
Psoriasis: Why Biosimilar Drugs Are So Hard to Get
But these medications, which are nearly identical to costlier biologics like Enbrel, Humira, Remicade, and Stelara, have faced various obstacles preventing more than a third of them from reaching market.
The FDA says biosimilars have "no clinically meaningful differences" from the pricier name brands, at savings of 15% to 30% – or even more.
Also known as "follow-on" drugs, biosimilars typically come out after the primary patent expires on the original biologic. Like biologics, they are made from living cells.
Yet while 21 biosimilars have been approved for psoriasis, only 13 are currently available.
Among the barriers:
Insurers tend to favor name brands. Health insurers often give biologics preferential treatment on their list of drugs covered, called a formulary. That could be because pharmacy benefit managers negotiate larger rebates with biologic makers, and share that rebate with insurers, said Kavita Y. Sarin, MD, PhD, a professor of dermatology at Stanford Medicine.
You may have to try the biologic first. Insurance plans often require patients to follow "step" therapy. That means trying other treatments (even if you've tried them before) and failing with them before getting approval to use a biosimilar.
Legal battles drag on. Patent disputes over who owns the rights to the drug can delay access to a biosimilar, sometimes by several years.
Most people don't know much about biosimilars. More than 70% of psoriasis patients have a poor understanding of biosimilars, according to an American Academy of Dermatology survey.
The Need for Treatment
The severity of psoriasis, a skin condition, varies greatly, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation. The key cause is an overactive immune system, leading to a rapid increase in skin cell production that forms raised, scaly patches on the skin, ranging in color from red to purple. Those affected report that it itches, burns, and stings. It's linked with other serious health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and depression.
Treatment options include light therapy, topicals, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, biologics, and biosimilars, among others. Yet support groups and social media communities are full of people looking for more help.
The Long Trail of Approval
The 21 biosimilars approved for psoriasis correspond to reference biologic products Enbrel, Humira, Remicade, and Stelara. The medications adjust the immune system and inhibit the processes that lead to inflammation and increased skin cell production.
But the lag from approval to availability can be long. Adalimumab-atta (Amjevita) was approved in 2016 but did not become available until January 2023. Of the 16 adalimumab biosimilars FDA-approved for skin-related problems, the median time from approval to commercial access was just over a year, Sarin found.
Many biosimilar makers are the same companies – or subsidiaries of the companies – that produce the original biologics, Sarin said, potentially giving them an incentive to delay or control competition. While there's no confirmed evidence of that happening, some biosimilar launches have been delayed after confidential settlements with originator companies. The Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 142), introduced in the U.S. Senate in March 2023, would prohibit such agreements – but the bill has stalled.
Costs of biologics vary. As one example: Two pens of Humira can be $7,300, or $3,650 each, without insurance. A Humira biosimilar pen is listed online at $674.
Biosimilars' Excellent Track Record
"Our research shows that biosimilars are generally safe and effective for treating psoriasis, and doctors can feel confident prescribing them," said Duc Binh Phan, MSc, a research associate at the University of Manchester, U.K., who has evaluated research tracking how well biosimilars and biologics work.
In one paper, he reviewed 16 studies of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, with most evidence suggesting they were like the biologics in effectiveness and safety. One study did find a higher risk of adverse events with an adalimumab biosimilar. That points to the need for more studies to evaluate the real-world effectiveness, he said.
But overall, "they work as well and as safely as the original (or 'originator') biologic drugs and can help more patients access treatment due to their lower cost," Phan said.
He also found that those who switched from a biologic to a biosimilar were more likely to stop treatment, citing mild side effects, reactions where the shot went in, or going back to the original.
That could be due to differences in the injection device or to psychological factors, Phan said. "Some patients might be wary of switching to a drug they perceive as 'cheaper' or not the same, which can affect how well they feel it works."
He also cited the "nocebo effect" – when someone expects a treatment not to work and that leads to a worse experience.
He advises doctors to tailor the treatment to the patient.
It's also worth noting, Phan said, that some may develop an immune response to a biologic drug over time, making the treatment (and its biosimilars) less effective. In that case, switching to a different biologic with a different mode of action might be needed, he said.
He urges ongoing research, as biologics are relatively new.
The Old Switcheroo
Even if you do get a prescribed biosimilar, it could be switched to a different product – another biosimilar or the original biologic – without warning, said Melissa C. Leeolou, a fourth-year medical student at Stanford University who co-authored a report with Sarin.
"Medication substitution can occur when insurers or pharmacy benefit managers change formulary coverage, typically for financial reasons," Leeolou said. "If a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable to a reference biologic by the FDA, pharmacies in some states may substitute it for the reference product without notifying the prescriber [your doctor]."
Even without that designation, the insurer may require a switch by denying coverage for the prescribed product.
If the prescription switches to a less expensive product, any cost savings may go to the insurer or the pharmacy benefit manager, not the patient, Leeolou said. It depends on the plan, Sarin said.
A Patient-Researcher's View
"We're so lucky to have biologics," said Leeolou, a lifelong psoriasis patient. "It's important to know they exist as an alternative and [for patients] to talk to their doctors about them."
Sarin suggests that patients with psoriasis become more aware – not just of access to and the promise of biosimilars, but of the possibility of being switched, once on a biosimilar, from one to another without being alerted.
If that happens to you, you should tell your doctor, who may be able to help you figure out why the switch was made and answer any questions you may have about the new treatment. If coverage was denied, your doctor can request a prior authorization or file an appeal. A prescription marked "dispense as written" may help, but it doesn't always override insurer policies.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK launches neighbourhood health service to improve NHS access
The UK Government has unveiled a new neighbourhood health service aimed at enhancing access to the National Health Service (NHS) and shifting care from hospitals to local communities. This initiative is part of the government's Plan for Change, which seeks to improve patient care. The new health centres will offer a comprehensive range of services and be staffed by multidisciplinary teams, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social care workers, and other health professionals. Community health workers and volunteers will also be integral to these teams, with innovative community outreach programmes planned to identify early signs of illness. While launching the government's 10-Year Health Plan, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer highlighted the importance of moving care from hospitals to the community as one of three critical changes needed to revitalise the NHS. The plan also focuses on moving from analogue to digital systems and prioritising prevention over sickness treatment. Starmer said: 'Our 10-Year Health Plan will fundamentally rewire and future-proof our NHS so that it puts care on people's doorsteps, harnesses game-changing tech and prevents illness in the first place.' The new health centres, which will eventually operate 12 hours a day, six days a week, aim to bring services traditionally based in hospitals, such as diagnostics and post-operative care, into the community. In addition, they will provide support services, such as debt advice and employment support. To support this transformation, the government will train several general practitioners (GPs). This is expected to end the 8am rush for appointments and make GP services more accessible. Digital advancements are a cornerstone of the government's plan, with AI scribes set to eliminate the need for manual clinical notetaking and data entry. New tools will be launched to support GPs, and digital telephony will ensure calls to GP practices are answered promptly. Dental care is also a focus of the plan, with dental care professionals becoming part of neighbourhood teams. New requirements for newly qualified dentists to practise in the NHS for at least three years are intended to improve access to dental services. The 10-Year Health Plan outlines a future where the majority of outpatient care will take place outside of hospitals by 2035. "UK launches neighbourhood health service to improve NHS access" was originally created and published by Hospital Management, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Harvard Business Review
40 minutes ago
- Harvard Business Review
Research: Being Well Connected Isn't Always Good for Your Career
Conventional wisdom says that when it comes to career opportunities, it's not about what you know, but who you know. And research has found, in fact, that prestigious connections do open doors and make people seem more capable than their peers—as if proximity to greatness implies a degree of similar excellence. But what impact do these star connections have after someone has landed a new job? In new research, we sought to find out. Our recent paper, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated whether and how past connections with industry stars might shape long-term career evaluations and outcomes, particularly after an employee's objective performance data becomes available. Through an analysis of the careers of National Basketball Association (NBA) head coaches and an experiment with nearly 500 working professionals, we found that connections don't just help people land jobs: They continue to shape performance evaluations long after working relationships with stars have ended. How Ties to Titans Inflate Performance Expectations To begin our study, we examined the career trajectories of 179 NBA head coaches over 40 years. Professionals in the NBA, like many traditional firms, operate in high-stakes, performance-driven environments with clear career trajectories. This makes the NBA a useful context for studying career and talent decisions. We found that coaches who had previously served under legendary leaders, like Phil Jackson, for example, were less likely to be fired when their new teams performed worse than industry expectations, compared to coaches who weren't connected to stars. However, when connected coaches' teams performed exceptionally well, they were at greater risk of being fired, relative to head coaches who lacked any prior star connections. In other words, our study found that having a star connection helped buffer head coaches from the consequences of underperformance but could hurt them when they performed well. These effects lasted for up to nine years after a working relationship with a star coach had ended. To explore this dynamic further, we conducted a follow-up study with nearly 500 working professionals tasked with evaluating the performance of hypothetical new hires in the design industry. As evaluators, participants made an 'up or out' decision about each designer, one with a prior connection to an industry titan, and the other without such a connection. We found the same patterns arose: New hires with prior ties to an industry star were shielded when they underperformed, but their strong performance was often discounted. Although performance was presented as objective scores, participants' evaluations were skewed by the shadow of the industry titan associated with the connected designer. We also discovered that our participants, especially those who held more inflated expectations for star-connected designers, were significantly less likely to attribute star-connected employees' underperformance to low ability or low effort. Conversely, underperformance from a non-connected designer was attributed directly to the individual's ability and effort. Why Connections Influence Evaluations We believe that the answer lies in a psychological phenomenon known as balance theory. According to this theory, people strive for consistency in their beliefs and associations. When someone is linked to an industry star, evaluators set high expectations for the protégé and seek to maintain a positive image of them and their mentor. This leads people to rationalize evidence that contradicts their expectations, especially when the star-connected individual underperforms. Conversely, strong performance merely confirms what is already assumed and is therefore viewed as unremarkable. Consider Bob Nardelli, a protégé of the legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch. After being recruited to be the CEO of Home Depot, Nardelli delivered strong financial results early in his tenure. However, he received little recognition and as ultimately forced out: In 2002, after announcing a 35% profit increase that beat Wall Street's expectations, the company's stock still dropped. Reflecting on this, Nardelli remarked: 'I can understand not getting rewarded, but I don't understand getting punished.' Of course, there could have been multiple factors contributing to Nardelli's downfall, including a leadership style that clashed with his company's entrepreneurial culture. Still, it is fair to speculate that his performance might have been judged against the towering expectations set by his association with Welch. Some Limitations As with any research, our findings should be interpreted with some caution. Our NBA field study focused on a male-dominated environment, which may not generalize to other industries with different make-ups. Additionally, the experimental study, although conducted with working professionals, relied on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the messiness of real-world evaluations. Still, the consistent patterns we found across our studies provides strong evidence that industry stars can, in fact, cast a long shadow on the future evaluations of their protégés. Strategies for Making Better Talent Decisions Whether you're an executive overseeing talent pipelines or an emerging leader navigating your career path, understanding how past ties to prominent figures can distort performance evaluations is essential. Prestige-by-association can create unrealistic expectations, offering not only unfair protection, but they can lead to blind spots and overlooked achievements. Here's how executive decision makers and rising leaders can respond: If you're evaluating rising leaders: Don't let reflected prestige cloud your judgment. Hiring star-connected people is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when their objective qualifications are strong. But be mindful that your (often unconscious) high expectations for star-connected employees can create blind spots in how you evaluate them, while others who lack star connections may be evaluated more critically. Before making key decisions (like promotions or dismissals), ask: Would I judge this person's performance the same way if I didn't know this person's background? What biases do their relationship with this star create? What expectations do I feel, because of this association? Create structured, criteria-based evaluation systems that focus on performance, behaviors, and competencies, minimizing the influence of what evaluators may already know about a person, such as their connections to industry titans or an elite MBA degree. Incorporate 360-degree feedback or use a promotion committee, as multi-source input can help reveal blind spots and social biases. If you're a rising leader: Own your accomplishments. Whether you're star-connected or not, it's important to take ownership of your achievements. Our study found that proximity (or distance) from stars can cause biases among evaluators. This makes it even more important to highlight specific outcomes you've delivered, challenges you've overcome, or innovations you've led that clearly demonstrate your individual contributions. If you do have a connection, it may be useful not to lean on it when it comes time for evaluations. . . . Prestigious connections are powerful. They can help you reach that important first rung on the career ladder. But the ongoing influence of star connections can distort how merit is evaluated and rewarded. In a world obsessed with who you know, let's not forget to focus on what people actually achieve.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who's the coolest person at your July 4 barbecue? They got six things goin' on, according to a new study
An international team of researchers may have just cracked the code for what makes someone 'cool.' And no matter where you live, the personality traits that make someone 'cool' appear to be consistent across countries, according to the study, published this week in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The researchers found that, compared with people considered to be 'good' or 'favorable,' those considered 'cool' are perceived to be more extroverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous. 'The most surprising thing was seeing that the same attributes emerge in every country,' said Todd Pezzuti, an associate professor of marketing at Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez in Chile who was a co-lead researcher on the study. 'Regardless of whether it's China or Korea or Chile or the US, people like people who are pushing boundaries and sparking change,' he said. 'So I would say that coolness really represents something more fundamental than the actual label of coolness.' The researchers – from Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, the University of Arizona and the University of Georgia – conducted experiments from 2018 to 2022 with nearly 6,000 people across a dozen countries: Australia, Chile, China, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the United States. The participants were asked to think of a person in their lives whom they perceive to be 'cool,' 'uncool,' 'good' or 'not good.' They were then asked to rate that person's personality using two scales: the Big Five Personality scale, a widely used scientific model that helps describe personality traits, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire, intended to measure an individual's basic values. The study participants consistently associated being calm, conscientious, universalistic, agreeable, warm, secure, traditional and conforming with being a good person, more than with being a cool person. Being capable was considered to be both 'cool' and 'good' but not distinctly either. But the formula for being 'cool' was having the six character traits – more extroverted, hedonistic, powerful, adventurous, open and autonomous – no matter the person's age, gender or education level. Pezzuti doesn't think these 'cool' traits are something that can be taught. 'We're born with those attributes,' he said. 'Five of those attributes are personality traits, and personality traits tend to be fairly stable.' The research showed that cool people and good people aren't the same, but there may be some overlapping traits, said co-lead researcher Caleb Warren, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Arizona. 'To be seen as cool, someone usually needs to be somewhat likable or admirable, which makes them similar to good people,' Warren said in a news release. 'However, cool people often have other traits that aren't necessarily considered 'good' in a moral sense, like being hedonistic and powerful.' A limitation of the research was that only people who understood what 'cool' means were included in the study. Pezzuti said it would be interesting – but difficult – to determine whether the findings would be similar among more traditional cultures or remote groups of people who may be less familiar with the term. 'We don't know what we would find in supertraditional cultures like hunting-and-gathering tribes or sustenance farming groups,' Pezzuti said. 'One thing we would propose is that in those cultures, 'cool' people don't have as important of a role because innovation, or cultural innovation, isn't as important in those cultures,' he said. 'So I would say that cool people are probably present in those cultures, but their role isn't as big, and they're probably not as admired as they are in other cultures.' When asked to think of a public figure or celebrity who embodies 'coolness' based on his research, Pezzuti immediately said Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. 'He's a controversial figure, but someone who comes to my mind is Elon Musk,' Pezzuti said, adding that he checks all the boxes of the six attributes identified in the study. Musk is 'undeniably powerful' and autonomous, he said, and appears to be extroverted due to his presence on social media platforms and in the media. 'I hear that he's timid, maybe more timid than he seems, but from an outsider, he seems very extroverted. He's entertaining. He's on podcasts and always in front of cameras,' Pezzuti explained. Some of Musk's behavior also appears to be hedonistic, he said. 'He smoked marijuana on the most popular podcast in the world, 'The Joe Rogan Experience.'' And Pezzuti added that Musk's ideas about colonizing Mars show him to be open and adventurous. The new paper is one of the few empirical studies that examines what exactly makes people 'cool,' said Jonah Berger, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business. 'While people have long wondered (and theorized) about what makes people cool, there hasn't been a lot of actual empirical research on the topic, so it's great to see work exploring this space,' Berger, who was not involved in the new paper, wrote in an email. 'While coolness might seem like something you are born with, there are certainly steps people can take to try and move in that direction,' he said. 'Given how many people want to be cool, and how much money is spent with that goal in mind, it certainly seems worth studying.' Future research in this space could evaluate coolness in tandem with goodness and badness rather than in isolation from it, said Jon Freeman, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia University. 'In real life, coolness can be a positive quality but can also have a negative connotation in certain social contexts. It may be valuable for future work to examine the differences between good coolness and bad coolness, and this study's approach offers a great foundation,' Freeman, who also was not involved in the new study, wrote in an email. 'From a scientific standpoint, cool would seem far more a product of inference and social construction than genetics, although low-level temperament informed by genetics could feed into ongoing personality construction,' he said. ''Cool' is deeply ingrained in our social vocabulary because it serves as a shorthand for complex inferences. It encapsulates signals of status, affiliation, and identity in ways that are instantaneous yet deeply stereotyped. From a scientific perspective, studying coolness is important precisely because it reveals how rapid, schematic trait inferences influence behavior and social dynamics, especially in the age of social media and influencer culture.'