Biosimilars In Europe Research Articles

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe – part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment

ABSTRACT 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.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe – part 1: a historical perspective

ABSTRACT 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.

Biosimilars in chronic inflammatory diseases: facts and remaining questions 5 years after their introduction in Europe

ABSTRACT Introduction Five years after the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar, biologics have found their place in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, but there are remaining questions. This is a review of the introduction of antibody biosimilars in Europe; the reasons for their success and how biosimilar hesitancy was quailed. Areas covered We provide an overview of the concepts of biosimilarity, extrapolation, and interchangeability, using examples in rheumatology and gastroenterology for illustration. A review of the evidence collected from switching studies using robust designs is included. Remaining questions such as ‘inter-switching’ are also discussed. Expert opinion Biosimilars have democratized access to powerful medicines. Efficacy and safety studies provided reassuring data, but knowledge gaps persist. The availability of so-called ‘bio-betters’ might open new avenues and change clinical practice.

Off-Patent Biologicals and Biosimilars Tendering in Europe-A Proposal towards More Sustainable Practices.

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.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures.

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.

Sustainability of Biosimilars in Europe: A Delphi Panel Consensus with Systematic Literature Review.

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.

Clinical evidence supporting the marketing authorization of biosimilars in Europe.

To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017-2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice.

Identifying Key Benefits in European Off-Patent Biologics and Biosimilar Markets: It is Not Only About Price!

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.

Biosimilars in Developed Economies: Overview, Status, and Regulatory Considerations

Biotherapeutics dominate the pipelines of pharmaceutical companies across the world today with products ranging from hormones, immune-modulators, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), blood coagulation factors, enzymes and vaccines. However, they are considerably more expensive than their small molecule counterparts (pharmaceuticals) and as a result their contribution to the already unacceptably high healthcare costs in the developed economies (Europe, United States, Japan, Canada and South Korea) has been in the limelight in the last decade. This has resulted in the rise of biosimilars, seen as the affordable versions of innovator biotherapeutics. As the developed economies form the majority of the global sales of biotherapeutics, they are an attractive market for the biosimilars as well. Regulatory considerations for approval of biosimilars in these jurisdictions is likely to have a major impact on the adoption of biosimilars. In this paper, we offer a perspective on this topic while focusing on the developed markets. This article summarizes the main regulatory requirements for approval of biosimilars in Europe, United States, Japan, Canada, and South Korea. An overview on current biosimilars status and market in the aforesaid countries has also been included.

Current status, issue and future perspectives for biosimilars in Japan from the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness

Abstract In Japan, maintaining the universal health insurance system has become a major social issue in our rapidly aging society with soaring expense of social security contributions and skyrocketing medical costs, etc. Nowadays generic medicines have become standard therapeutic medicines even in the field of cancer treatment. In terms of cost-effectiveness, biosimilars are expected to enhance patients’ access to beneficial treatment and so contribute to patients’ quality of life as well as reducing the economic burden and total medical expenses while providing equivalent therapeutic outcomes inexpensively compared to the original biologics. Regarding the approval requirements of biosimilars, unlike generic products, they need a Phase III clinical trial in addition to the characterization study which proves similarity to the originals. Biosimilars have been approved through a review process of an application package which is similar to that of new drugs. However, in Japan, biosimilars have not become standard therapeutic choices yet. Approvals of biosimilars and their prevalence in the medical front have been proceeding in Europe and those products have grown in popularity as standard therapeutic choices. In European countries, the European Medicines Agency, academic societies and governmental authorities in each country have implemented a variety of measures to facilitate use of biosimilars. As part of such efforts, the EMA published a guideline on similar biological medicinal products containing G-CSF in 2006. In overseas ASCO and ESMO have already issued a position paper and statement on biosimilar products. In Japan, the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology recommends the biosimilars in its guideline for acceptable use in 2013. This presentation covers the initiatives for biosimilars in Europe and the US, the situation and the challenges in Japan as well as the activities of the Japan Biosimilar Association.

Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of the Clinical Evidence.

Adalimumab, the first fully humanised monoclonal antibody against tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), has played a leading role in the revolution brought about by the introduction of biologics, and has received the widest range of indications among TNF-α inhibitors. Post-registration, observational and registry studies of real-life use have largely supported the outcomes seen in registrational clinical trials. With the recent loss of exclusivity for the originator medicinal product in Europe, a number of biosimilar adalimumab molecules have been licensed for use in the same indications as the originator molecule across rheumatology, dermatology, gastroenterology and ophthalmology. Clinicians in these areas first gained experience with biosimilar infliximab, followed by etanercept and rituximab. However, adalimumab is likely to present unique challenges given the numbers of patients treated and the range of biosimilar adalimumab products available. The biosimilar approval pathway has an emphasis on the pre-clinical analytic data in combination with clinical studies conducted to confirm therapeutic equivalence. To date, several adalimumab biosimilars have entered the EU market following successful marketing authorisation applications and recent expiration of originator patent protection. This overview covers the extent of use of adalimumab and summarises the regulatory process involved in the development of biosimilars as well as their use in clinical practice. The authors also discuss clinical data available so far on adalimumab biosimilars and their envisaged impact in the field of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents in the Management of Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease or Cancer: A Historical Perspective.

Anemia is common in patients with cancer or with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has transformed the management of anemia, their use has been complicated by a number of factors including frequent guideline updates, safety concerns and, in the United States, a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, which aimed to ensure that the benefits of ESAs outweigh the risks. Many previous concerns around ESA use in cancer and CKD have been addressed by the reassuring results of post-approval studies, and biosimilar ESAs have been used in Europe for many years, with safety and efficacy profiles similar to originator products. This review describes the evolution of the use of ESAs from approval to the present day, discussing results from clinical studies of ESAs in cancer and CKD, and the influence of these findings on product labeling and guideline updates. We also discuss the impact of the introduction of ESA biosimilars in Europe, bringing cost savings and increased access to patients.

The surge in biosimilars: considerations for effective pharmacovigilance and EU regulation.

The development of biosimilars is growing rapidly, especially in Europe. They are a cost-effective alternative to original biological medicines and can help improve patient access to these therapies. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has been the first to issue scientific guidelines related to regulatory requirements for the approval of biosimilars. These guidelines have been being updated in line with advances in analytical techniques and growing experience in the clinical use of these drugs. Given the complex nature of biological medicines, they pose a greater potential risk of immunogenicity than nonbiological medicines, and hence warrant special consideration. The risk management plan for biopharmaceuticals (innovator and biosimilar drugs) should be based on strengthening ongoing pharmacovigilance activities, especially in the post-approval period. This paper addresses regulatory issues related to the approval of biosimilars in Europe associated with safety considerations linked to the development and use of these medicines. We also discuss the issues of immunogenicity, interchangeability and traceability of biological medicines.

How to realize the potential of off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe? Guidance to policymakers

How to realize the potential of off-patent biologicals and biosimilars in Europe? Guidance to policymakers

An update on the clinical evidence that supports biosimilar approvals in Europe.

AimSponsors and regulators have more than 10 years of experience with the development of biosimilars in Europe. However, the regulatory pathway is still evolving. The present article provides an update on biosimilar development in practice by reviewing the clinical development programmes of recently approved biosimilars in Europe.MethodsWe used the European public assessment reports (EPARs) which are published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for a comparison of the clinical development programmes of the 37 approved biosimilars in Europe. Here, we present novel strategies in the development of biosimilars by focusing specifically on the 17 biosimilars that have gained approval in the last year, but we also compare additional key characteristics for all approved biosimilars.ResultsThe high variability of the clinical development strategies that we found previously was confirmed in the present analysis. Compared with earlier biosimilar applications, more nonstandard development strategies have been used recently. This includes, for example, applications without any studies in patients, and more complex study designs. During this study, we found that the EPARs for biosimilars seem to be improving; however, we identified important details which were still often missing. We provide a proposal for a checklist of the minimum information that should be included in biosimilar EPARs for giving the general public insights into the rationale for the approval of biosimilars.ConclusionsEuropean regulators still seem to be open to consider approaches that differ from the guidelines or previous applications, as long as justification is provided.

Ten years of biosimilars in Europe: development and evolution of the regulatory pathways.

A biosimilar is defined by the European Medicines Agency as a biological medicine that is similar to another biological medicine that has already been authorized for use. A science-based regulatory framework to ensure high-quality biosimilars has been established in Europe since 2005 and is monitored and updated on an ongoing basis. The guiding principle of a biosimilar development program is to establish similarity between the biosimilar and the reference medicine by the best possible means, ensuring that the previously proven safety and efficacy of the reference medicinal product also applies to the biosimilar. Development of a biosimilar is underpinned by state-of-the-art analytical techniques to characterize both reference medicines and biosimilars. The extent and nature of the nonclinical in vivo studies and clinical studies to be performed depend on the level of evidence obtained in the previous step(s), including the robustness of the physicochemical, biological, and nonclinical in vitro data. Extrapolation is an important element of the biosimilarity concept. When biosimilar comparability has been demonstrated in one indication, extrapolation of the data package to other indications of the reference medicine could be acceptable, but needs to be scientifically justified and considered in light of the demonstrated level of sameness by all analytical, nonclinical, and clinical data. The credibility of the scientific basis behind the biosimilar concept, and quality of regulatory decision-making, is demonstrated by the successful approval and clinical use of 20 biosimilar medicines since 2006 when Omnitrope® was the first biosimilar to be approved. The regulatory environment for biosimilars continues to evolve, both in recognition of advances in technology/analytical methods and the availability of new targets for biosimilar development.

Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel disease.

The introduction of biologic therapies has revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and has significantly improved the disease course and outcomes for many patients. Biologics are the main drivers of cost in many IBD units and biosimilars, although are not better than originators, are usually cheaper and thus can increase the availability of this type of therapy. Biosimilar are highly similar to innovator but, due to the complex structures of innovators and the variability inherent in the manufacturing process, they are no identical. This fact cause concerns with respect to the efficacy and safety in medical community, especially in the medical indications in which no specific clinical trials with biosimilars have been performed as IBD. Nowadays, two biosimilars to infliximab, CT-P13 and SB2, has been approved by European Medicines Agency in all the indications of the reference product. To date, the available evidence suggests that switch from reference medicinal product (infliximab) to the biosimilar (CT-P13 or SB2) is feasible since published studies have not observed significantly difference in terms of efficacy, immunogenicity and safety. However, the experts agreed that by now there is not sufficient evidence to consider infliximab biosimilars interchangeable with the originator compound. In this manuscript, we will review the processes involved in the manufacturing and regulatory approval of biosimilars and examine the evidence presently available on approved biosimilars in Europe for IBD.

Key drivers for market penetration of biosimilars in Europe

ABSTRACTBackground & Objectives: Potential drivers and barriers of biosimilar uptake were mainly analysed through qualitative approaches. The study objective was to conduct a quantitative analysis and identify drivers of biosimilar uptake of all available biosimilars in the European Union (EU).Methods: A three-step process was established to identify key drivers for the uptake of biosimilars in the top 10 EU member states (MS) pharmaceutical markets (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK): (1) literature review to identify incentive policies in place to enhance biosimilars adoption; (2) assessment of biosimilar market dynamics based on database analysis; (3) regression model analysis on price using the following explicative variables: incentive policies; price difference between the biosimilar and the originator product; distribution channel; generic uptake and generic price cut; pharmaceutical expenditure per capita; and market competition.Results: At the study cut-off date, 20 biosimilars were available on the market. Incentive policies applied to biosimilars were found to be heterogeneous across countries, and uptakes of biosimilars were also very heterogeneous between different therapeutic classes and countries. Results from the model demonstrated that incentive policies and the date of first biosimilar market entry were correlated to biosimilar uptake. Pharmaceutical expenditure per capita and the highest generic uptake were inversely correlated with biosimilar uptake. Average generic price discount over originator and the number of biosimilars showed a trend toward statistical significance for correlation with biosimilar uptake, but did not reach the significance threshold. Biosimilar price discount over original biologic price, the number of analogues, and the distribution channel were not correlated with the biosimilar uptake.Conclusions: Understanding drivers of biosimilar uptake becomes a critical issue to inform policy decision-makers. This study showed that incentive policies to enhance uptake remain an important driver of biosimilar penetration, while biosimilar price discounts have no impact. Future research is warranted when the biosimilar market gains maturity.

PHP325 - key Drivers for Market Penetration of Biosimilars in Europe

PHP325 - key Drivers for Market Penetration of Biosimilars in Europe

Biosimilars: A Multidisciplinary Perspective

A biosimilar is an officially regulated and approved copy of an originator biologic therapy. Improved affordability and consequent wider patient access compared with biologics are a significant appeal of biosimilars. Regulatory guidelines for biosimilar development and approval are rigorous and undergoing constant refinement. The process of licensing approval for all biosimilars requires demonstration of comparability in quality, efficacy, and safety between the biosimilar and reference (originator) product, which is undertaken in a stepwise procedure of nonclinical and clinical evaluation. The approval of >20 biosimilars in Europe in several drug classes, including the first monoclonal antibody biosimilar, bears testimony to the increasing regulatory acceptance of these agents. In contrast, the clinical application of biosimilars remains underrecognized by physicians across therapy areas. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the biosimilar development process and to provide multidisciplinary guidance on the potential therapeutic utility of biosimilars in clinical practice. Specifically, experts discuss clinical developments in the introduction of biosimilars across the disciplines of gastroenterology, nephrology, oncology, and rheumatology, and from a payer perspective, and also highlight a common need for ongoing pharmacovigilance, robust head-to-head clinical studies, and real-world data to establish the long-term risk-benefit profile of biosimilars. In conclusion, significant potential exists for biosimilars to revolutionize biologic therapy by widening patient access across therapy areas.