Background:With increasing numbers of oncology biosimilars in the approval pipeline, it is important to investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need prior to adoption.Methods:Between January and May 2018, 77 oncology clinicians (52 physicians, 16 pharmacists, and 9 advanced practice providers) completed a survey covering three domains: clinician understanding, prescription preferences, and patient involvement. An in-depth interview was designed based on themes identified in the first 50 surveys: cost, safety and efficacy, patient preference, and disease stage. Participants were chosen to participate in the interview based on outlying responses to survey questions.Results:When asked to define a biosimilar, 74% (57/77) of respondents could not give a satisfactory definition, and 40.3% (31/77) considered a biosimilar the same as a generic drug. The most important factor in biosimilar prescription was safety and efficacy (4.51 out of 5) followed closely by cost differences (4.34 out of 5). A 40% increase (53.2–94.8%) in clinicians’ prescribing likelihood was seen after a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable. Participants in this study were split regarding the importance of shared decision-making with patients [50.7% (39/77) important or extremely important, 39.0% (30/77) somewhat or not at all important]. Clinicians were also split concerning the role that pharmacists should play in the decision to prescribe or substitute biosimilars.Conclusion:Understanding of biosimilars is low, and educational needs are high. The information that clinicians deem important to assess, such as safety, efficacy and cost, will need to be provided before they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars.
e18338 Background: The cost of oncology care is increasing. The NIH projects that the oncology drug market will reach $111.9 billion by 2020. Studies show that oncology patients experience considerable financial burden, regardless of insurance status and in general believe that oncology medications are too expensive. However, there is some evidence outside of oncology that suggests patients may not trust generics or cheaper medications. Therefore, there is a need to assess oncology patients’ views of a biosimilars and their potential to reduce costs. Methods: We surveyed a convenience sample of 79 oncology patients in clinics and the infusion center. The survey consisted of five questions on cost and patient participation in decision making. Results: Of 79 patients approached, 75 (95%) completed the survey. Fifty (66%) believed that expensive medications do not work better than less costly ones for the same disease; yet only 30 of those 50 (60%) and 44% overall (33/75) would prefer that their doctor prescribe them the cheaper version of their anti-cancer medication. Of the 20 respondents who believed that expensive drugs do not work better but still wanted the more expensive drugs for themselves, 8 believed cancer was too serious of an illness to take any chances with a cheaper medication, 5 wanted the most expensive that insurance would cover and 2 wanted the best possible medication. 90.67% respondents (68/75) wanted to know if their physician was prescribing a cheaper version of their drug. Conclusions: Our results show that, overall, oncology patients agree that cheaper medications work as well as more expensive ones, but there are definite concerns among some patients that drug price may be a proxy for quality, particularly in cancer. Overcoming these negative perceptions among patients will be important if optimal cost savings are going to be realized with expanded biosimilar use.
e24193 Background: It is difficult for patients to distinguish non-therapeutic from therapeutic procedures in research. In phase I trials, day 1 pretreatment biological samples are used for research and care; posttreatment samples are for research purposes only. Preliminary data suggested patients did not understand this difference. Our study tested to see if a simple information chart would improve understanding of the nontherapeutic research procedure. Methods: A sequential two arm study was conducted. Controls (C) were asked whether samples taken at different times on day 1 of the trial were to be used for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental (E) group provided patients with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of required samples and patients were then asked the same questions. Results: 100 patients (50 each C and E) were interviewed after consenting to a trial. Patients were mostly white (63%), male (53%), with an annual income > $60,000 (51%); 49% had a college degree. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment samples were for patient care and research was moderate (50% C; 62% E). Understanding that posttreatment samples were for research was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% C; 44% E p = 0.002). Conclusions: Questions regarding the purpose of biological samples taken pre-administration of study drug were less susceptible to therapeutic misconception due to the “both” option being true. Since the provision of an informational chart significantly improved understanding of the purpose of the posttreatment sample, we suggest that providing such a chart may help alleviate this type of therapeutic misconception. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.