing, switching and dispensing biologicals including biosimilars. Methods: This study made use of the consensus-building Nominal Group Technique, consisting of a three-step process 1) individual grading, 2) three structured Focus Group Discussions, 3) final individual grading involving an expert group of Belgian healthcare professionals (physician specialists and hospital pharmacists). Results: Participants ( n = 13) voiced challenges with the use of biosimilars and switching in practice, and a lack of incentives to use them. Six concrete areas for policy development to support stakeholders with biosimilar use and switch decision-making were identified: 1) address stakeholder hesitations regarding (multiple) switching, 2) provide meaningful incentives, 3) guide healthcare professionals with product decision-making, 4), align practical product modalities when possible, 5) involve healthcare professionals in policy making, and 6) provide practical switch support and patient information material, particularly in the ambulatory care setting. For each area, specific consensus-based recommendations were developed. Furthermore, a set of switch management and patient communication principles was derived, including amongst others, generating buy-in from involved stakeholders prior to switching and communicating with a one-voice message. Conclusion: Without cohesive actions to reduce hurdles and without tangible benefits or steering mechanisms, changes in biosimilar use are unlikely in Belgium. To overcome this and stimulate market competitiveness, this study advances a set of concrete policy recommendations. At large, policy makers should develop an integrated policy framework, with a pro-active, best-value biological implementation roadmap that provides guidance and compelling measures to incentivize healthcare professionals to use biosimilars. Particular consideration should go to the ambulatory care setting, since drivers for biosimilar use are quasi absent in this context., Competing Interests: IH, SS, PD and AGV founded the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL Fund). AGV is involved in consulting, advisory work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, i.e., Accord, Amgen, Biogen, Effik, Medicines for Europe, Pfizer/Hospira, Mundipharma, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz. SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion and Sandoz. LB has participated in advisory board meetings and had speaking engagements for Amgen and Biogen. PD participated at advisory board meetings for AbbVie, Amgen, Hospira, and Samsung Bioepis and is on the Speakers’ Bureau of AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Merck Serono, and Roche., (Copyright © 2022 Barbier, Simoens, Declerck, Vulto and Huys.)

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is the current standard treatment for Pompe disease, a lysosomal storage disorder caused by deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA). ERT has shown to be lifesaving in patients with classic infantile Pompe disease. However, a major drawback is the development of neutralizing antibodies against ERT. Hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell-mediated lentiviral gene therapy (HSPC-LVGT) provides a novel, potential lifelong therapy with a single intervention and may induce immune tolerance. Here, we investigated whether ERT can be safely applied as additional or alternative therapy following HSPC-LVGT in a murine model of Pompe disease. We found that lentiviral expression at subtherapeutic dose was sufficient to induce tolerance to the transgene product, as well as to subsequently administered ERT. Immune tolerance was established within 4-6 weeks after gene therapy. The mice tolerated ERT doses up to 100 mg/kg, allowing ERT to eliminate glycogen accumulation in cardiac and skeletal muscle and normalizing locomotor function. The presence of HSPC-derived cells expressing GAA in the thymus suggested the establishment of central immune tolerance. These findings demonstrate that lentiviral gene therapy in murine Pompe disease induced robust and long-term immune tolerance to GAA either expressed by a transgene or supplied as ERT., Competing Interests: A.T.v.d.P. has received consulting fees from Sanofi Genzyme and has provided consulting services, participated in advisory board meetings, and received grants for premarketing studies and research from industries via agreements between Erasmus MC and the industry. N.P.v.T. is an employee of AVROBIO (Cambridge, MA)., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use., Objectives: This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars., Methods: This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies ( n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe ( n = 14)., Results: The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally., Conclusion: This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard., Competing Interests: IH, SS, PD, and AV are the founders of the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL Fund). AV is involved in consulting, educational work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, i.e., AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, Effik, EGA, Pfizer/Hospira, Fresenius-Kabi, Mundipharma, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, Boehringer Ingelheim. SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer, and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma, and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion and Sandoz. PD participated at advisory board meetings for AbbVie, Amgen, Hospira, and Samsung Bioepis and is on the Speakers' Bureau of AbbVie, Celltrion, Hospira, Merck Serono, and Roche. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Barbier, Mbuaki, Simoens, Declerck, Vulto and Huys.)

Background: To encourage the rational prescribing of biologics, payers across Europe have experimented with the implementation of benefit-sharing programs. Benefit-sharing programs are incentive programs that promote the use of 'best-value' off-patent biologics and biosimilars by driving changes in prescribing practices. The aim of these programs is to generate savings that can be shared among stakeholders involved (e.g. health authorities/payers, health care professionals, hospital managers/administration) and are generally used to improve the quality of health care and to increase patients' access to innovative services and medicines. However, the scarcity of information concerning the design, implementation and outcomes of benefit-sharing programs limits the transfer of knowledge to institutions aiming to adopt these types of incentive schemes in the future., Objective: The aim of our study was to map benefit-sharing experiences across Europe, to compare their design and implementation characteristics and to assess the impact of the different benefit-sharing strategies on the use of 'best-value' biologics., Method: Our approach was based on a literature review and on semi-structured interviews with payers/insurers, regulators, health care professionals and industry representatives., Results: Our analysis revealed variable design characteristics for benefit-sharing programs, depending on the organization of the health care system, the specific timeframe, the care setting and the policy environment. All these aspects can influence the robustness of benefit-sharing initiatives and their potential to stay in effect over time. We also noted a generalized lack of transparency regarding the distribution of savings and how they are reinvested. This lack of transparency has raised questions on how to optimally implement benefit-sharing in the future., Conclusions: To realize the full potential of benefit-sharing programs, we identify the importance of (i) setting up and timely monitoring success indicators for these programs; (ii) including quality of care and access to care parameters as success indicators; (iii) establishing clear pathways for the transparent redistribution/reinvestment of savings and (iv) transparently communicating with patients about the outcomes of benefit-sharing programs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background and objectives: Biosimilar medicines have been on the European market for 15 years. Despite the extensive and positive experience with biosimilars across Europe, their uptake remains limited in Belgium. One of the possible factors limiting uptake in clinical practice is the inadequate understanding and lack of trust in biosimilars among patients. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions about biosimilar medicines among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care. Methods: This study consisted of online questionnaires among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus type I and II). The results were collected between December 2020 and February 2021. The data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: In total, 657 patients across all disease areas of interest participated in this study. Only 38% of patients had heard of biosimilars before. Of those patients, most (58%) were aware that biosimilars are as safe and effective as their reference product. The vast majority of respondents (68%) would agree with transitioning to a biosimilar if their physician prescribed it, only 3% would never agree with a transition to a biosimilar. If a physician would propose to change their current originator biological therapy with its biosimilar, nearly all patients (95%) want their physician to explain the decision and inform them. For additional information about biosimilars, Belgian patients prefer brochures or folders (41%), or available resources on the internet (35%). Physicians were indicated as the preferred source of information (95%), followed by pharmacists (51%), academia (39%), and patient associations (35%). Most patients require information regarding the safety and efficacy (78%), price and reimbursement (64%), and the clinical development process (56%) of the biosimilar. Conclusion: Belgian patients require information about biosimilar medicines. However, most patients are open and positive towards transitioning their current biological therapy with its biosimilar if sufficiently supported by their healthcare providers., Competing Interests: This research project is funded by the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). SS, IH and AV have founded the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL). SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD; he has participated in advisory board meetings for Pfizer, Sandoz and Amgen; he has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira (together with AV and IH), Celltrion, Mundipharma and Pfizer, and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion and Sandoz. AV is involved in consulting, advisory work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, a. o. AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, EGA, Effik Benelux, Pfizer/Hospira, Mundipharma, Roche, Sandoz. PVW acted as health care consultant to public and private organizations, including pharmaceutical companies and their professional associations. All other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Vandenplas, Barbier, Simoens, Van Wilder, Vulto and Huys.)

More than ten years after the first biosimilars were authorized for use in the European Union, Belgium still experiences limited competition from biosimilars, as exemplified by low market shares. Achieving high biosimilar market shares is not necessarily a goal in itself, as cost savings are also realized by mandatory price reductions on originator medicines in Belgium. However, we believe that biosimilars play a role in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the off-patent biologicals market. It is therefore crucial to list what has been done and what is needed to support the Belgian government in establishing a policy framework for a competitive off-patent biologicals market. We provide a comprehensive overview of the Belgian biosimilar market, including existing hurdles for biosimilar use in Belgium. Based on these hurdles and supplemented with learnings from other European countries, we propose practical recommendations that can be implemented to overcome them. Several Belgian stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on these recommendations. Specifically, we suggest to evolve towards a long-term consistent, integrated policy framework via i) the creation of a proactive and transparent climate supporting a level playing field for both biosimilar and reference product, including public dissemination of how savings at the level of the Belgian healthcare system are used, ii) investment in educational activities, including raising awareness of societal responsibility, iii) enforcement of the practical implementation of public procurement law, and iv) the development of incentives for physicians, who are key stakeholders in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market.

Background: With the approval of biosimilars for subcutaneously administered products, such as adalimumab, etanercept and insulin, biosimilars become increasingly available in ambulatory care. Little is known about the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers who are in charge of dispensing and prescribing biosimilars in this context. This study aims to assess the knowledge and perception about biosimilars among community pharmacists and physicians., Methods: Belgian community pharmacists (n = 177) and physicians (n = 30) were surveyed on their knowledge, experience with dispensing/prescribing biologicals including biosimilars, perception regarding interchangeability, switching and substitution and informational and educational needs. Descriptive and statistical analyses were performed., Results: Only 32% of community pharmacists and 52% of physicians had yet dispensed/prescribed a biosimilar. Approximately 35% of community pharmacists felt insufficiently trained to counsel patients with biosimilar therapy, which was significantly higher compared to their self-assessed competence to counsel patients with biological therapy in general (p = 0.023). Community pharmacists experienced questions about similarity between reference products and biosimilars (47%) and their interchangeability (42%). Over 40% of physicians found patient uncertainty about efficacy and safety challenging when prescribing biosimilars. A similar proportion of physicians would only prescribe a biosimilar in indications for which the biosimilar has been tested clinically. The majority of pharmacists (58%) was in favor of substitution of biologicals, on the condition that the prescriber would be contacted. Also over 40% of physicians was open to this approach in case of substitution. Educational support, budget for additional staff and transparency about savings were considered suitable stimuli to incentivize biosimilar use. The need for information about biologicals including biosimilars was nearly unanimous among community pharmacists. Also 67% of physicians requested more information. Both community pharmacists and physicians preferred to be informed by their respective professional associations., Conclusions: This study showed a substantial need for targeted educational measures to increase the knowledge and confidence about both biological medicines in general and biosimilars in particular among Belgian community pharmacists and physicians. The results may inform educational and policy measures to stimulate biosimilar use in ambulatory care.

Background: In Europe, off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are largely procured by means of tender procedures. The organization and design of tenders may play a key role in the evolving biosimilar market, and currently, it is not fully elucidated how tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars are designed and if approaches are aligned with sustaining market competition and societal savings for healthcare systems over the long term. This study aims to (i) explore the design and implementation of tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe, (ii) identify learnings for sustainable tender approaches from purchasers and suppliers, and (iii) formulate recommendations in support of competitive and sustainable tender practices in the off-patent biologicals market., Methods: A mixed methods design was applied. A quantitative web-survey was conducted with hospital pharmacists and purchasers (N = 60, of which 47 completed the survey in full), and qualitative expert-interviews with purchasers and suppliers (N = 28) were carried out., Results: The web survey results showed that the organization and design of tenders for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, and the experience of hospital pharmacists and purchasers with this, considerably varies on several elements across European countries. From the qualitative interviews, signals emerged across the board that some of the current tender approaches might negatively affect market dynamics for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars. The focus on generating short-term savings and existence of originator favouring tender practices were identified as elements that may limit timely competition from and market opportunity for biosimilar suppliers. The need to optimize tender processes, considering a more long-term strategic and sustainable view, was expressed. In addition, challenges appear to exist with differentiating between products beyond price, showing the need and opportunity to guide stakeholders with the (appropriate) inclusion of award criteria beyond price. Due to the variety in tender organization in Europe, a 'one size fits all' tendering framework is not possible. However, on an overarching level, it was argued that tender procedures must aim to (i) ensure market plurality and (ii) include award criteria beyond price (warranted that criteria are objectively and transparently defined, scored and competitively rewarded). Depending on the market (maturity), additional actions may be needed., Conclusions: Findings suggest the need to adjust tender procedures for off-patent biologicals and biosimilars, considering a more long-term strategic and market sustainable view. Five main avenues for optimization were identified: (i) safeguarding a transparent, equal opportunity setting for all suppliers with an appropriate use of award criteria; (ii) fostering a timely opening of tender procedures, ensuring on-set competition; (iii) ensuring and stimulating adherence to laws on public procurement; (iv) securing an efficient process, improving plannability and ensuring timely product supply and (v) safeguarding long-term sustainable competition by stimulating market plurality.

This study aimed to compare drug costs and healthcare costs of a 1 year adjuvant course with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab vs. subcutaneous reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer from the Belgian hospital perspective. Our simulation is based on the methodology used by Tjalma and colleagues, and considered costs of drugs, healthcare professional time and consumables. We calculated intravenous drug costs for different body weights, and computed drug costs and healthcare costs to treat 100 patients with either trastuzumab formulation, assuming a binomial body weight distribution in this sample. Scenarios were run to account for drug discounts and intravenous vial sharing. Drug costs amounted to €1,431,282 with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and €1,522,809 with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab for a sample of 100 patients in the base case analysis. When healthcare professional time and consumables were also considered, healthcare costs with intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab were similar to those with subcutaneous reference trastuzumab. Differences in healthcare costs between intravenous biosimilar trastuzumab and subcutaneous reference trastuzumab depended on the level of discounts on these formulations and on intravenous vial sharing. Our case study demonstrates that comparing costs of intravenous vs. subcutaneous formulations is complex and multifactorial, and entails more than a simple cost comparison of products.

Background and objective: Best-value biological medicines may generate competition in the off-patent biologicals market, resulting in having more resources available to provide patients with access to necessary medicines while maintaining high-quality care. Belgium is a country known to have low biosimilar market shares, suggesting a malfunctioning market for off-patent biologicals. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the Belgian off-patent biologicals market, by looking at the evolution in volumes and costs of the relevant products in the market. Methods: This study included a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part of this study consisted of the analysis of market data obtained by the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) for all relevant products in the Belgian off-patent biologicals market (i.e. TNF-inhibitors, insulins, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, epoetins, rituximab, trastuzumab). In addition, for the qualitative part of this study, semi-structured interviews with Belgian stakeholders were conducted between December 2019 and March 2020. Results: Belgian market data and stakeholder perceptions suggest a suboptimal market environment for off-patent biological and biosimilar medicines. Shifts are observed after loss of exclusivities of originator biologicals toward second-generation products or new therapeutic class products, at a higher cost and often limited added value. Moreover, cost reductions for off-patent biologicals after biosimilar market entry are mainly determined by mandatory price reductions applicable to both originator and biosimilar products, and not by lower prices induced by competition. For products used in the retail setting, significant mandatory price reductions for both originator and reference products with low biosimilar volumes were pointed out as the main reasons for the lack of price competition. For products dispensed in hospitals, the hospital financing system is important. First, it does not always encourage the use of lower cost alternatives. Second, competition mainly takes place at the level of confidential discounts in tenders. Most interviewees acknowledged the lack of a competitive environment, which is not supportive of a sustainable Belgian off-patent biologicals market. Conclusion: Market data and stakeholder perceptions indicate that the sustainability of the Belgian market for off-patent biologicals is challenged. A sustainable market ensures access to biological therapies now and in the future., Competing Interests: This research project is funded by the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI). SS, IH and AGV have founded the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL). SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD; he has participated in advisory board meetings for Pfizer and Amgen; he has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira (together with AGV and IH), Celltrion, Mundipharma and Pfizer, and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen and Sandoz. AGV is involved in consulting, advisory work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, a. o. AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, EGA, Pfizer/Hospira, Mundipharma, Roche, Sandoz. PVW acted as health care consultant to public and private organizations, including pharmaceutical companies and their professional associations. All other authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor declared a past co-authorship with one of the authors SS., (Copyright © 2021 Vandenplas, Simoens, Van Wilder, Vulto and Huys.)

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual's needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients' Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients' Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80-90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 - €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries., Competing Interests: AGV is involved in consulting, advisory work and speaking engagements for a number of companies, a.o. AbbVie, Accord, Amgen, Biogen, EGA, Pfizer/Hospira, Mundipharma, Roche, Sandoz. RP runs a consulting company and previously worked with, a.o., Abbvie, Biogen, Sandoz, Pfizer, MSD, Roche, GSK, Sanofi. IM is involved in consulting and advisory work and recently worked with I&S Hungary, Ewopharma, Genesis Pharma, GSK. RP was employed by HTA Consulting at the time of the study. TN was employed by ZEM Solutions at the time of the study. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Moorkens, Godman, Huys, Hoxha, Malaj, Keuerleber, Stockinger, Mörtenhuber, Dimitrova, Tachkov, Vončina, Palčevski, Achniotou, Slabý, Popelková, Kohoutová, Bartels, Laius, Martikainen, Selke, Kourafalos, Magnússon, Einarsdóttir, Adams, Joppi, Allocati, Jakupi, Viksna, Greičiūtė-Kuprijanov, Vella Bonanno, Suttorp, Melien, Plisko, Mardare, Meshkov, Novakovuc, Fürst, Zara, Marković-Peković, Grubiša, Befrits, Puckett and Vulto.)

Introduction : Little is known about market access to biosimilars from a health economic perspective, except for studies that compute the budget impact of biosimilar use. Areas covered : This comprehensive health economic guide to the market access of biosimilars focuses on the role of biosimilars in pharmaceutical innovation and competition, the objective of biopharmaceutical policy, the budget impact of biosimilars, and the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy in the presence of biosimilars. Expert opinion : We argue that the objective of biopharmaceutical policy in a health system should be to create a competitive and sustainable market for off-patent reference biologics, biosimilars, and next-generation biologics that makes biologic therapy available to patients at the lowest cost. Market access of biosimilars can contribute to this objective as a result of the lower price of biosimilars and price competition with alternative therapies. The resulting improvement in the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy needs to be accounted for by revisiting reimbursement decisions and conditions. When examining the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy following patent expiry, stakeholders need to consider residual uncertainties at the time of biosimilar marketing authorization, the nocebo effect, market entry of a second-generation reference biologic with a different administration form than the biosimilar, and value-added services.

Background: Regions within England, Scotland and Wales show variation in rate of adoption of biosimilar infliximab and etanercept., Objectives: This study aims to examine how local decisions and practices in regions within England, Scotland and Wales might explain initial variation in market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept., Methods: Market data provided by the National Health Service (NHS) on biosimilar and originator infliximab and etanercept uptake were analysed for the 10 historical regions of England, 14 health boards in Scotland and 7 health boards in Wales (2015-2018). Findings were discussed in ten semi-structured interviews: on a national level with an industry representative (1), on a regional level with NHS employees in England (6), Scotland (1) and Wales (1), and on a local level with a representative of a clinical commissioning group in England (1)., Results: Tenders for infliximab and etanercept in England, Scotland and Wales have consistently resulted in a biosimilar as the best value biological. Early and late biosimilar adopters are seen, with overall convergence towards high biosimilar market shares over time. Qualitative results suggest that biosimilar adoption was positively influenced by (a) a price difference between biosimilar and originator product making it worthwhile to switch patients; (b) a good relationship between commissioner and provider in England resulting in gain share agreements; (c) leadership on biosimilars in regional NHS offices in England or Scottish and Welsh health boards; (d) key opinion leaders or leading hospitals that start using biosimilars early and gain experience., Conclusions: This study has shown that the savings potential drives biosimilar use. Regions with a proactive attitude, good stakeholder relationships, and clinician engagement were identified as early adopters.

Background: Despite the benefits biosimilars offer in terms of cost savings and patient access, healthcare professionals and patients have been reluctant to use them. Next to insufficient understanding of and trust in biosimilars, healthcare professionals and patients have questions about switching and the nocebo effect when using biosimilars in clinical practice. In addition, clear motivation to use biosimilars may be lacking among these stakeholders., Objective: This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar use on both a clinical and a practical level based on insights from healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patients (or their representatives), and regulators across Europe., Methods: We conducted 44 semi-structured interviews with experts from five stakeholder groups across Europe: physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, regulators, and patients/representatives. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and transcripts analysed according to the thematic framework method., Results: Based on the insights and considerations of the experts interviewed, we identified a number of recommendations to improve the use of biosimilars in clinical practice. Regarding switch implementation, the experts voiced support for the following actions: (1) disseminate evidence from and experience with (multiple) switching; (2) provide clear, one-voice regulatory guidance about the interchangeability of biosimilars and their reference product; (3) apply a multi-stakeholder implementation and communication protocol to guide switching in clinical practice; (4) apply a pragmatic approach when taking switch decisions; and (5) avoid mandated switching, allowing stakeholder communication and alignment. When discussing approaches to increase the willingness of stakeholders to use biosimilars, we concluded that actions should be centred on (1) communicating the benefits provided by biosimilars and the introduction of market competition, (2) increasing awareness among stakeholders about medicine prices and their societal responsibility to use medicines in a cost-effective manner, (3) transparent reporting about the allocation of savings, (4) sharing biosimilar usage data among hospitals and prescribers to allow peer-to-peer benchmarking, and (5) applying a balanced combination of tangible and non-tangible incentives that can be tailored to offset the time and effort expended by stakeholders when switching to a biosimilar., Conclusions: This study proposes a number of strategic, practical, and overarching recommendations to support healthcare professionals and inform decision makers to improve the clinical use of biosimilars and the willingness of stakeholders to use them. The proposed solutions to fully realise the potential of biosimilars for healthcare systems and patients include developing practical switch guidance, being transparent about the gains from biosimilar use (and how savings are allocated), and developing a combination of non-tangible and tangible incentives for involved stakeholders.

Background: Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching., Objective: This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe., Method: The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe., Results: Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards., Conclusions: This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition.

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe., Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion., Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability., Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.

Last years, more than 46 unique biosimilars were approved by EMA and/or US-FDA following patent expiration of reference products. Biosimilars are not identical like generics, but highly similar versions where demonstrating biosimilarity of quality attributes (QAs) to a reference product is the basis of development and regulatory approval. Information on QAs assessed to establish biosimilarity may not always be publicly available, although this information is imperative to understand better the science behind biosimilars approval. This study aims to identify QA types reported in publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of (intended) biosimilars over time. English full-text publications presenting biosimilarity assessments of QAs for (intended) biosimilars between 2000 and 2019 identified from PubMed and EMBASE. Publication characteristics and QAs classified into: structural (physicochemical properties, primary structure, higher-order structures (HOSs), post-translational modifications (PTMs), and purity and impurities) and functional (biological and immunochemical activities) were extracted from publications. Seventy-nine publications were identified (79% open-access, 75% industry-sponsored, 62% including unapproved biosimilars, and 66% involving antibodies). Reporting frequencies varied for QA types: biological activity (94%), physicochemical properties (81%), PTMs (79%), primary structure (77%) purity and impurities (73%), HOSs (58%), and immunochemical activity (41%). The number of publications increased from 6 (7%) during 2009-2011 to 62 (79%) during 2015-2019. Eighteen (28%) publications reported all QA types relevant to an active-biological-substance. Reporting of most QA types increased over time that most evidenced by immunochemical activity (from 0% to 47%) which occured after EMA monoclonal antibody (mAbs) guidline in 2012 and more publications on mAbs later on when compared to earlier period. Biosimilarity assessments of QAs have been published in peer-reviewed publications for about 60% of approved biosimilars. Publishing biosimilarity assessments and reporting QAs over time appears to be affected by regulatory actions that occurred in 2012-2015, including regulatory approval and development of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars. Availability of a complete, publicly accessible and unbiased biosimilarity assessment of QAs, as part of a trusted and transparent regulatory process, will contribute to increased confidence and acceptance of biosimilars in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests AMA, TJG, TCE, HGL, MRP and HG declare that they have no conflict of interest. AGV has an interest/relationship or affiliation in the form of: Consultant for AbbVie, Biogen Idec Ltd; Fresenius/Kabi, Pfizer / Hospira Inc; Sandoz/Novartis Ltd.; Samsung Bioepis, Speaker's Bureau Participant with Amgen Inc; Biogen Idec Ltd; Bristol Meyers Squibb; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; Eli Lilly; Febelgen/Medaxes; Medicines for Europe AISBL; Mundipharma; Pfizer/Hospira, and Hexal/Sandoz Ltd. Advisory Board for AbbVie; Accord Healthcare, Amgen Inc; Biogen Idec Ltd; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Pfizer / Hospira, and Sandoz/Hexal AG., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Drug budget and prescription control measures are implemented regionally in Germany, meaning that the uptake of pharmaceuticals, including biosimilars, can vary by region. We examine regional market dynamics of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitor originators and biosimilars in Germany and studied the influence of biosimilar policies on these dynamics. This study is based on: (1) a literature review in which German biosimilar policies are identified, (2) the analysis of dispensing data (2010-2018) for the class of TNFα inhibitors, and (3) ten semi-structured interviews investigating prescribers' and insurers' views on factors potentially influencing biosimilar uptake. The analysis of biosimilar market shares of infliximab and etanercept revealed wide variations across the 17 German Regional Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Accredited Physicians (PA regions). Quantitative analyses indicated that biosimilar market shares for infliximab and etanercept were significantly lower in former East Germany when compared to former West Germany regions. Through qualitative interview analyses, this study showed that the use of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars across Germany is primarily influenced by (1) the regional-level implementation of biosimilar quotas and the presence of monitoring/sanctioning mechanisms to ensure adherence to these quotas, (2) the different insurer-manufacturer discount contracts, and (3) gainsharing arrangements established at the insurer-prescriber level.

To date, no consensus exists among stakeholders about switching patients between reference biological products (RPs) and biosimilars, which may have been curbing the implementation of biosimilars in clinical practice. This study synthesizes the available data on switching and assesses whether switching patients from a RP to its biosimilar or vice versa affects efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity outcomes. A total of 178 studies, in which switch outcomes from a RP to a biosimilar were reported, was identified. Data were derived from both randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. Despite the limitations stemming from a lack of a robust design for most of the studies, the available switching data do not indicate that switching from a RP to a biosimilar is associated with any major efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity issues. Some open-label and observational studies reported increased discontinuation rates after switching, which were mainly attributed to nocebo effects. Involvement of the prescriber in any decision to switch should remain and attention should be paid to the mitigation of a potential nocebo effect., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background Amlodipine is a widely used antihypertensive agent for the treatment of paediatric hypertension, but the commercially available tablets are not suitable to treat young patients, who need lower, flexible dosages and a liquid formulation. Objective To determine the pharmacokinetic properties of amlodipine and the acceptability of a standardised, extemporaneous oral solution. Method A newly developed liquid formulation of amlodipine was administered to hypertensive children between the age of 6 months and 11 years. Using a limited sampling strategy, population PK analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effects modelling. Results Nine children, with a median age of 2.9 years (IQR 1.8-8.4), receiving stable amlodipine therapy in a median dose of 0.15 mg kg -1  day -1 (IQR 0.11-0.18), were switched to study medication. The population pharmacokinetic model was able to accurately predict the clearance of amlodipine in the study population. Based on the final model, clearance was reduced by 31.2% (RSE: 10%) in females. Patient reported outcomes on taste from a five-point hedonic scale were available for five patients, who scored the taste from positive to slightly negative. Conclusion The results from the PK study and the acceptability assessment show that the amlodipine oral solution presented in this study offers an appropriate treatment option for young children.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2-21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10-14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

Biosimilar medicines have shown similarity with the originator biologic and offer a similar clinical outcome generally at a lower cost. This paper identifies benefits of off-patent biologics and biosimilars, and illustrates these benefits with empirical data from Europe. We provide a narrative review of published literature on values and benefits of biosimilars in Europe. The results describe cost savings as the key driver stemming from the lower price of biosimilars, than that of originator products, and from price competition between biosimilar(s), originator, and next-generation products. Cost savings may then translate into a number of other associated benefits. The lower price of biosimilars and similar effectiveness to the originator biologics improve cost effectiveness, implying that reimbursement can be granted or extended to other patient groups, or that the biologic therapy can be moved to an earlier line of treatment. Cost savings from biosimilars can be used to increase patient access to therapy or to increase the number of healthcare professionals. Finally, competition between off-patent biologics and biosimilars may stimulate an innovation in the formulation and development of next-generation biologics. Our paper illustrates that the benefit of off-patent biologics and biosimilars is not restricted to cost savings, but that these medicines may contribute to an expansion of medical treatment options for patients, hence concomitantly contributing to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system. This review provides a broader view for clinical and economic decision makers and healthcare professionals on the added benefits of off-patent biologics and their use in clinical practice.

Background : Limited previous research and guidelines on the design of economic evaluation for biosimilars have led to unresolved methodological questions on how to assess biosimilars. Objectives : We want to raise awareness of and explore methodological issues for the economic evaluation of biosimilars. Methods : We relied on a literature review, exploratory interviews, and our experiences. Results and Conclusions : In the majority of cases in which reimbursement for a biosimilar is sought, it will not be necessary to conduct an economic evaluation, given that the reference product is already reimbursed and standard of care. If the latter is not the case, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus standard of care is needed. This might also be needed in the case of differences in administration form or adherence (for example, due to a nocebo effect) and to take into account value-added services. The entry of biosimilars and of next-generation biological products should trigger a re-assessment of the entire product class. HTA bodies and reimbursement agencies should provide clear guidance on how to assess the value of a biosimilar in each of these circumstances., (© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Background The physicians' acceptance rate of pharmacists' interventions to improve pharmacotherapy can vary depending on the setting. The acceptance rate of interventions proposed by pharmacists located in the hospital pharmacy over the telephone and factors associated with acceptance are largely unknown. Objective To determine the physicians' acceptance rate of pharmacists' interventions proposed over the telephone in daily hospital practice and to identify factors associated with acceptance. Setting A retrospective case-control study was performed concerning adult patients admitted to a university hospital in the Netherlands. Method Pharmacists' interventions, based on alerts for drug-drug interactions and drug dosing in patients with renal impairment, recorded between January 2012 and June 2013 that were communicated over the telephone were included. Factors associated with physicians' acceptance were identified with the use of a mixed-effects logistic model. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the proportion of accepted interventions. Results A total of 841 interventions were included. Physicians accepted 599 interventions, resulting in an acceptance rate of 71.2%. The mixed-effects logistic model showed that acceptance was significantly associated with the number of prescribed drugs (16 to ≤ 20 drugs OR adj 1.88; 95% CI 1.05-3.35, > 20 drugs OR adj 2.90; 95% CI 1.41-5.96, compared to ≤ 10 drugs) and the severity of the drug-related problem (problem without potential harm OR adj 6.36; 95% CI 1.89-21.38; problem with potential harm OR 6.78; 95% CI 2.09-21.99, compared to clinically irrelevant problems), and inversely associated with continuation of pre-admission treatment (OR adj 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.87). Conclusion Over the study period, the majority of pharmacists' interventions proposed over the telephone were accepted by physicians. The probability for acceptance increased for patients with an increasing number of medication orders, for clinically relevant problems and for problems related to treatment initiated during admission.