4.1 Article

Current status of biosimilars in Turkey: A survey among medical oncologists

Journal

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PHARMACY PRACTICE
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 1516-1523

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/10781552211031643

Keywords

Biosimilar; biotechnology; biological product; reference product; generic drug

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The survey revealed that a majority of medical oncologists in Turkey have good general knowledge about biosimilars but lack understanding of local approval and reimbursement issues, and most are unwilling to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar. There is a need for more accurate local regulations and education in the biotechnology era.
Introduction To evaluate biosimilar understanding and preference trends of medical oncologists in Turkey. Methods A survey consisting of 24 multiple-choice questions with checkbox answers was conducted among medical oncologists. The questionnaire was divided into five parts to some intentions: demographic characteristics, general knowledge about biosimilars, knowledge about local approval and reimbursement issues, individual preference trends, and ranking the knowledge of their own. All answers were analyzed as whole cohort, specialists and fellows. Results Fellows (n = 47) consisted 42%, and academic clinicians (n = 37) consisted 35% of the participants. In the whole cohort, the overall rate of correct answers was 55.1% in the general knowledge about the biosimilars part, and 26.7% in the local approval and reimbursement issues part. At all, 57.7% of the participants declared that they object to switch from a reference product to a biosimilar product. The rate of those who defined themselves as extremely knowledgeable decreased from 8.1% to 2.7% in the whole cohort at the end of the survey. Conclusion The need for more accurate and clarified local regulations and education emerging in the biotechnology era must be met.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available