<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">PP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Pharmacology &amp; Pharmacy</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2157-9423</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/pp.2022.137019</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">PP-118823</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Chemistry&amp;Materials Science</subject><subject> Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Familiarity, Knowledge and Practices of Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Pharmacovigilance of Biological Medicines in Lusaka, Zambia: A Multi-Facility Cross-Sectional Study
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Michelo</surname><given-names>Banda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Katia</surname><given-names>Verhamme</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Webrod</surname><given-names>Mufwambi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Steward</surname><given-names>Mudenda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Billy</surname><given-names>Chabalenge</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Scott</surname><given-names>Kaba Matafwali</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ronald</surname><given-names>Kampamba Mutati</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Christabel</surname><given-names>Nang’andu Hikaambo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>Kampamba</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lavina</surname><given-names>Prashar</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Medicines Control, Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Department of Physiological Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Pharmacy, School of Health Sciences, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Clinical Research Department, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene &amp;amp; Tropical Medicine, London, UK</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>22</day><month>07</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>07</issue><fpage>230</fpage><lpage>251</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>5,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>28,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  <b>Background</b>
  : Pharmacovigilance of biological medicines is crucial because it ensures that medicines meet the World Health Organization (WHO) standards. In Zambia, there is little information on healthcare professionals’ familiarity, knowledge and practices on the pharmacovigilance of biological and biosimilar medicines. Therefore, this study investigated the familiarity, knowledge, and practices related to the pharmacovigilance (PV) of biological and biosimilar medicines at selected hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia
  . 
  <b>Methods</b>
  : The study was an analytical questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted among healthcare professionals (HCPs) at the Adult hospital, Cancer Diseases hospital, Paediatrics hospital and Women and New Born Hospital in Lusaka. Data were collected over four weeks in May and June 2021 and subsequently analysed using IBM SPSS version 21. The statistical significance was set at a 95% confidence interval.
   
  <b>Results</b>
  : Of 245 participants, only 115 (48.9%) of the HCPs were familiar with biological medicines to a basic understanding. Regarding the term biosimilars, most of the HCPs (40.9%) never heard of this word. The mean score for knowledge regarding the PV considerations of biological medicines was 4.1 out of 8 questions. Most HCPs used non-proprietary names (44.2%) when prescribing, dispensing, or administering biological medicines. Additionally, more than half (57.3%) of HCPs did not record batch numbers when dispensing or administering biological medicines.
   
  <b>Conclusion</b>
  : Healthcare professionals were more familiar with the term biological medicines than biosimilars. Healthcare professionals generally scored poorly when their knowledge regarding the PV considerations of biological medicines was assessed. Thus, there is a need to provide adequate training and continuous professional development among healthcare professionals on the pharmacovigilance of biological and biosimilar medicines.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Pharmacovigilance</kwd><kwd> Biological Medicines</kwd><kwd> Biosimilars</kwd><kwd> Brand</kwd><kwd> Batch</kwd><kwd> Zambia</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Biological medicines (BMs), defined as molecules derived from a biological source, do not have Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) properly quantified premarketing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref1">1</xref>]. Furthermore, unlike small-molecule drugs, translation of preclinical data into clinical data is limited [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref2">2</xref>]. BMs are more immunogenic than small molecule drugs and have complex manufacturing processes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref2">2</xref>], such that changes to a manufacturing process can result in differences between batches, which in some cases affects the benefit-risk balance of the medicines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref3">3</xref>]. Another factor that may affect the safety of BMs is storage conditions; these molecules are quite sensitive such that even small changes to storage conditions may result in physical alterations, with consequent changes in their safety profile [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref4">4</xref>].</p><p>Biosimilars, similar to originator biological products in terms of quality, safety and efficacy, are manufactured by different companies using different manufacturing processes from each other and from the originator, which results in some structural differences between manufacturers. Despite this, originator BMs and biosimilars share the same international non-proprietary names (INN) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref5">5</xref>]. Due to differences between biologicals produced by different manufacturers, agencies have adopted naming conventions for identification purposes. For example, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) uses INN, brand name, and manufacturer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref6">6</xref>], while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines require that each originator BM, related biological product, and biosimilar medicine bear a non-proprietary name in combination with a distinguishing suffix consisting of four lowercase letters that lack any meaning [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref7">7</xref>]. Furthermore, as some manufacturing changes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref8">8</xref>] or distribution issues may affect the product’s quality and subsequently its safety [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref9">9</xref>], robust pharmacovigilance (PV) systems should not only identify which biological medicine or biosimilar is affected but also which batches are affected [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref7">7</xref>].</p><p>The expiry of originator biological medicines patents has allowed developing countries such as Zambia to use more affordable biosimilars, several of which are currently registered with the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (ZAMRA) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref10">10</xref>]. As a member of the Southern African Development Community region, Zambia has aimed to harmonise PV of BMs with other countries in the region whilst ensuring they meet World Health Organization (WHO) global standards [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref4">4</xref>]. Some considerations highlighted by WHO are the mechanisms of traceability in case of adverse events, storage requirements of biologicals, manufacturing variability with consequent differences between batches and manufacturing companies, and immunogenicity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref11">11</xref>].</p><p>Healthcare professionals (HCPs) must know that changes to the manufacturing process of BMs can result in immune reactions. They must possess the knowledge and understand biosimilar medicines and their PV [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref12">12</xref>]. This is important because poor knowledge of biological and biosimilar medicines can alter the confidence in the safety and efficacy of these products [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref13">13</xref>], as well as prescription [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref12">12</xref>]. Studies conducted elsewhere have revealed that HCPs are unfamiliar with originator biological and biosimilar medicines despite having them in their practice [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref16">16</xref>].</p><p>Healthcare professionals extract information to include in an ADR report from patient medical records (PMRs) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref17">17</xref>]. For biological medicines, this means that brand names (or another identifier) and batch numbers must be used during the prescribing, dispensing, and administration, to be included in the ADR report for their PV to be effective. Studies conducted in other countries have shown that ADR reports have been made for these products, but in such a way that the responsible product, its batch number and manufacturer, cannot be traced [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref15">15</xref>]. If this practice continues, the prescription of harmful originator biotherapeutic products and biosimilar medicines will continue.</p><p>Since the licensing of biological medicines in Zambia, there have been no studies to determine the familiarity of HCPs with biological and biosimilar medicines, knowledge of the factors (manufacturing process changes, immunogenicity, and storage) that alter the safety of biologicals, as well as the details required for proper identification of biologicals in reporting adverse events. Some biologicals currently used in Zambia are hospital administered, and some biosimilars are marketed by different marketing authorisation holders [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref10">10</xref>]. Currently, it is also unknown how these medicines are recorded during prescribing, dispensing, and administering to patients and if brand names or batch numbers are included in ADR reports.</p><p>This study investigated the familiarity, knowledge, and practices of HCPs regarding the PV of BMs at University Teaching Hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Design, Setting and Population</title><p>The study was an analytical cross-sectional study conducted among pharmacists, pharmacy technologists, doctors, and nurses from the Adult hospital, Cancer diseases hospital, Paediatrics hospital and Women and New Born Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. A questionnaire (see Appendix) that was used in a similar study in Ireland [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref5">5</xref>], was adopted and modified to be used in the current study. Experts from academia, regulatory affairs, and hospital pharmacists did face and content validation of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to collect data on the sociodemographic characteristics of participants, 10 questions on ADR reporting, 2 questions on the familiarity with biological medicines, 8 questions on pharmacovigilance considerations of biological medicines, and 6 questions on practices regarding biological medicines among the participants. 2 questions were also asked on the familiarity with biosimilar medicines. Permission to conduct the study was sought from each hospital’s administration, after which heads of departments distributed the questionnaires to HCPs who were willing to participate. The study was conducted over 4 weeks in May and June 2021. Excluded HCPs were those who did not give consent to participate in the study and those who were not available at the time of data collection.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sample Size Calculation</title><p>The sample size was determined using Cochran’s formula [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref18">18</xref>], adjusted for finite populations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref19">19</xref>], and then for an 8.6% non-response rate (based on a non-response rate from a previous study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref20">20</xref>], which was conducted in the same hospitals), giving a final sample size of 355. Due to the different numbers of HCPs from each hospital, disproportionate stratified sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of a profession from each hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Data Analysis</title><p>Data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 21. Chi-squared test for independence was used to make comparisons between categorical variables. Participants’ knowledge of the PV considerations of BMs was assessed by adding up correct items in that section of the questionnaire. The same was done for the knowledge of the conditions for reporting ADRs. A correct answer was given a score of 1 whilst an incorrect answer or “I don’t know” was given a score of 0. Knowledge was considered “good” if scores were above 50%, whilst a score below 50% was considered poor. Kruskal Wallis H test was used to compare mean knowledge scores with demographics (profession, years of practice and area of practice). Mann-Whitney U test was used to confirm where the differences lay. A 5% significance level was applied through all testing, and a Bonferroni correction was applied when multiple group comparisons were made.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 245 responses were received following the distribution of 355 questionnaires, giving a total response rate of 69%. Seventy-six questionnaires were distributed to doctors (50 responded, 66%), 199 to nurses (132 responded, 66%) 51 pharmacists (43 responded, 84%), and 29 pharmacy technologists (20 responded, 69%). Ten questionnaires were excluded for analysis because the respondents were non-prescribing doctors, did not indicate their profession, or did not indicate which hospital they practised at.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Demographics</title><p>Most respondents (40%) were from the Adult hospital, and most had been in practice for less than 5 years. The demographics of the HCPs are summarised in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Familiarity with Biological Medicines and Biosimilars</title><p>Most HCPs were familiar with BMs and had a basic understanding (n = 115, 48.9%), whilst 96 (40.9%) had never heard of the term biosimilars (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Knowledge of the Pharmacovigilance of Biological Medicines</title><p>Knowledge of the pharmacovigilance considerations of biological medicines</p><p>The mean knowledge score of the PV considerations of BMs for all HCPs was found to be 4.1 (SD 1.9). Mean knowledge scores varied by HCP (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>), as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>.</p><p>Familiarity with the term “biological medicine” was associated with mean knowledge of the PV considerations of BMs (p = 0.001, Kruskal Wallis H test). Those who were very familiar had significantly higher scores (mean 4.9, SD 1.5), than those who had never heard of the term (mean 3.2, SD 1.9) (p &lt; 0.001, Mann-Whitney U). Knowledge scores of those who were familiar with the term “biological medicine” were also significantly higher (mean 4.3, SD 1.6) than those who had never heard of the term (p = 0.002, Mann-Whitney U).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Healthcare professional demographics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Group size</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (20.4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128 (54.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (17.4%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (7.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Area of Practice n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Adult hospital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (39.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (30.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (53.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (77.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94 (40.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cancer Diseases Hospital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (4.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 (20.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (12.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (16.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (15.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paediatrics Hospital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (20.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (21.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (14.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (5.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 (18.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Women and Newborn Hospital</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (35.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (28.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (19.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61 (26.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Years in practice n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (35.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 (42.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (41.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (50.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97 (41.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 - 9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (27.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 (29.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (29.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (50.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72 (30.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 - 19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (20.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (13.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (22)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (15.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 - 30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (10.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (7.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (6.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (7.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (6.0)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Familiarity with biological and biosimilar medicines</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Never heard of the term</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Heard of the term-can’t define it</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Familiar - has a basic understanding</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Very familiar - has a complete understanding</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Familiarity with the term biological medicine n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (10.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (43.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (12.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (22.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (21.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61 (47.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (7.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (17.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23 (56.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (22.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (16.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (55.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (27.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (15.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54 (23.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115 (48.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 (12.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Familiarity with the term biosimilar medicine n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (31.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (25.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (35.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (8.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63 (49.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (19.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38 (29.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (29.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (12.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (39.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (19.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96 (40.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (20.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77 (32.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (6.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235 (100)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Mean knowledge scores of the PV considerations of biological medicines</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Mean Knowledge of PV considerations of biological medicines (out of 8 questions)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.0<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Knowledge levels were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. A Bonferroni correction was applied. <sup>a</sup>Doctors and pharmacists had higher mean knowledge scores than nurses (p &lt; 0.001 in both cases); <sup>b</sup>Pharmacy technologists had higher mean knowledge scores than nurses (p = 0.002).</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Knowledge of the pharmacovigilance considerations of biological medicines</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% correct</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% incorrect</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% don’t know</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Biosimilars are the same as generic medicines (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >In an adverse drug reaction report, it is better to identify a biological medicine by its non-proprietary name instead of its brand name (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >In general, biological medicines pose a greater risk of immunogenicity than non-biological (chemical) medicines (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Different batches of the same biological medicine are always identical (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Rare adverse drug reactions resulting from changes to the manufacturing process of a biological medicine can always be predicted (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >It is more important to include batch numbers in adverse drug reaction reports for non-biological medicines than it is for biological medicines (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Keeping a biological medicine outside its recommended storage conditions may introduce or alter immunogenicity (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Adverse drug reactions associated with a patient changing between different brands of biological medicine should be reported (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Familiarity with the term “biosimilar medicine” was associated with mean knowledge of the PV considerations of BMs (p &lt; 0.001, Kruskal Wallis H test). HCPs who were very familiar with the term biosimilar medicine had significantly higher scores (mean 5.4, SD 1.3) than those who had never heard of the term (mean 3.6 SD 1.8), (p &lt; 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Those who were familiar also had significantly higher scores (mean 4.6, SD 1.7) than those who had never heard of the term (p &lt; 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).</p><p>Area of practice was associated with knowledge regarding PV considerations of BMs (p = 0.005, Kruskal-Wallis H test). Those practicing at Adult hospital had higher knowledge (mean = 4.5, SD 1.8) than those practicing at Paediatrics hospital (mean = 3.7, SD 1.9) (p = 0.003, Mann-Whitney U), and Cancer Diseases Hospital (mean = 3.7, SD 1.7) (p = 0.006, Mann-Whitney U).</p><p>There was no association between knowledge of the PV considerations of BMs and years of practice (p = 0.497, Kruskal-Wallis H test).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Knowledge of ADR Reporting</title><p>Most HCPs knew that ADRs could be reported to the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (ZAMRA) (n = 160, 68.1%). Most HCPs (n = 126, 53.6%) knew about reporting ADRs using hard-copy ADR report forms, while only 39 (16.6%) knew about the Med Safety app. Most HCPs (n = 168, 71.5%) had never reported an ADR before (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>A Chi-square test for independence revealed that those who had practised for over 10 years were more likely to have reported an ADR at least once (p &lt; 0.001).</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Knowledge of ADR Reporting Conditions</title><p>The mean knowledge scores relating to ADR reporting were calculated based on 7 questions regarding ADR reporting (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). The mean score for all HCPs was 4.4 (SD 1.5) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>HCPs who had reported ADRs at least 3 times had higher knowledge scores of ADR reporting conditions (mean = 5.6, SD 1.3) than those who had never reported</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Knowledge of reporting to ZAMRA, reporting methods and experience</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Knowledge of reporting ADRs to ZAMRA before survey n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 (68.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73 (57)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (95.1)<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (83.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160 (68.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (31.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55 (43)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (16.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75 (31.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Reporting via Hardcopy ADR report forms n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (60.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (30.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 (97.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (100.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >126 (53.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (39.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89 (69.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109 (46.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Reporting via The Med Safety app n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (14.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (43.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (27.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (16.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (85.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119 (93)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23 (56.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (72.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >196 (83.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Reporting via the ZAMRA website n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (29.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (21.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 (73.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (61.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82 (34.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 (70.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101 (78.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (26.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (38.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153 (65.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Have you ever reported an ADR n (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (66.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103 (80.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (41.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (88.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168 (71.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (1 time)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (10.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (13.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (17.1)<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (5.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 (12.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (2 times)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (4.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (2.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (9.8)<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (3.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes (≥3 times)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (18.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (3.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (31.7)<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (5.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28 (11.9)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Knowledge levels of reporting to ZAMRA and ADR reporting experience compared using the Chi-square test for independence. A Bonferroni correction was applied. <sup>a</sup>Pharmacists knowledge of reporting ADRs to ZAMRA was significantly higher than that of doctors and nurses (p = 0.002 and p &lt; 0.001, respectively); <sup>b</sup>Pharmacists had significantly higher experience (1 time, 2 times, ≥3 times) in reporting ADRs compared to nurses and pharmacy technologists (p &lt; 0.001 and p = 0.001 respectively).</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Knowledge of ADR reporting conditions</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% correct</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% incorrect</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >% don’t know</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Do you have adequate knowledge on how to report an adverse drug reaction? (Yes)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Healthcare professionals should report serious ADRs even if uncertain that the medicine caused the event (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Healthcare professionals should report serious ADRs even if they do not have all the details of the event (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >All serious ADRs are known before the medicine is marketed (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >One case reported by a healthcare professional does not contribute much to knowledge on medicine risks (Correct answer = “No”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Patients can report adverse drug reactions independent of a healthcare professional (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Healthcare professionals should report ADRs associated with overdose, misuse or error (Correct answer = “Yes”)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Mean knowledge scores of ADR reporting by profession</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Mean Knowledge of ADR reporting conditions (out of 7 question items)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Mean ADR knowledge levels compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. A Bonferroni correction was applied. <sup>a</sup>Pharmacists had significantly higher mean knowledge scores compared to doctors and nurses (p = 0.003 and p &lt; 0.001 respectively).</p><p>an ADR (mean = 4.2, SD 1.5), and those who had reported an ADR only once (mean = 4.3, SD 1.4). A statistically significant association existed between knowledge of ADR reporting conditions and the number of times HCPs had reported an ADR (p &lt; 0.001, Kruskal Wallis H test). A Mann-Whitney U test showed that the mean knowledge of ADR reporting conditions of HCPs who had reported an ADR at least 3 times was higher than those who never reported (p &lt; 0.001) and those who had reported only once (p = 0.001).</p><p>There was no relationship between years of practice and knowledge of ADR reporting conditions (p = 0.792, Kruskal Wallis H test) and area of practice and knowledge of ADR reporting (p = 0.139, Kruskal-Wallis H test).</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. The Practice of Biological Medicine Pharmacovigilance</title><p>Most HCPs indicated that BMs were prescribed, dispensed or administered in their practice (n = 199, 84.7%). However, 3.8% (n = 9) said they were not used, while 11.5% (n = 27) did not know. Of the HCPs who indicated that they used BMs in their practice, only 9% (n = 18) had ever reported an ADR caused by them (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p><p>Most HCPs (n = 88, 44.2%) used non-proprietary names in prescribing, dispensing, or administering BMs, and 114 (57.3%) did not record batch numbers during dispensing/administering of BMs (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p><p>When asked to rank the value of brand names and batch numbers when prescribing, dispensing and administering BMs to patients, HCPs thought using batch numbers was more valuable than using brand names. However, HCPs regarded the recording of batch numbers when dispensing and administering BMs as more difficult than brand name recording (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>).</p><p>There was a difference in the value and ease of use placed on brand names and batch number recording among HCPs (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0).</p><p>There was no statistically significant association between the value HCPs placed on the use of brand names when prescribing, dispensing, or administering BMs with their knowledge of the use of brand names or non-proprietary names when reporting an ADR caused by a BM (p = 0.714, Kruskal Wallis). There</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Brand name and batch number recording practices</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Doctors</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Nurses</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >All HCPs</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Have you ever reported an ADR caused by biological medicines n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (14.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (13.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 (83.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95 (92.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (86.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (94.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178 (89.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >I don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (1.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (5.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >How are biological medicines recorded when prescribing/dispensing/administering n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brand name</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (11.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (13.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (16.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (11.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (13.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-proprietary name</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (42.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47 (45.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (45.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (35.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88 (44.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Both brand and non-proprietary names</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18 (42.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 (29.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (37.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (52.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71 (35.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >I don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (8.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (5.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Varies by medicine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (2.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (1.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199 (100)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Are batch numbers recorded when dispensing/administering biological medicine n (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (23.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (16.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (18.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (17.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (18.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (40.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55 (53.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (78.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (76.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >114 (57.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >I don’t know</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (35.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31 (30.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (2.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (5.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (24.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (100)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199 (100)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Value and ease of use of brand names and batch numbers in clinical practice</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >n</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean score</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Standard Deviation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Worthless (1) - Valuable (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brand name recording</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Batch number recording</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Easy (1) - Difficult (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brand name recording</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Batch number recording</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >199</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> HCP value and ease of use with brand name and batch number recording</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean score</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Standard Deviation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Brand name recording Worthless (1) - Valuable (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Brand name recording Easy (1) - Difficult (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Batch number recording Worthless (1) - Valuable (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Batch number recording Easy (1) - Difficult (7)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doctor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nurse</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pharmacy technologist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Value and ease of use of brand names and batch numbers among HCPs in PMRs compared using Mann Whitney U test. A Bonferroni correction was applied. <sup>a</sup>Doctors valued the use of brand names more than pharmacists (p = 0.002); <sup>b</sup>Doctors valued the use of batch numbers significantly more than nurses (p = 0.004); <sup>c</sup>Pharmacists regarded the recording of batch numbers when dispensing or administering biological medicines to patients as more difficult than doctors and nurses (p &lt; 0.001 and p = 0.006 respectively); <sup>d</sup>Pharmacy technologists regarded the recording of batch numbers when dispensing medicines to patients as more difficult than doctors (p = 0.001).</p><p>was also no significant association between the value HCPs placed on the use of batch numbers when dispensing or administering BMs with their knowledge of the use of batch numbers in reporting ADRs associated with BMs (p = 0.120 Kruskal-Wallis H test).</p><p>There was no association between the use of brand or non-proprietary names when prescribing, dispensing or administering BMs and the value placed on their use in PMRs (p = 0.238, Kruskal-Wallis H test), and their ease of use (p = 0.197, Kruskal Wallis H test). There was also no association between the use of batch numbers when dispensing/administering BMs and the value placed on the use in PMRs (p = 0.241, Kruskal-Wallis H test), and their ease of use (p = 0.06, Kruskal Wallis).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>This study investigated the familiarity, knowledge, and practices of HCPs regarding the PV of BMs at selected hospitals in Lusaka, Zambia. Most HCPs were familiar with BMs (48.9%) but only to the point of having a basic understanding, while most HCPs (40.9%) had never heard of the term “biosimilar medicine”. Despite this, up to 84.7% of HCPs indicated that these medicines were prescribed, dispensed, and administered in their practice. This is similar to other studies conducted in Latin America [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref15">15</xref>], Malta [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref14">14</xref>], and Ireland [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref5">5</xref>], which showed that, despite being unfamiliar with biosimilars, many used them in their practice. HCPs must be educated about BMs that they prescribe, dispense, and administer to their patients as they have additional PV considerations from small molecule drugs.</p><p>The current study showed that those who were familiar (i.e., had a basic or complete understanding) of the terms biological medicine and biosimilars had higher mean scores when their knowledge of PV considerations was assessed. Furthermore, many HCPs (74.1%) thought that using non-proprietary names in ADR reports of BMs was better than using the brand name, or did not know which was better to use. The lack of knowledge of the importance of the use of brand names in ADR reports of BMs can also influence their use in practice as the PMR serves as the source of information to include in the ADR report. HCPs were asked how BMs are named in PMRs when prescribing, dispensing, and administering, for which almost half (44.2%) indicated they use non-proprietary names. Currently, Zambia has many biosimilars registered for use [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref10">10</xref>]. If an ADR occurs, it would be difficult to identify the biosimilar that caused it. PV guidelines or legislation must be made specifically for BMs and biosimilars stating that the use of these drugs should be identified using some identifier (e.g., brand names) to enhance their PV. In Europe, legislation was passed in 2012 encouraging HCPs to use brand names in clinical practice [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref21">21</xref>].</p><p>When HCPs were asked about batch number recording when reporting an ADR, HCPs either did not know or thought it was more important to include them for non-BMs than BMs (63%). This inaccurate perception can potentially influence the practice of recording batch numbers in PMRs, since, just like brand name reporting, PMRs would be the source of information for the ADR report. When HCPs were asked whether batch numbers are generally recorded when dispensing or administering BMs to patients, 57.3% indicated that they are not. If an ADR occurred with the use of a BM, including the batch number in an ADR report would prove difficult, if not impossible for the reporter, if batch numbers are not routinely recorded in PMRs. Studies conducted in Latin America [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref15">15</xref>], Europe [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref22">22</xref>], and Australia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref23">23</xref>], which aimed to determine the lack of inclusion of batch numbers in ADR reports, found that many prescribers did not have the information available at the time of reporting. A solution to this problem would be the education of HCPs on the importance of batch number inclusion in ADR reports and PMRs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref17">17</xref>].</p><p>In the current study, when HCPs were asked to rank on a scale of 1 to 7 (with 1 representing easy and 7 representing difficult) the ease of recording batch numbers in PMRs, they gave an overall score of 5.2. This may mean that the lack of use of batch numbers when dispensing or administering BMs may also indicate additional barriers to recording them in clinical practice. HCPs in other countries have expressed difficulty in recording batch numbers, some stating that electronic patient records do not have fields to include batch numbers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref24">24</xref>], while others have stated that it is impractical to manually record batch numbers when dispensing and administering medicines [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref17">17</xref>]. This may also be the case at the selected hospitals where the study was conducted.</p><p>Assessment of HCPs’ knowledge of the other PV considerations of BMs generally showed poor knowledge. For example, 60% did not know or thought non-BMs pose a greater risk of immunogenicity than BMs, while almost half (46.8%) thought that different batches of BMs are always identical. These incorrect perceptions hamper the PV of BMs. Therefore, HCPs need to be educated regarding these considerations to enhance the PV of BMs.</p><p>Biologics and biosimilars must be transported and stored at highly regulated temperatures [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref25">25</xref>]. Notably, most HCPs (81.3%) recognised that storing BMs outside their recommended storage conditions may introduce or alter immunogenicity. Temperature fluctuations may increase the formation of protein aggregates and therefore affect the product quality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref25">25</xref>].</p><p>To check whether HCPs knew under which conditions reporting an ADR was important, 7 questions were asked. Poor knowledge was demonstrated for some questions. For example, almost half (48.5%) did not know or thought that all serious ADRs were known before marketing, and 29.4% thought that one case did not contribute significantly to knowledge of medicinal risk. A study conducted among private healthcare facilities in Lusaka, Zambia also showed that only 42% of HCPs knew that serious ADRs can also be detected after the marketing of drugs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref26">26</xref>]. A systematic review of 45 articles found that indifference (perceptions that one case does not contribute much to the knowledge of the risk of medicine) was a reason for the under-reporting of ADRs in 67% of the articles [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref27">27</xref>].</p><p>HCPs’ perception of their knowledge of how to report ADRs was assessed. Less than half (37.9%) of HCPs indicated that they have adequate knowledge on how to report an ADR. This lack of knowledge seems to be a common theme in many PV studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref29">29</xref>], including a study conducted among HCPs at the selected hospitals in Lusaka in 2014. In the study, only 22.2% of the HCPs had prior PV training [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref20">20</xref>]. One possible solution to tackle this lack of knowledge would be incorporating PV education into undergraduate training programs, as well as incorporation into continuous professional development activities.</p><p>Over half (53.6%) of HCPs knew they could report ADRs via hardcopy report forms. However, few knew that they could report ADRs via the Med Safety app (16.6%) and the ZAMRA website (34.9%). HCPs have previously cited the lack of ADR report forms as a reason for not reporting ADRs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref30">30</xref>], including a 2014 study conducted at the selected hospitals in Lusaka [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.118823-ref20">20</xref>]. As such, HCP education on other reporting methods could enhance ADR reporting.</p><p>The study presented some limitations; about 30% of HCPs did not respond to the survey questionnaire and therefore this may result in bias that may affect the generalisation of the results.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Only 61.7% of HCPs were familiar with biological medicines; some understood the basics while others had a complete understanding. However, only 38.8% of HCPs were familiar with biosimilar medicines because they had a basic or complete understanding of them. HCPs generally did not score well when their knowledge regarding the PV considerations of biological medicines was assessed. Some HCPs did not know under what conditions they should report ADRs and some ADR reporting methods. Lastly, the practices of some HCPs at the selected hospitals did not enhance the pharmacovigilance of biological medicines.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Recommendation</title><p>Future research could look at the ZAMRA ADR database to determine the reporting of brand names and batch numbers in ADR reports of biological medicines.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Ethics Approval Statement</title><p>Ethical approval was granted by ERES Converge IRB and the National Health Research Ethics Board with reference numbers 2021-Mar-014 and NHRA00017/4/05/2021, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was conducted as a requirement for the awarding of a Master’s degree to Michelo Banda under the Eu2P program. We are therefore grateful for the guidance and support granted by the program instructors.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>All authors declare no conflict of interest.</p></sec><sec id="s10"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Banda, M., Verhamme, K., Mufwambi, W., Mudenda, S., Chabalenge, B., Matafwali, S.K., Mutati, R.K., Hikaambo, C.N., Kampamba, M. and Prashar, L. (2022) Familiarity, Knowledge and Practices of Healthcare Professionals Regarding the Pharmacovigilance of Biological Medicines in Lusaka, Zambia: A Multi-Facility Cross-Sectional Study. Pharmacology &amp; Pharmacy, 13, 230-251. https://doi.org/10.4236/pp.2022.137019</p></sec><sec id="s11"><title>Appendix 1: Study Questionnaire</title><p>Throughout the questionnaire, tick only the single checkbox that applies under each question and/or sub-question</p><p>1) Are you a</p><p>5 Consultant 5 Senior Resident Medical Officer</p><p>5 Junior Resident Medical Officer 5 Pharmacist</p><p>5 Pharmacy Technologist 5 Nurse</p><p>5 Other (please specify)……..</p><p>To Be Filled In By Medical Practitioners Only</p><p>2) How many years are you registered as a medical practitioner?</p><p>5 &lt;5 years 5 5 - 9 years</p><p>5 10 - 19 years 5 20 - 29 years</p><p>5 &gt;30 years</p><p>3) How many years have you been in practice?</p><p>5 &lt;5 years 5 5 - 9 years</p><p>5 10 - 19 years 5 20 - 29 years</p><p>5 &gt;30 years</p><p>4) Please indicate the therapeutic area in which you practice?</p><p>5 Women and newborn hospital 5 Adult hospital</p><p>5 Paediatrics hospital 5 Cancer Diseases Hospital</p><p>5) Do you ever prescribe medicines to patients under your care?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No</p><p>5 Other (please specify)……………………………………………..</p><p>To Be Filled In By Pharmacist/ Pharmacy Technologist Only</p><p>2) How many years have you been practising as a pharmacist/pharmacy technologist?</p><p>5 &lt;5 years 5 5 - 9 years</p><p>5 10 - 19 years 5 20 - 29 years</p><p>5 &gt;30 years</p><p>3) Please indicate the therapeutic area in which you practice?</p><p>5 Women and newborn hospital 5 Adult hospital</p><p>5 Paediatrics hospital 5 Cancer Diseases hospital</p><p>To Be Filled By Nurses Only</p><p>2) How many years has it been since you first entered practice?</p><p>5 &lt;5 years 5 5 - 9 years</p><p>5 10 - 19 years 5 20 - 29 years</p><p>5 &gt;30 years</p><p>3) Are you a (choose all that apply):</p><p>5 Registered General Nurse 5 Registered Public Health Nurse</p><p>5 Other (please specify)………………………………………………………</p><p>4) Please indicate the therapeutic area in which you practice?</p><p>5 Women and newborn hospital 5 Adult hospital</p><p>5 Paediatrics hospital 5 Cancer Diseases hospital</p>Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting<p>Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting</p><p>An adverse drug reaction is a response to a medicine which is noxious and unintended. An adverse drug reaction can be reported directly to the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (formerly Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority) or the manufacturer of the medicine. An adverse drug reaction can be reported using hardcopy report forms, via email, online on the ZAMRA website, and using the Med Safety app.</p><p>1) Before this survey, did you know that an adverse drug reaction could be reported directly to the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (ZAMRA)?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No</p><p>2) Before this survey, did you know that an adverse drug reaction could be reported using:</p><p>a) Hardcopy ADR report forms?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No</p><p>b) The Med Safety app?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No</p><p>c) The ZAMRA website?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No</p><p>3) Have you ever reported an adverse drug reaction?</p><p>5 No (0 times) 5 Yes (1 time)</p><p>5 Yes (2 times) 5 Yes (≥3 times)</p><p>Do you think that:</p><p>1) Do you have adequate knowledge on how to report an adverse drug reaction?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>2) Healthcare professionals should report serious Adverse drug reactions even if uncertain that the medicine caused the event</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>3) Healthcare professionals should report serious adverse drug reactions even if they do not have all the details of the event (e.g. complete patient history, demographic data)</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>4) All serious adverse drug reactions are known before medicine is marketed</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>5) One case reported by a healthcare professional does not contribute much to knowledge on medicine risks</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>6) Patients can report adverse drug reactions independent of a healthcare professional</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>7) Healthcare professionals should report adverse drug reactions associated with overdose, misuse or error</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p>Biological Medicines<p>Biological Medicines: Familiarity</p><p>1) How familiar are you with the term biological medicine?</p><p>5 Never heard of the term 5 Heard of the term - can’t define it</p><p>5 Familiar - I have got a basic understanding</p><p>5 Very familiar - I have got a complete understanding</p><p>2) How familiar are you with the term biosimilar medicine?</p><p>5 Never heard of the term 5 Heard of the term - can’t define it</p><p>5 Familiar - I have got a basic understanding</p><p>5 Very familiar - I have got a complete understanding</p><p>Biological medicines are produced from biological sources, such as animals, human blood, or the cells of a living organism. Examples of biological medicines include monoclonal antibodies (e.g.infliximab, trastuzumab, bevacizumab), insulins (wosulin, insugen), interferon alfa 2b, erythropoietins (wepox, vintor), vaccines and blood products. A biosimilar is a biological medicine which is highly similar to an original biological medicine.</p><p>1) Biosimilars are the same as generic medicines</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>2) In an adverse drug reaction report, it is better to identify a biological medicine by its non-proprietary name (e.g. insulin) instead of its brand name (e.g. Wosulin)</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>3) In general, biological medicines pose a greater risk of immunogenicity than non-biological (chemical) medicines</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>4) Different batches of the same biological medicine are always identical</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>5) Rare adverse drug reactions resulting from changes to the manufacturing process of a biological medicine can always be predicted</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>6) It is more important to include batch numbers in adverse drug reaction reports for non-biological medicines than it is for biological medicines</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>7) Keeping a biological medicine outside its recommended storage conditions may introduce or alter the immunogenicity</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>8) Adverse drug reactions associated with a patient changing between different brands of biological medicine should be reported</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>Biological Medicines: Practice</p><p>9) Are biological medicines prescribed/dispensed/administered in your practice?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>10) Have you ever reported an adverse drug reaction caused by biological medicines?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>11) In your practice how are the names of biological medicines that have been prescribed/dispensed/administered to patients generally recorded?</p><p>5 Brand name (e.g. Wosulin) 5 Non-proprietary name (e.g. insulin)</p><p>5 Both brand name and non-proprietary name</p><p>5 I don’t know</p><p>5 Varies by medicine (please specify)…………………………………………</p><p>12) In your practice are the batch numbers of biological medicines that have been administered/ dispensed to patients generally recorded?</p><p>5 Yes 5 No 5 I don’t know</p><p>5 Yes, but only for some medicines (please specify)…………………………</p><p>Please mark your response to the following questions on each scale ranging from 1 to 7</p><p>13) Do you believe that recording the brand names of all biological medicines prescribed/administered/dispensed to patients is:</p><p>1 2 3 4 5 6 7</p><p>Worthless (1) - Valuable (7) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5</p><p>Easy (1) - Difficult (7) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5</p><p>Any other comments……………………………………………………………</p><p>………………………………………………………………………………………</p><p>14) Do you believe that recording batch numbers of ALL biological medicines administered/dispensed to patients are:</p><p>1 2 3 4 5 6 7</p><p>Worthless (1) - Valuable (7) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5</p><p>Easy (1) - Difficult (7) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5</p><p>Any other comments……………………………………………..………………</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.118823-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stricker, B.H. and Psaty, B.M. (2004) Detection, Verification, and Quantification of Adverse Drug Reactions. BMJ, 329, 44-47. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7456.44</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Giezen, T.J., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K. and Leufkens, H.G. (2009) Pharmacovigilance of Biopharmaceuticals: Challenges Remain. Drug Safety, 32, 811-817. https://doi.org/10.2165/11316550-000000000-00000</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Giezen, T.J., Mantel-Teeuwisse, A.K., Straus, S.M.J.M., Schellekens, H., Leufkens, H.G.M. and Egberts, A.C.G. (2008) Safety-Related Regulatory Actions for Biologicals Approved in the United States and the European Union. JAMA, 300, 1887- 1896. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.16.1887</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers &amp; Associations (2016) Pharmacovigilance of Biotherapeutic Medicines: Identifying Global Case Studies Illustrating Successes and Challenges.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">O’Callaghan, J., Griffin, B.T., Morris, J.M. and Bermingham, M. (2018) Knowledge of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and the Pharmacovigilance of Biological Medicines: A Survey of Healthcare Professionals in Ireland. BioDrugs, 32, 267-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0281-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sagi, S., Cohen, H.P. and Woollett, G.R. (2017) Pharmacovigilance of Biologics in a Multisource Environment. Journal of Managed Care &amp; Specialty Pharmacy, 23, 1249- 1254. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.12.1249</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Food and Drugs Administration (2017) Nonproprietary Naming of Biological Products: Guidance for Industry. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vanderlaan, M., Maniatis, A., Olney, R., Rahmaoui, A., Yau, L., Quarmby, V., Azzolino, C., Woods, C. and Moawad, D. (2020) Changes in Manufacturing Processes of Biologic Therapies Can Alter the Immunogenicity Profile of the Product. Clinical Pharmacology &amp; Therapeutics, 107, 988-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1694</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Calvo, B. and Zu&amp;#241;iga, L. (2014) EU’s New Pharmacovigilance Legislation: Considerations for Biosimilars. Drug Safety, 37, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0121-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (2019) Medicines for Human Use 2019 Register.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (2013) Annexe 2. Guidelines on Evaluation of Similar Biotherapeutic Products (SBPs). WHO Technical Report Series No. 977. World Health Organisation, Geneva.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Claus, B.O., Lunddahl, B. and van Gelder, T. (2017) Pharmacovigilance, Traceability and Building Trust in Biosimilar Medicines. GaBI Journal, 6, 135-140. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2017.0603.026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Annese, V., Solá, C., Breedveld, F., Ekman, N., Giezen, T., Gomollón, F., et al. (2016) Roundtable on Biosimilars with European Regulators and Medical Societies, Brussels, Belgium, 12 January 2016. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal, 5, 74-83. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2016.0502.019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cassar, K., Zammit Dimech, D., Grech, L., Balzan, D., Cutajar, A. and Cassar, P.J. (2016) SAT0637-HPR Biosimilars: The Perception amongst Maltese Clinicians. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 75, 1294. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-eular.1061</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Reilly, M.S. and Gewanter, H.L. (2015) Prescribing Practices for Biosimilars: Questionnaire Survey Findings from Physicians in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal, 4, 161-167. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2015.0404.036</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karateev, D. and Belokoneva, N. (2019) Evaluation of Physicians’ Knowledge and Attitudes towards Biosimilars in Russia and Issues Associated with Their Prescribing. Biomolecules, 9, Article No. 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9020057</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Klein, K., Hazell, L., Stolk, P. and Shakir, S. (2020) The UK BIO-TRAC Study: A Cross-Sectional Study of Product and Batch Traceability for Biologics in Clinical Practice and Electronic Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK. Drug Safety, 43, 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00891-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cochran, W. (1963) Sampling Techniques. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Israel, G.D. (1992) Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prashar, L. and Musoke, P. (2014) A Preliminary Study of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in a Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. Medical Journal of Zambia, 41, 155-161.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">GaBI Online—Generics and Biosimilars Initiative. Biosimilars in EU to Be Identified by Brand Names. https://www.gabionline.net/Policies-Legislation/Biologicals-in-EU-to-be-identified-by-brandnames</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dolinar, R.O. and Reilly, M.S. (2014) Biosimilars Naming, Label Transparency and Authority of Choice-Survey Findings among European Physicians. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal, 3, 58-62. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2014.0302.018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Murby, S.P. and Reilly, M.S. (2017) A Survey of Australian Prescribers’ Views on the Naming and Substitution of Biologicals. Generics and Biosimilars Initiative Journal, 6, 107-114. https://doi.org/10.5639/gabij.2017.0603.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Klein, K., Scholl, J.H., Vermeer, N.S., Broekmans, A.W., Van Puijenbroek, E.P., De Bruin, M.L., et al. (2016) Traceability of Biologics in the Netherlands: An Analysis of Information-Recording Systems in Clinical Practice and Spontaneous ADR Reports. Drug Safety, 39, 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-015-0383-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Saavedra, M.A., Aimo, C. andrade, J.A., Alvarez, D., Sequeira, G. and Kerzberg, E. (2019) Survey on Transportation and Storage of Biological Therapies by Patients. European Journal of Rheumatology, 6, 94-97. https://doi.org/10.5152/eurjrheum.2019.18182</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prashar, L., Jere, E. and Kalungia, C.A. (2019) Inadequate Knowledge and Practice of Pharmacovigilance Affecting Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Health Professionals in Private Healthcare Facilities in Lusaka, Zambia. Medical Journal of Zambia, 46, 314-320.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez-Gonzalez, E., Herdeiro, M.T. and Figueiras, A. (2009) Determinants of Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Systematic Review. Drug Safety, 32, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200932010-00002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Elnour, A.A., Ahmed, A.D., Yousif, M.A. and Shehab, A. (2009) Awareness and Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions among Health Care Professionals in Sudan. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 35, 324-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(09)35046-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Terblanche, A., Meyer, J.C., Godman, B. and Summers, R.S. (2017) Knowledge, Attitudes and Perspective on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in a Public Sector Hospital in South Africa: Baseline Analysis. Hospital Practice (1995), 45, 238-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2017.1381013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.118823-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bogolubova, S., Padayachee, N. and Schellack, N. (2018) Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Nurses and Pharmacists towards Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the South African Private Hospital Sector. Health SA, 23, 1064. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v23i0.1064</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>