Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35776294›Full record

SynthesisBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2022

Pharmacists' Perspectives of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.

Noraisyah Mohd Sani, Zoriah Aziz, Rema Panickar, Adeeba Kamarulzaman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Noraisyah Mohd SaniFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6300-8056
Zoriah AzizFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. zoriah@um.edu.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7113-9323
Rema PanickarFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4732-5641
Adeeba KamarulzamanFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ministry of Health · MYUniversity of Malaya · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveWhile biosimilars are less expensive than their originator biologics, various factors are known to impede their uptake in clinical practice including concerns regarding their interchangeability, efficacy, and safety. Pharmacists are well positioned to promote the adoption of biosimilars, thus, the aim of the review was to assess pharmacists' knowledge and perceptions of biosimilars to identify the need for pharmacist-directed biosimilar education.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search for published articles indexed in MEDLINE via EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Dimensions, and Google Scholar databases. We included studies written in English from their earliest publication dates until December 2021. Only studies concerning pharmacists' perspectives on biosimilars were included. Two reviewers extracted data from the studies that included pharmacists' knowledge, perceptions, and opinions about interchangeability and automatic substitution of biosimilars. We also assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA) for quantitative studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative studies.

resultsOut of the 22 studies included in the review, 19 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, and the other three were qualitative studies. The sample size of the included studies ranged from 19 to 1500 participants. The level of knowledge of biosimilars graded as good, considerable, above average, or excellent among pharmacists varied from study to study, with a range of 47-86%. Only 22-51% of pharmacists were comfortable if biosimilars were prescribed for all of the indications previously used for the originator products. Pharmacists' acceptability of switching from the originator to a biosimilar also varied, with a range of 26-84%. However, most pharmacists viewed the substitution of the originator with a biosimilar without physicians' permission as unacceptable. Data from three studies reported that 22-74% of pharmacists had attended biosimilar training. They obtained information about biosimilars from scientific publications, pharmaceutical companies, and continuing education. Based on the criteria of JBI-ACSSA and CASP, the overall methodological quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high. The majority of the studies did not describe the sampling methods used and the strategies to deal with confounding factors.

conclusionsPharmacists' knowledge and perception about biosimilars varied and were limited, especially about interchangeability and substitution, efficacy, safety, and indication extrapolation. A better understanding of biosimilars amongst pharmacists could help them to encourage prescribers' acceptance of biosimilars.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsHumansPharmacistsBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID35776294
OpenAlexW4283761952

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.