BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Opinion Review
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 28, 2026; 32(28): 119462
Published online Jul 28, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.119462
Table 3 Comparison of biosimilar adoption challenges: High-income vs resource-limited settings
Factor
High-income setting
Resource-limited setting1
TDM availabilityRoutine and proactive; integrated into standard switching protocolsLimited or unavailable in most centers; reliance on clinical assessment alone[58]
Consultation time15-30 minutes; dedicated IBD clinics with multidisciplinary teams5-10 minutes; general GI outpatient setting without dedicated IBD infrastructure[37]
Patient education resourcesNurse-led programs, digital tools, IBD helplines, patient associationsLimited; no dedicated IBD nurse specialist role in most settings[59]
Fecal calprotectin accessStandard of care; point-of-care testing increasingly availableOften unavailable or unaffordable; not routinely reimbursed[58]
Physician biosimilar trainingIntegrated into CME; supported by peer networks and professional societiesVariable; limited formal exposure; knowledge gaps regarding extrapolation and interchangeability[63]
Reimbursement structureEstablished biosimilar incentive programs; gainsharing modelsRestricted formularies; predominantly out-of-pocket payment; biosimilar-specific incentives rare[61]
Switching policy frameworkStructured programs with shared decision-making; institutional protocolsOften policy-driven without concomitant communication support or monitoring infrastructure[12]
Nocebo risk environmentModerate; mitigated by dedicated stewardship programs and infrastructureHigh; structural amplification due to convergence of short consultations, low health literacy, social media misinformation, and low baseline trust[12,37]


Write to the Help Desk