Search

Background: Biosimilar therapies and their naming conventions are both relatively new to the drug development market and in clinical practice. We studied the use of the four-letter naming convention in practice and the knowledge, perceptions, and preferences of US health care providers. Methods: A survey was distributed among health care professionals with a history of utilizing biosimilars in clinical practice to measure key knowledge and the presence of discernable naming trends. Differences in responses across pre-hypothesized subgroups were tested for statistical significance. Results: Of the 506 surveys emailed, 83 (16%) people responded. Overall, there was poor knowledge about the key concepts surrounding biosimilars. For example, only 52% of respondents correctly identified that biosimilars were not the same as the generic drug; however, frequent use correlated with superior knowledge across all groups. In reference to naming preferences, 67% of all respondents indicated that they commonly use the brand name to distinguish biosimilars in clinical practice and a majority of them (85%) indicated that the brand name was easier to remember than the nonproprietary name with the four-letter suffix. An unexpected number of neutral responses was documented. Notably, more than half of respondents (68%) indicated a neutral response when asked if the four-letter suffix promoted medical errors. Conclusions: There remains a knowledge gap with regard to biosimilars, and lack of consensus on how the naming convention is and should be utilized in clinical practice. The data also suggest that effective biosimilar education could aid in promoting familiarity with the naming convention among health care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]