Differences in UK healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars

Aladul, Mohammed I.; Fitzpatrick, R; Chapman, Stephen

doi:10.1111/ijpp.12485

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After screening for eligibility, we included 16 studies in the analysis ( Table 2 ) [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. The included studies were from Europe, UK, United States, Australia, Asia, and Africa [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. The targeted healthcare professionals were: clinicians, GPs, pharmacists, nurses, consultants, care managers, and specialists in clinical settings where biologics are more involved such as oncology, rheumatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, dermatology, nephrology, and hematology.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In seven studies [ 21 , 22 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 34 ], we found that healthcare professionals had a good knowledge of biosimilars, and at least know the basic concepts of them. However, healthcare professionals were not satisfactorily familiar with concepts and the processes of interchangeability, extrapolation and pharmacovigilance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study from Spain found that only 27% of primary care physicians know the difference between generics and biosimilars, and 84% of them do not understand biosimilar clinical development [ 28 ]. In Aladul et al’s survey of 2019, 6% of healthcare professionals (mainly nurses) had never heard of biosimilars [ 29 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Halimi

Daci

Netkovska

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although biosimilars have been part of clinical practice for more than a decade, healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not fully accept them. This is because of the perception that biosimilars may not be like their originators in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the current knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals toward biosimilar prescription, and to elaborate on their concerns. We reviewed the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct electronic databases in the period from 2018 to 2020. The knowledge and confidence of healthcare professionals vary between countries, between clinical profiles and between studies. Although most of the healthcare professionals had a positive attitude to prescribing biosimilars, they would still prefer to prescribe them in initial treatment. Generally, HCPs were against multiple switches and substitution of biosimilars at the pharmacy level. HCP’s key concern was interchangeability, with eventual consequences on the clinical outcome of patients. HCPs still approach biosimilars with caution and stigma. HCPs need to have an unbiased coherent understanding of biosimilars at clinical, molecular and regulatory levels. It was also observed that most of their concerns are more theoretical than science-based. Physicians are in an excellent position to accept biosimilars, but they need the additional support of regulatory authorities to approve and take into consideration the available scientific data regarding biosimilars.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Halimi

Daci

Netkovska

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 23 32 The main experienced advantages of biosimilars are cost savings, 18 22-25 31 lower price in comparison with the originator biologic medicine 31 38 and the possibility to get experience with the new product 28 29 (table 2). In addition, single studies reported that robust pharmacovigilance studies, 18 easier access to treatment for patients, 31 and approval of the European Medicines Agency or the Food and Drug Administration 38 were motivators for prescribing biosimilars. The most commonly reported Open access disadvantages were distrust in safety, 10 18 22 31 efficacy, 10 18 22 31 33 immunogenicity 10 25 31 and indication extrapolation of biosimilars 10 34 or the lack of clinical data on biosimilars.…”

Section: Self-rated and Measured Knowledge On Biosimilars And Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars: a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedLine Ovid and Scopus databases at the end of 2018.Eligibility criteriaOriginal scientific studies written in English that addressed physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars.Data extraction and synthesisThe search resulted in altogether 451 studies and 331 after removing duplicates. Two researchers examined these based on the title, abstract and entire text, resulting in 20 studies. The references in these 20 studies were screened and three further studies were included. The data of these 23 studies were extracted. All the publications were quality assessed by two researchers.ResultsMost of the selected studies were conducted in Europe and commonly used short surveys. Physicians’ familiarity with biosimilars varied: 49%–76% were familiar with biosimilars while 2%–25% did not know what biosimilars were, the percentages varying from study to study. Their measured knowledge was generally more limited compared with their self-assessed knowledge. Physicians’ perceptions of biosimilars also varied: 54%–94% were confident prescribing biosimilars, while 65%–67% had concerns regarding these medicines. Physicians seemed to prefer originator products to biosimilars and prescribed biosimilars mainly for biologic-naive patients. They considered cost savings and the lower price compared with the originator biologic medicine as the main advantages of biosimilars, while their doubts were often related to safety, efficacy and immunogenicity. 64%–95% of physicians had negative perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines.ConclusionsPhysicians’ knowledge of and attitudes towards biosimilars vary. Although physicians had positive attitudes towards biosimilars, prescribing was limited, especially for patients already being treated with biologic medicines. Perceptions of pharmacist-led substitution of biologic medicines were often negative. Education and national recommendations for switching and substitution of biologic medicines are needed to support the uptake of biosimilars.

show abstract

“…In addition, biosimilar use is regularly tracked by NHS Scotland as part of national therapeutic indicators ( NHS Scotland, 2017 ). These various regional and national activities can help address concerns among healthcare professionals, especially regarding switching ( Aladul et al., 2018 ; Aladul et al., 2019 ), with NHS England currently aiming for 90% of new patients to be prescribed the best-value biological medicine within 3 months of the launch of a biosimilar as well as actively encouraging switching ( NHS England, 2017a ) to meet the goal of an 80% biosimilar prescription rate within one year ( Davio, 2018 ). NHS England has also invested in many educational activities ( NHS England, 2015 ; NHS England, 2017b ; NHS England, 2019a ) and closely monitors local adoption of biosimilars through regional teams that facilitate implementation of national policy measures ( NHS England, 2019b ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uptake of Biosimilar Infliximab in the UK, France, Japan, and Korea: Budget Savings or Market Expansion Across Countries?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the market dynamics of biosimilar infliximab among four Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (UK, France, Japan, and Korea) where supply-side and demand-side policies varied greatly, given high and growing expenditure on biological medicines to treat immunological diseases across countries. Methods A quarterly dataset covering October 2012 to March 2018 was constructed from the MIDAS-IQVIA International database. The sales value (in USD) and volume (in standard units) of originator infliximab and biosimilar products and their relative price in each country were compared. Results With the introduction of biosimilars, the sales value of infliximab increased approximately 2.5 times in Korea, whereas it only slightly increased (1.2 times for France and the UK) or decreased (0.9 for Japan) in other countries. While stable market size dynamics were observed in the other countries, an escalating market size, attributable to the increase in originator infliximab, was observed in Korea. In the UK and France, which have implemented demand-side policies, the sales volume of originator infliximab appreciably decreased after the entry of biosimilar infliximab while that of biosimilars increased; however, in Korea, which has supply-side policies based on price-linking with few demand-side policies, the volume of originator infliximab actually increased by 70% alongside a very limited increase in biosimilar infliximab. The lowest price ratio between biosimilar and originator infliximab was found in Japan, at 68%. In France and Korea, the ex-factory prices of biosimilar infliximab were 99 and 95%, respectively, of the originator infliximab price. In the UK, the ex-factory price of biosimilar infliximab started at 87% of that of originator infliximab and then decreased to 80% as the market matured. However, actual price differences might differ. Conclusion The uptake of biosimilar infliximab varied greatly, and in contrast to the UK, France, and Japan, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab resulted in market expansion in Korea, which might be explained by a lack of demand-side policies in Korea. Both supply- and demand-side measures are necessary for health authorities to achieve desired savings from the availability of biosimilars.

show abstract

Differences in UK healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars

Abstract: Healthcare professionals were more comfortable with the initiation of biosimilars than switching current patients. Medical consultants/registrars and pharmacists were more informed than nurses.

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Clinical and Regulatory Concerns of Biosimilars: A Review of Literature

Physicians’ perceptions of the uptake of biosimilars: a systematic review

Uptake of Biosimilar Infliximab in the UK, France, Japan, and Korea: Budget Savings or Market Expansion Across Countries?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About