This study's aims were: 1) to extract a comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experience and opinions of both community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists regarding biosimilar medicines in France; and 2) to identify the perceived problems and solutions to promoting their prescription. A 2015 web-based survey was conducted by the Observatoire des Médicaments, des Dispositifs Médicaux et de l'Innovation Thérapeutique of Alsace. A total of 802 pharmacists responded to the survey. Many (536, 66.8%, [95% confidence interval (CI) 63.6-70.1]) indicated that they were not familiar with biosimilars. Half of community pharmacists (95% CI 42.7-57.3) stated that they were not at all informed about biosimilar drugs, compared with 15.7% (95% CI 12.9-18.6) of hospital pharmacists. Almost all respondents (781, 97.4%, [95% CI 96.3-98.5]) had at least one pending question on biosimilars. Most of the questions were related to the manufacturing process, safety, substitution rules and the international non-proprietary name prescription. At the time of the study, 467 pharmacists (58.2%, [95% CI 54.8-61.6]) had already validated a prescription for a biosimilar drug, mainly for filgrastim. These latter were more comfortable in explaining the benefit of biosimilar medicines to the patient. Pharmacists were rather favorable to biosimilar drugs, and about 9 of 10 quoted healthcare cost savings as incentives to their prescription. However, many did not agree with allowing biosimilar substitution. "Patients' wishes to be treated with the originator" and "indication extrapolation" were the two main constraints identified. The survey highlighted the need to provide French pharmacists with accurate and comprehensive information regarding biosimilar medicines.

Our survey gave a better appreciation of the concerns associated with biosimilar prescriptions. Targeted communication initiatives, deeper experience and availability of new clinical data may help to address the outstanding questions and should overcome the misunderstandings surrounding biosimilar drugs among rheumatologists.

This study highlighted the challenges encountered by community pharmacists and their significant contribution to the continuity of care upon patients being discharged from hospitals.

BackgroundThe economic burden linked to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has greatly increased since the inclusion of biotherapies in the therapeutic arsenal.ObjectivesThis study aimed first to look at the breakdown of the rheumatoid arthritis patients on biotherapy in Alsace, France, in 2012, then to evaluate the annual cost per treated patient for each management pathway: inpatient care with intravenous biotherapies and/or outpatient care through the use of subcutaneous drugs, and finally to conduct a cost comparison with a focus on infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept.MethodsThis observational study was conducted in Alsace using 2012 health claims data from the DCIR (Données de Consommation Inter Régime) and PMSI (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information) databases, taking into account direct medical and non-medical costs in a real-life setting and from a National Health Insurance perspective.ResultsThere were 5702 RA patients, i.e. 0.31 % of the Alsace population in 2012, including 1075 subjects (18.85 %) receiving biotherapy treatment. The most frequently prescribed biotherapies were etanercept and adalimumab. The estimated overall cost of care of these 5702 patients was €30.3 million, with about 50 % for the care of the 18.85 % patients on biotherapy. Average costs for inpatient, outpatient and mixed care ranged from €14,197 to €16,873 per patient per year. Annual average cost for management of a single RA patient with infliximab was significantly higher than with adalimumab and etanercept: €16,480 versus €14,116 and €14,338, respectively.ConclusionThese findings confirm the trends of initial modelling approaches and quantify the cost difference between various biotherapy management pathways.

No abstract