Dataset Information

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:Teriparatide is used to treat patients with established osteoporosis but is often reserved for patients who have inadequate response to antiresorptive therapy. Biosimilar teriparatide, which is believed to have efficacy and safety similar to the originator product, is now available in Colombia. However, little is known about patients' preferences for originator biologic and biosimilar treatments. Our objective was to quantify the relative importance that patients in Colombia place on features of injectable osteoporosis treatments including whether the treatment is an originator biologic or a biosimilar. Patients and Methods:We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences of patients with osteoporosis treatment devices in Colombia. The survey was completed by 200 respondents at high risk of fracture, with or without teriparatide experience. Each treatment alternative within the DCE was characterized by five attributes: type of medicine (originator biologic, biosimilar), needle length, angle of injection, how to measure the medicine dose, and how long the medicine can be left unrefrigerated. A random parameters logit regression was used to estimate preferences and conditional relative attribute importance, while controlling for preference heterogeneity. Results:A total of 200 patients (mean age = 58.3 years) completed the survey. Most were female (84.5%) and married (54.5%); 50.5% had secondary education or less, 21% had current teriparatide exposure. The attribute with the highest conditional relative importance estimate (standard error) was biologic versus biosimilar (10 [1.11]), followed by needle length (8.06 [1.11]), dose measurement (6.38 [0.87]), refrigeration (3.81 [1.18]), and angle of injection (1.30 [0.66]). Unobserved preference heterogeneity was present and controlled for in the analyses. Conclusion:Despite the availability of biosimilar teriparatide in Colombia, patients expressed a strong preference for an originator biologic osteoporosis medicine over a biosimilar osteoporosis medicine, when the efficacy, safety, and cost of the two options were assumed to be the same.

SUBMITTER: Graham-Clarke PL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7323574 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia.

Graham-Clarke Peita L PL Hauber Brett B Boeri Marco M Leonardi Felice F Burge Russel T RT Fernandez Maria M Tockhorn-Heidenreich Antje A Florez Sandra S

Patient preference and adherence 20200623

<h4>Purpose</h4>Teriparatide is used to treat patients with established osteoporosis but is often reserved for patients who have inadequate response to antiresorptive therapy. Biosimilar teriparatide, which is believed to have efficacy and safety similar to the originator product, is now available in Colombia. However, little is known about patients' preferences for originator biologic and biosimilar treatments. Our objective was to quantify the relative importance that patients in Colombia plac ...[more]

PMID: 32612354

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.

Project description:We used conjoint analysis-a method that assesses complex decision making-to quantify patients' choices when selecting an osteoporosis therapy. While 60% of people prioritized medication efficacy when deciding among treatments, the remaining 40% highly valued factors other than efficacy, suggesting the need for personalized shared decision-making tools.IntroductionIn this study, we aimed to examine patient decision-making surrounding osteoporosis medications using conjoint analysis.MethodsWe enrolled osteoporosis patients at an academic medical center to complete an online conjoint exercise which calculated each patient's relative importance score of 6 osteoporosis medication attributes (higher = greater relative importance in decision-making). We used latent class analysis to identify distinct segments of patients with similar choice patterns and then used logistic regression to determine if demographics and osteoporosis disease features were associated with latent class assignment.ResultsOverall, 304 participants completed the survey. The rank order of medication attributes by importance score was the following: efficacy at preventing hip fractures (accounted for 31.0% of decision making), mode of administration (17.5%); risk of serious side effects (16.6%); dose frequency (13.9%); efficacy at preventing spine fractures (12.5%); risk of non-serious side effects (8.4%). We found that 60.9% of the cohort prioritized medication efficacy as their top factor when selecting among the therapies. Being a college graduate, having stronger beliefs on the necessity of using medications for osteoporosis, and never having used osteoporosis medicines were the only factors associated with prioritizing medication efficacy for fracture prevention over the other factors in the decision-making process.ConclusionsWhile about 60% of patients prioritized efficacy when selecting an osteoporosis therapy, the remaining 40% valued other factors more highly. Furthermore, individual patient characteristics and clinical factors did not reliably predict patient decision making, suggesting that development and implementation of shared decision-making tools is warranted.

Project description:ObjectivesTo elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.DesignA discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.SettingN=21 UK hospitals.ParticipantsN=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial.OutcomesPatient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay.ResultsN=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for 'improved' to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for 'very much improved' symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £-8022 (£-10 661 to £-5383) and £-10 632 (£-14 077 to £-7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £-967 (£-2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £-5338 (£-7258 to £-3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance.ConclusionThis discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost-benefit analyses.Trial registration numberISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple switches (transitions) between biosimilars of the same reference biologic are now a reality, and they are expected to become more common in the future as more biosimilars enter the market. Switching between two biosimilars of the same reference biologic is generally driven by affordability, formulary requirements, or the relocation/travel of the patient. Evidence of whether switching between biosimilars of the same reference biologic provides similar safety and efficacy profiles is reviewed here.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken using electronic databases (to December 2021): Biosis, Embase, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid. Publications were evaluated for effectiveness and/or safety data linked to switching from one biosimilar to another.ResultsThe systematic search yielded 982 citations. After eliminating duplicates, 626 citations remained for the initial title/abstract screening phase. Following the initial screening, 240 records were chosen; more thorough examination yielded 35 citations. After comprehensive screening and expert advice, 23 studies were selected, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder have been published as abstracts. Overall, 3657 patients were included in these studies. All studies were observational in nature; no randomized clinical trials were identified. The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints. Across the studies, data are provided on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns. The majority of studies examined switches between biosimilar infliximabs, although switches between biosimilar adalimumabs, etanercepts, and rituximabs were also identified. Two use-pattern studies and one case report were also detected and are discussed.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this systematic review, available data suggests that biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching is a safe and effective clinical practice, although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance. No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date.

Dataset Information

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia.

Publications

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets