In a survey of over 1200 US physicians across multiple specialties, physician peers (64%) were the most trusted source of biosimilar information, after peer reviewed literature (88%) and regulatory agencies (73%), such as the FDA [
16]. More recently, the importance of social influence was demonstrated in a large network analysis showing subsequent uptake of bevacizumab being associated with peer-to-peer connections to early adopters of the treatment [
35]. Therefore, there is considerable opportunity for clinicians to educate and influence their fellow practitioners regarding biosimilars, thereby impacting uptake. One approach is for clinicians to develop standardized treatment guidelines for biosimilars. For a recent example of the development of treatment algorithms and decision trees for various clinical scenarios, consider the review article by Reinisch et al on the use of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease [
36]. Greater standardization has the benefit of reducing negative outcomes from variance introduced by treatment setting and clinician experience/expertise. Treatment standards will also benefit real-world studies, which will be a lot easier to evaluate if the input data (i.e., treatment regimens) are comparable. A second approach is for clinicians to integrate biosimilars as part of a more comprehensive treatment strategy. For example, therapeutic drug monitoring (i.e., checking serum drug levels to guide future decisions), biomarker monitoring (i.e., to predict relapse risk and provide an objective measure of disease activity), and multidisciplinary working (i.e., bringing together diagnostic/treatment input from all providers involved in treatment of a given patient) have all been offered as examples of how biosimilars treatment can be enhanced to improve outcomes [
37]. Any approaches that enhance outcomes will build clinician confidence in the efficacy of biosimilars, which will impact uptake; all the better if such approaches come from fellow clinicians, who are clearly a trusted source of information for each other. It also bears mentioning that the ability to influence prescribing habits through peer experiences also helps address the need for provider education to overcome the inertia of behavioral economics biases that might impede biosimilar prescribing [
38]. For example, familiarity bias (i.e., physician preference for the status quo based on past experiences) can result in prescribing decisions based primarily on the level of comfort with a specific treatment option. By enhancing familiarity with biosimilars through educational efforts that leverage peer experiences, potential biases can be mitigated in physician decision making, enabling greater biosimilar acceptance amongst providers.