Assessment of Moral Development Among Undergraduate Pharmacy Students and Alumni.

Objective. This study's principal aim was to assess the moral development of undergraduate pharmacy students and alumni at a university in Jordan.Methods. Using the Professional Ethics in Pharmacy (PEP) test, the moral reasoning of 512 pharmacy students and alumni was assessed in a cross-sectional design. The main assessment measure was the Principled Morality Score, which reflects an individual's level of moral judgment development and is given as a percentage, where higher values indicate greater moral development.Results. The response rate was 49%. The median Principled Morality Score was 16.7, with no significant differences observed across all five cohorts. No significant differences in median Principled Morality Scores were found between men and women (16.7 vs 20, respectively). Also, no significant differences in median Principled Morality scores were observed between students who had completed the ethics course versus those who had not completed the ethics course at the time of data collection (median Principled Morality Score 20 vs 16.7, respectively). No trends in median Principled Morality Scores were observed.Conclusion. In this study, the professional moral reasoning of prospective pharmacists was lower than expected. A further longitudinal study of the cohort, which attempts to correlate moral development with age, sex, education level, and moral education strategy, is warranted.

The effect of new biosimilars in rheumatology and gastroenterology specialities on UK healthcare budgets: Results of a budget impact analysis.

BACKGROUND: The approval of new biosimilars of infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab by the European Medicines Agency is expected to produce further cost savings to the healthcare system budget. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the budget impact of the introduction of new biosimilars Flixabi®, Erelzi®, Solymbic®, Amgevita® and Imraldi® in rheumatology and gastroenterology specialities in the UK. METHODS: A published budget impact model was adapted to estimate the expected cost savings following the entry of new biosimilars Flixabi®, Erelzi®, Solymbic®, Amgevita® and Imraldi® in the UK over three-year time horizon. This model was based on retrospective market shares of biologics used in rheumatology and gastroenterology which were derived from DEFINE Software and healthcare professional perspectives. RESULTS: The model predicted that infliximab and etanercept biosimilars would replace their corresponding reference agents by 2020. Adalimumab biosimilars were predicted to achieve 19% of the rheumatology and gastroenterology market by 2020. Without the introduction of further biosimilars, the model predicted a reduction in expenditure of £44 million on biologics over the next three years. With the entry of Flixabi®, Erelzi®, Solymbic®, Amgevita® and Imraldi® the model estimates cumulative savings of £285 million by 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of new infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab biosimilars will be associated with considerable cost savings and have a substantial favourable impact on the UK NHS budget. The number of biosimilars and time of entry of is critical to create competition which will result in maximum cost savings.

Impact of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars on Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Utilisation and NHS Budget in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective but expensive options for treating rheumatoid arthritis. The introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars presents a significant potential cost saving in a financially constrained health system such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. This study examines the impact of the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars on the utilisation of bDMARDs and subsequent budget impact. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of secondary care utilisation data in rheumatology specialities from the DEFINE database, between March 2014 and February 2017. RESULTS: The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars was £38.8 million over 2 years. There was a statistically significant increase in average monthly utilisation of bDMARDs for adalimumab (0.48%), certolizumab pegol (1.90%), golimumab (3.06%), abatacept (2.97%) and tocilizumab (2.24%), but not for etanercept. In contrast, the overall utilisation of infliximab decreased slightly by an average of 0.03% per month. The introduction of infliximab biosimilars negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded infliximab significantly. Similarly, the introduction of an etanercept biosimilar negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded etanercept significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of bDMARDs biosimilars has resulted in considerable cost savings to the NHS, with the branded products reducing their prices in response to the availability of less expensive biosimilars and competition between the biosimilars themselves. Our results also suggest that when a biosimilar is available for a directly comparable branded molecule, price is the key influencing factor in the prescribing of a specific product.

Patients' Understanding and Attitudes Towards Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars: Result of a UK Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and etanercept biosimilars present significant potential cost savings to the NHS. Patients need to be involved in the decision to use these medicines but there is limited published literature on their knowledge and attitudes about these biosimilars. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis patients' knowledge and attitudes towards infliximab and etanercept biosimilars in the UK. METHODS: A self-administered web survey was conducted among the members of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society in the UK between 2 March 2017 and 2 June 2017. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients participated in this survey. The majority of participants (73%) were on etanercept, and 66 and 80% of patients on originator biologic and biosimilars, respectively, understood what biosimilars were. Patients who were currently on biosimilars had greater confidence in their effectiveness and the doctor's decision to initiate than those who were originally on originator biologics that doctors proposed to switch to biosimilars. The majority (82%) of participants on biosimilars thought that biosimilars help to save money for the NHS, while just over half (54%) of participants on the originator biologics thought the cost of treatment should not be considered when prescribing biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: Survey participants had a good knowledge and understanding of biosimilars. Participants on biosimilars were confident and positive about biosimilars' safety, efficacy and switching, whereas participants on the originator biologics were more reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Those patients who expressed concerns felt that more clinical trials on switching biosimilars, better communication and reassurance by healthcare professional teams and further involvement in decision making would increase their acceptance of biosimilars.

Has cost inhibited the uptake of more potent statins in England?

BACKGROUND: The use of statins has increased substantially over the last 2 decades in England and represents a significant cost burden to the National Health Service. Therefore, it is important to understand what influences prescribers' choice. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the changes in use pattern of all statins in England (1998-2015). The study focuses on the use of simvastatin and atorvastatin before and after their patent expiry and rosuvastatin, to investigate the impact of the reduced acquisition costs on prescribing. METHODS: Interrupted time series analysis of primary care use data from the health and social care information centre database from 1998 to 2015. RESULTS: Primary care expenditure on statins increased by 125% during the period 1998 to 2004 driven by branded simvastatin and atorvastatin. Before 2003, the rate of use of more potent branded atorvastatin exceeds branded simvastatin. Between 2004 and 2011, the less potent but less expensive agent generic simvastatin has the higher utilisation rate (66%). Since 2012, the more potent agent but less expensive generic atorvastatin has the higher utilisation rate (50%). The more potent branded rosuvastatin failed to make a significant impact on the English statins market. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of generic statins has reduced overall expenditure significantly. When there is a significant price difference, acquisition cost appears to be the main influencing factor in prescribing statins, but, when costs are similar, potency is a key factor. This suggests that English prescribers are cost sensitive and appear to be prepared to trade marginal benefit for savings.

What drives the prescribing of growth hormone preparations in England? Prices versus patient preferences.

OBJECTIVE: The patent expiry of a number of biological medicines and the advent of biosimilars raised the expectations of healthcare commissioners that biosimilars would reduce the high cost of these medicines and produce potential savings to the NHS. We aimed to examine the prescribing pattern of different growth hormone preparations (ready to use and reconstitution requiring) in primary and secondary care in England to determine relative rates of decrease or increase and identify the possible factors influencing prescribing following the introduction of biosimilar growth hormone in 2008. DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study. SETTING AND DATA SOURCES: Primary care prescribing cost and volume data was derived from the NHS business services authority website, and for secondary care from the DEFINE database, between April 2011 and December 2015. OUTCOMES: Quarterly prescribing analysis to examine trends and measure the relationship between usage and price. RESULTS: Expenditure and usage of growth hormone in primary care decreased by 17.91% and 7.29%, respectively, whereas expenditure and usage in secondary care increased by 68.41% and 100%, respectively, between April 2011 and December 2015. The usage of reconstitution requiring products significantly declined in primary care (R²=0.9292) and slightly increased in use in secondary care (R²=0.139). In contrast, the usage of ready-to-use products significantly increased in use in primary (R²=0.7526) and secondary care (R²=0.9633), respectively. Weak or no correlation existed between the usage and price of growth hormone preparations in primary and secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: The price of growth hormone products was not the key factor influencing the prescribing of the biological medicines. The main driver for specific product selection was the ease of use and the number of steps in dose preparation. Prescribers appear to be taking into account patient preferences rather than cost in their prescribing decisions.