Advertisement

BioDrugs

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 499–506 | Cite as

Biosimilar Knowledge Among Oncology/Hematology Team Members in Colorado, USA: An Educational Initiative and Follow-Up Survey

  • Rovshan M. Ismailov
  • Zaytuna D. Khasanova
Original Research Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Background

No data exist regarding oncology/hematology team members’ knowledge of and views on biosimilars in Colorado, USA. Published research has suggested that health professionals may have a poor understanding of many issues related to biosimilars.

Objectives

Our goal was to increase oncology/hematology team members’ knowledge of biosimilars and then use an anonymous online survey to assess the knowledge gained. We also aimed to examine oncology/hematology team members’ overall interest in the subject and their motivation to learn more about biosimilars in the future.

Methods

In phase I of the project, we developed printed materials covering many topics related to biosimilars, such as definition, regulation, and interchangeability, and the potential of biosimilars in optimal combination therapy for cancer. We distributed our brochures to each participating oncology/hematology office in Colorado. The oncology/hematology team members were then asked to complete the survey.

Results

A total of 62 team members responded to our survey. Nearly three-quarters of participants were oncology nurses or oncology nurse practitioners. More than 90% of survey respondents identified correct answers about the definition, regulations, interchangeability, safety, cost issues, and use of biosimilars in oncology and in older patients with cancer. Overall, and compared with those who had low levels of interest and motivation, significantly more (p < 0.05) study participants were interested in the subject of biosimilars [57 (92%) vs. 5 (8%)], motivated to learn more about them [59 (95%) vs. 3 (5%)], and interested in sharing information about biosimilars with colleagues and patients [51 (82%) vs. 11 (18%)].

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that oncology/hematology team members participating in our study became familiar with many important issues related to biosimilars. Many survey respondents were highly motivated to participate in future training focused on biosimilars, which should pave the way for new educational projects in the area.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This study was determined as exempt by WIRB on 1 September 2017. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants received an information sheet explaining the purpose of our study, how the data would be used, and that the data would be anonymous before they began the online survey.

Funding

This study was supported by Pfizer Inc.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Rovshan Ismailov M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. received funding from Pfizer Inc. to conduct this study and develop this manuscript. He has also received financial support for educational programs from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Genentech, Novartis, Santen, and Actelion. Dr. Zaytuna Khasanova M.D. has no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

40259_2018_301_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (223 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 223 kb)

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Simoens S. Health economics of market access for biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars. J Med Econ. 2009;12(3):211–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camacho LH. Current status of biosimilars in oncology. Drugs. 2017;77(9):985–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehr SR, Brook RA. Factors influencing the economics of biosimilars in the US. J Med Econ. 2017;20(12):1268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen H, Beydoun D, Chien D, Lessor T, McCabe D, Muenzberg M, et al. Awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of biosimilars among specialty physicians. Adv Ther. 2017;33(12):2160–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bordage G, Carlin B, Mazmanian PE. Continuing medical education effect on physician knowledge: effectiveness of continuing medical education: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Educational Guidelines. Chest. 2009;135(3 Suppl):29S–36S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Silverberg M, Weizberg M, Murano T, Smith JL, Burkhardt JC, Santen SA. What is the prevalence and success of remediation of emergency medicine residents? West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(6):839–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gimenez Verotti CC, de Miranda Torrinhas RS, Pires Corona L, Waitzberg DL. Design of quality indicators for oral nutritional therapy. Nutr Hosp. 2015;31(6):2692–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearson D, Bond MC, Kegg J, Pillow T, Hopson L, Cooney R, et al. Evaluation of social media use by emergency medicine residents and faculty. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(5):715–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mircioiu C, Atkinson J. A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a Likert scale. Pharmacy (Basel). 2017;5(2):26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rugo HS, Cortes J. The new world of biosimilars in oncology: translation of data to the clinic. Eur J Cancer. 2018;96:125–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tabernero J, Vyas M, Giuliani R, Arnold D, Cardoso F, Casali PG, et al. Biosimilars: a position paper of the European Society for Medical Oncology, with particular reference to oncology prescribers. ESMO Open. 2016;1(6):e000142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyman GH. Emerging opportunities and challenges of biosimilars in oncology practice. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(9_suppl):7s–9s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schellekens H, Smolen JS, Dicato M, Rifkin RM. Safety and efficacy of biosimilars in oncology. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):e502–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rugo HS, Linton KM, Cervi P, Rosenberg JA, Jacobs I. A clinician’s guide to biosimilars in oncology. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;46:73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Overbeeke E, De Beleyr B, de Hoon J, Westhovens R, Huys I. Perception of originator biologics and biosimilars: a survey among belgian rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists. BioDrugs. 2017;31(5):447–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chapman SR, Fitzpatrick RW, Aladul MI. Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare professionals towards infliximab and insulin glargine biosimilars: result of a UK web-based survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e016730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Conference of State Legislatures. State laws and legislation related to biologic medications and substitution of biosimilars. http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-laws-and-legislation-related-to-biologic-medications-and-substitution-of-biosimilars.aspx. Accessed 1 Sep 2017.
  19. 19.
    Colorado General Assembly Tracking. Concerning the ability of a pharmacist substitute an interchangeable biological product for a prescribed biological product when certain conditions are satisfied. http://www.legispeak.com/bill/2015/sb15-071. Accessed 19 July 2018.
  20. 20.
    Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Colorado Central Cancer Registry. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/cancerregistry. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  21. 21.
    Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(2):153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bradley CJ. Cancer, financial burden, and medicare beneficiaries. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(22):2461–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vogenberg FR. Biosimilars policy forum: perspectives on safety and efficacy of future products. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2009;2(4):165–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Complex Mechanisms of Disease, Aging and Trauma (CMDAT) Research FoundationDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations