4.6 Article

Changes in Biosimilar Knowledge among European Crohn's Colitis Organization [ECCO] Members: An Updated Survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 1362-1365

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw090

关键词

Biosimilars; inflammatory bowel disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 2013, a ECCO survey showed that a minority of IBD specialists was aware and confident about the benefits and issues of biosimilars. We aimed to look at the evolution of IBD specialists' thinking about biosimilars one year after they had become available in the European Union. Methods: A 14-question anonymous survey was posted on the ECCO website. Members voluntarily responded in response to ECCO office invitations to participate in their surveys. Information on gender, job position, country, and experience with biologics also were collected. Results: Out of the 118 responders, only 17% of responders had no access to biosimilars. Most responders regarded cost-sparing [92.4%] as the main advantage of biosimilars, considered immunogenicity [69%] to be their main concern, and estimated that post-marketing pharmacovigilance, well-designed randomized clinical trials and further studies of risk profile were needed [30.5%, 27%, 32.2%, respectively, a 30-40% reduction since 2013]. Only 35% of physicians think biosimilars should carry distinct International Nonproprietary Names, as compared with 66% in 2013, and 89.8% disagreed with automatic substitution of the originator with a biosimilar by a pharmacist. The originator and biosimilar were considered interchangeable by 44.4% of responders, as compared with 6% in 2013. Only 32.2% were against the extrapolation across indications, and only 25% would not extrapolate data across IBD. Finally, only 19.5% felt little or no confidence in the use of biosimilars, as compared with 63% in 2013. Conclusion: IBD specialists are generally well informed and educated about biosimilars. Compared with in 2013, there are now fewer concerns and more confidence about their use in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据