Dataset Information

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.

Summary

The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

Conclusion

The practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Barbier L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9452170 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

Barbier Liese L Vandenplas Yannick Y Boone Niels N Huys Isabelle I Janknegt Rob R Vulto Arnold G AG

American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 20221101 22

<h4>Purpose</h4>With the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment.<h4>Summary</h4>The presented model was developed on the ba ...[more]

PMID: 36002245

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: This study aimed to obtain a comprehensive overview on the perception, attitudes, and experience of European pharmacists with prospective risk assessment procedures in everyday practice, as well as to identify challenges and solutions. This is a follow-up study to the surveys on prospective risk assessment previously carried out within the COST Action 15105 among pharmacists across Europe. Methodology: In-depth interviews were performed using an interview guide comprising 25 questions. Interviews were transcribed ad verbatim and imported into NVivo 10 for framework analysis. In NVivo, the interviews were coded through assigning text segments to a responding code from a coding tree, covering the full content of the interviews. Coded text segments were then charted into a matrix, and analyzed by interpreting all text segments per code. Results: In total, 18 interviews were conducted. From the framework analysis, 6 codes and 12 sub-codes emerged. Overall, despite citing specific issues pertaining to its implementation, the interviewees considered multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary prospective risk assessment to be essential. While healthcare professionals reported being aware of the importance of risk assessment, they cited insufficient knowledge and skills to be a major obstacle in everyday practice. They also reported inadequate IT support since a paper-based system is still widely in use, thereby complicating data extraction to carry out prospective risk assessment. Conclusion: While prospective risk assessment was found to be valuable, interviewees also found it to be a resource-intensive and time-consuming process. Due to resource constraints, it may not be possible or desirable to conduct prospective risk assessment for every shortage. However, for critical-essential drugs, it is crucial to have a ready-to-use substitute based on risk assessment. Moreover, potential risks of substitutes on patient health should be identified before a shortage occurs and the substitute is dispensed as an alternative.

Project description:BackgroundLimited consideration of clinical decision support (CDS) design best practices, such as a user-centered design, is often cited as a key barrier to CDS adoption and effectiveness. The application of CDS best practices is resource intensive; thus, institutions often rely on commercially available CDS tools that are created to meet the generalized needs of many institutions and are not user centered. Beyond resource availability, insufficient guidance on how to address key aspects of implementation, such as contextual factors, may also limit the application of CDS best practices. An implementation science (IS) framework could provide needed guidance and increase the reproducibility of CDS implementations.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of an enhanced CDS tool informed by CDS best practices and an IS framework with a generic, commercially available CDS tool.MethodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. An IS-enhanced and commercial CDS alert were compared in a cluster randomized trial across 28 primary care clinics. Both alerts aimed to improve beta-blocker prescribing for heart failure. The enhanced alert was informed by CDS best practices and the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model (PRISM) IS framework, whereas the commercial alert followed vendor-supplied specifications. Following PRISM, the enhanced alert was informed by iterative, multilevel stakeholder input and the dynamic interactions of the internal and external environment. Outcomes aligned with PRISM's evaluation measures, including patient reach, clinician adoption, and changes in prescribing behavior. Clinicians exposed to each alert were interviewed to identify design features that might influence adoption. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach.ResultsBetween March 15 and August 23, 2019, the enhanced alert fired for 61 patients (106 alerts, 87 clinicians) and the commercial alert fired for 26 patients (59 alerts, 31 clinicians). The adoption and effectiveness of the enhanced alert were significantly higher than those of the commercial alert (62% vs 29% alerts adopted, P<.001; 14% vs 0% changed prescribing, P=.006). Of the 21 clinicians interviewed, most stated that they preferred the enhanced alert.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that applying CDS best practices with an IS framework to create CDS tools improves implementation success compared with a commercially available tool.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04028557; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04028557.

Project description:Model organism databases (MODs) have been collecting and integrating biomedical research data for 30 years and were designed to meet specific needs of each model organism research community. The contributions of model organism research to understanding biological systems would be hard to overstate. Modern molecular biology methods and cost reductions in nucleotide sequencing have opened avenues for direct application of model organism research to elucidating mechanisms of human diseases. Thus, the mandate for model organism research and databases has now grown to include facilitating use of these data in translational applications. Challenges in meeting this opportunity include the distribution of research data across many databases and websites, a lack of data format standards for some data types, and sustainability of scale and cost for genomic database resources like MODs. The issues of widely distributed data and application of data standards are some of the challenges addressed by FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable) data principles. The Alliance of Genome Resources is now moving to address these challenges by bringing together expertly curated research data from fly, mouse, rat, worm, yeast, zebrafish, and the Gene Ontology consortium. Centralized multi-species data access, integration, and format standardization will lower the data utilization barrier in comparative genomics and translational applications and will provide a framework in which sustainable scale and cost can be addressed. This article presents a brief historical perspective on how the Alliance model organisms are complementary and how they have already contributed to understanding the etiology of human diseases. In addition, we discuss four challenges for using data from MODs in translational applications and how the Alliance is working to address them, in part by applying FAIR data principles. Ultimately, combined data from these animal models are more powerful than the sum of the parts.

Project description:BackgroundUnder Ontario's Public Hospitals Act, the scope of professional practice of hospital pharmacists is approved by each hospital's medical advisory committee. Some Ontario hospitals have adopted policies or medical directives related to prescription modification, allowing pharmacists to broadly adapt, discontinue, hold, or renew prescriptions as part of their clinical scope of practice.ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to describe Ontario hospital pharmacists' perception of their readiness to independently modify prescriptions. The secondary objectives of this study were to gather opinions on the perceived benefits, drawbacks, facilitators, and barriers to prescription modification by pharmacists and to determine how various factors affect perceived readiness.MethodsA confidential web-based survey with Likert-type quantitative questions and qualitative open-ended questions was distributed to 936 hospital pharmacists in Ontario between May and July 2019. Mean scores were calculated for the following constructs affecting prescription modification: self-efficacy, support from the practice environment, and support from interprofessional relationships. Independent t tests were conducted to compare responses between subgroups of interest. The answers to open-ended questions were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe survey had a 29% response rate (n = 271). The mean self-efficacy score was 5.2 out of 7 (standard deviation [SD] 1.0, Cronbach α = 0.88), equivalent to "quite sure". The mean score for support from the practice environment was 3.3 out of 5 (SD 0.4, Cronbach α = 0.75), equivalent to "not a factor". The mean score for support from interprofessional relationships was 4.2 out of 5 (SD 0.1, Cronbach α = 0.80), equivalent to "weak support". Improved efficiency of care, timelier interventions to improve medication safety and efficacy, and improved interprofessional collaboration were cited as benefits of prescription modification by pharmacists. Potential for inappropriate decision-making and miscommunication were cited as concerns. Respondents in hospitals who were already performing prescription modification reported higher self-efficacy to modify prescriptions in clinical areas of both familiarity and unfamiliarity and greater support from prescribers.ConclusionsA large proportion of respondents to a survey of Ontario hospital pharmacists expressed an encouraging level of readiness to independently modify prescriptions. Responses to open-ended questions in this study provided valuable insights to inform widespread adoption of this practice change.

Dataset Information

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

Purpose

Summary

Conclusion

Publications

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets