Knowledge, attitude, and practice of generic medicines among physicians at multispecialty hospital: An observational study

Patient's and Consultant's Views and Perceptions on Switching from an Originator Biologic to Biosimilar Medication: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this study was to describe the opinions of patients undergoing treatment with originator biologics and medical consultants managing their conditions and identify the barriers and enablers to transitioning from originator biologics to equivalent biosimilars. This study was undertaken prior to biosimilar switching at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Five gastroenterology, rheumatology, and dermatology consultants were interviewed. Two focus groups were conducted with patients prescribed infliximab (n = 2) and etanercept originators (n = 7). Four main themes emerged, as follows: (1) 'Benefit to the NHS'; (2) 'Evidence for efficacy and safety'; (3) 'Team roles'; and (4) 'Effective communication during switching', with sub-themes such as (4a) 'What patients want to know' and (4b) 'How it should be communicated'. Recognition of the ability to save NHS money was an enabler for both patients and consultants, with patients wanting to be reassured that the money saved would be used to benefit other patients. Consultants did not always believe that biosimilars had similar efficacy as the originators or that the manufacturing standards were the same. Effective interventions to address these concerns are required. Offering patients the opportunity to revert back to their originator if necessary was seen as an enabler, as was the provision of readily available mechanisms for reporting suspected adverse events resulting from switching. The role of pharmacy in the process of switching from originator biologics to biosimilars can range from educating consultants regarding the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, explaining the rationale for switching patients, and providing a route for reporting adverse events.

A comparative study on perception and use of generic drugs between public and private health practitioners

Context

The perception of generic drugs may vary significantly between government and private doctors because physicians in the private sector have more prescribing choices and flexibility. Hence, this study was undertaken to analyse the knowledge, attitude and perception (KAP) of government and private physicians on generic drugs.

Materials and Methods

This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted among physicians working in public and private health sectors. The questionnaire had 25 closed-ended questions related to the KAP of generic medicine. The overall scores were categorised using Bloom's cut-off point. The Chi-square or Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the differences between the two groups.

Results

About 80% of the participants in both groups agreed that generic medicines contain the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs, are less expensive and are available in the Indian market. Nearly 84% of government physicians and only 64% of private physicians believed that generic medicines are just as effective and secure as branded medicines (P - 0.003). The majority of physicians from both groups concurred that there is a lack of quality check in generic drug manufacturing, and they require more information about bioequivalence studies. In both categories, about 75% of participants preferred generic medications for their patients. However, in both groups, more than 50% of physicians were concerned about therapeutic failure and expressed reluctance to prescribe generic medications in life-threatening situations.

Conclusions

Knowledge and acceptance of generic drugs regarding efficacy, safety, bioequivalence and therapeutic failure are low among both government and private physicians.

Pharmacoeconomic Appraisal of Treating Head and Neck Cancer with Various Chemotherapy and Chemoirradiation Regimens Using Branded and Jan-aushadhi Drugs in India

According to recent studies, head and neck cancers (HNC) make up a substantial proportion of all cancers in India and are proportionately high in the lower socioeconomic people practising tobacco and alcohol. Chemotherapy is a crucial component of treating HNC, and this study was carried out to determine the Cost Minimization Analysis (CMA) by comparing the price of the high and least expensive branded drugs marketed in India. This study was performed to understand the cost difference (CD), Cost ratio (CR) and percentage of cost variation (PCV) of both individual drugs and the standard anticancer regimens. The Current Index of Medical Stores was used to determine the costs of the most and least expensive branded medications and analysed. The results indicated that Paclitaxel-Cisplatin-5 Fluoruracil chemotherapy regimen exhibited the greatest variance in cost, with the Jan Aushadhi brand of medicine costing 8.1 times and 4.3 times less than the most expensive and cheapest branded drugs, respectively. The cost of the concurrent cisplatin regimen with Jan Aushadi Medicine was Rs 1764, Rs 3489.64 with the lowest branded drug, and Rs 8477 with the most expensive branded drug. Also when compared to Jan Aushadhi medication, the cost of Ciplatin was 4.8 times higher with the most expensive branded drug and 2 times higher with the least expensive branded drug. As far as the authors are aware of this is the first study that addresses the pharmacoeconomic appraisal of treating HNC with various chemotherapy and chemoirradiation regimens. This study will help oncologists, pharmacists, and healthcare workers comprehend the financial advantages of treating breast cancer with less expensive chemotherapeutic agents instead of brand-name medications.