Andres E.,University of Strasbourg |
Andres E.,Chru Hopitaux Universitaires Of Strasbourg |
Hajjam A.,University of Technology of Belfort - Montbéliard |
Brandt C.,University of Strasbourg |
Brandt C.,INFRAL SA
Health and Technology | Year: 2012
Conventional auscultation is subjective and not easily shared. Modern medical technology allows us to optimize ausculatory findings by physically characterizing sounds through recordings, visualization and automated analysis systems. The development and availability of novel tools based on innovations in Science, Information and Communications Technology provide the clinician with an invaluable aid in order to achieve an early objective diagnosis, as well as offering increased sensitivity and reproducibility of auscultatory findings. Such advances have not only led to the development and use of new intelligent communicating stethoscope systems, but they have also significantly contributed to the revival of telemedicine, particularly as a diagnostic and teaching aid. © 2012 IUPESM and Springer-Verlag.
PubMed | Chru Hopitaux Universitaires Of Strasbourg, a OMEDIT Alsace and University of Strasbourg
Type: | Journal: mAbs | Year: 2016
This studys aims were: 1) to extract a comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experience and opinions of both community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists regarding biosimilar medicines in France; and 2) to identify the perceived problems and solutions to promoting their prescription. A 2015 web-based survey was conducted by the Observatoire des Mdicaments, des Dispositifs Mdicaux et de lInnovation Thrapeutique of Alsace. A total of 802 pharmacists responded to the survey. Many (536, 66.8%, [95% confidence interval (CI) 63.6-70.1]) indicated that they were not familiar with biosimilars. Half of community pharmacists (95% CI 42.7-57.3) stated that they were not at all informed about biosimilar drugs, compared to 15.7% (95% CI 12.9-18.6) of hospital pharmacists. Almost all respondents (781, 97.4%, [95% CI 96.3-98.5]) had at least one pending question on biosimilars. Most of the questions were related to the manufacturing process, safety, substitution rules and the international non-proprietary name prescription. At the time of the study, 467 pharmacists (58.2%, [95% CI 54.8-61.6]) had already validated a prescription for a biosimilar drug, mainly for filgrastim. These latter were more comfortable in explaining the benefit of biosimilar medicines to the patient. Pharmacists were rather favorable to biosimilar drugs, and about 9 of 10 quoted healthcare cost savings as incentives to their prescription. However, many did not agree with allowing biosimilar substitution. Patients wishes to be treated with the originator and indication extrapolation were the two main constraints identified. The survey highlighted the need to provide French pharmacists with accurate and comprehensive information regarding biosimilar medicines.
PubMed | Chru Hopitaux Universitaires Of Strasbourg, OMEDIT Alsace and University of Strasbourg
Type: Journal Article | Journal: BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy | Year: 2016
Healthcare cost savings are closely linked to prescribers confidence in and acceptance of the prescription of biosimilar drugs.The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, experience and opinions of hospital-based and office-based French rheumatologists with regard to biosimilar medicines and to identify the barriers to and possible options to promote their prescription.A web-based, self-administered survey was conducted among French rheumatologists from June 8 to August 2, 2015.A total of 116 rheumatologists responded to the survey. Many reported having little knowledge and a lack of available information about biosimilar drugs, especially office-based rheumatologists. 98.3% of the respondents had at least one question about biosimilars, and seven in ten raised issues regarding substitution, iatrogenic effects or cost savings that might be achievable. Only eight rheumatologists had already prescribed a biosimilar drug. The most common barriers reported were indication extrapolation and a lack of data about tolerability. Nine out of ten physicians thought that starting a treatment with a biosimilar drug in biologic treatment-nave patients was possible. The rheumatologists opinions were rather favorable towards the implementation of biosimilars, but a majority expressed a negative opinion about substitution by the pharmacist.Our survey gave a better appreciation of the concerns associated with biosimilar prescriptions. Targeted communication initiatives, deeper experience and availability of new clinical data may help to address the outstanding questions and should overcome the misunderstandings surrounding biosimilar drugs among rheumatologists.