Biosimilar Agents for Psoriasis Treatment: The Perspective of Portuguese Patients

Barriers and Enablers Affecting the Uptake of Biosimilar Medicines Viewed Through the Lens of Actor Network Theory: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars represent an opportunity to realise savings against the costs of innovative medicines. Despite efforts made by stakeholders, there are numerous barriers to the uptake of biosimilars. To realise the promise of biosimilars reducing costs, barriers must be identified, understood, and overcome, and enablers magnified. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars through the application of a classification system to organise them into healthcare professional (HCP), patient, or systemic categories.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, eConlit, and Embase. Included were primary research studies published in English between Jan 2017 through June 2023 focused on enablers and barriers affecting uptake of biosimilars. Excluded studies comprised comparisons of biosimilar efficacy and safety versus the reference biologic. One reviewer extracted data that included classification of barriers or enablers, the sub-classification, and the identification of the degree of agency associated with the actor through their role and associations as a mediator within their network, through the application of Actor Network Theory. The data were validated by a second reviewer (PV).

RESULTS

Of the 94 studies included, 59 were cross-sectional, 20 were qualitative research, 12 were cohort studies, and three were economic evaluations. Within the review, 51 of the studies included HCP populations and 35 included patients. Policies and guidelines were the most cited group of enablers, overall. Systemic enablers were addressed in 29 studies. For patients, the most frequently cited enabler was positive framing of a biosimilar, while for HCPs, cost benefit was the most frequently noted enabler. The most frequently discussed systemic barrier to biosimilar acceptance was lack of effective policies or guidelines, followed by lack of financial incentives, while the most significant barriers for HCPs and patients, respectively, were their lack of general knowledge about biosimilars and concerns about safety and efficacy. Systemic actors and HCPs most frequently acted with broad degree of agency as mediators, while patient most frequently acted with a narrow degree of agency as mediators within their networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Barriers and enablers affecting uptake of biosimilars are interconnected within networks, and can be divided into systemic, HCP, and patient categories. Understanding the agency of actors within networks may allow for more comprehensive and effective approaches. Systemic enablers in the form of policies appear to be the most effective overall levers in affecting uptake of biosimilars, with policy makers advised to give careful consideration to appropriately educating HCPs and positively framing biosimilars for patients.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Multiple Switching Between Originators and Biosimilars: Literature Review and Status Report on Interchangeability

To date, numerous biosimilars are available in Europe and the practice of switching between originator and biosimilar or between two different biosimilars has become very widespread. However, multiple switching has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study is to conduct a literature review to assess the effectiveness and safety of multiple switches. All PubMed articles involving multiple switches from originator to biosimilars or between different biosimilars were considered. The relevant data on effectiveness and safety were extracted from these studies and the results were reported through descriptive analysis. Fifteen studies were considered, of which 11 were observational and 4 clinical trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis were the most studied diseases. All studies reported that the effectiveness and safety in patients whose treatment involved multiple switches, was comparable to patients whose treatment involved a single or no switch at all. Some therapeutic fields such as oncology and renal insufficiency were not represented at all in the multiple switch studies. New evidence is desperately needed and should be made available to the scientific community and decision-makers.

How do hospital characteristics and ties relate to the uptake of second-generation biosimilars? A longitudinal analysis of Portuguese NHS hospitals, 2015-2021

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence on within-country discrepancies in biosimilar uptake. This study analyzes differences in timing and diffusion of biosimilar uptake across Portuguese NHS hospitals and explores possible determinants.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed publicly accessible consumption data of originator biologic and biosimilar drugs for adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab, by hospital and month for the years 2015-2021 (N = 9,467). We modeled the time to biosimilar adoption using survival regression models and the share of biosimilar consumption using generalized estimated equations with random hospital effects.

RESULTS

Academic hospitals were characterized by a quicker uptake of adalimumab and infliximab biosimilars but lower shares for other drugs. A higher total consumption of biologics was related to a lower share of biosimilar uptake. A stronger participation in randomized controlled trials was linked to higher biosimilar shares and quicker uptake, except for rituximab. If all NHS hospitals had biosimilar shares equal to the highest ones, potential annual savings could reach 13.9 million euros.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest a need for capacity-building on biosimilar prescribing, including for doctors of academic hospitals and those working in settings where high biosimilar use would be expected.

Nurses' Knowledge and Attitudes towards Biosimilar Medicines as Part of Evidence-Based Nursing Practice-International Pilot Study within the Project Biosimilars Nurses Guide Version 2.0

Introduction: The increasing availability of biosimilars can increase patient access to these drugs and reduce the economic burden. Nurses play a key role in the education, administration, pharmacovigilance and management of the side effects of biosimilars. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards biosimilar drugs in different countries. Methods: An international cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2021 to February 2022. The survey was carried out using Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI), sent by the CAWI panel via the website. Results: The results showed that nurses with a greater level of education felt most knowledgeable about biosimilars (χ2 = 105.813, df = 2, p < 0.001). One-third of nurses with a doctorate and a second degree said biosimilars are used in their workplace (χ2 = 48.169, df = 4, p < 0.001); most nurses with a second degree said that they had never heard of biosimilars (41%). Doctorate-level nurses thought knowledge is the key factor to increasing biosimilar uptake (97%). Conclusions: Nurses are not knowledgeable about biosimilars. Most would like to participate in training on biosimilars. This is a very important topic, because biosimilars are constantly evolving in medicine.

Reassurance Techniques Do Not Significantly Impact Confidence in Biosimilars for Psoriasis: A Survey of a Convenience Sample of Individuals with Self-Identified Psoriasis

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are underutilized, and negative perceptions may hinder their acceptance by patients. Psychologic interventions have not been extensively studied in the context of alleviating biosimilar hesitancy. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of psychologic interventions on biosimilar confidence.

METHODS

Following institutional review board (IRB) approval, 1285 subjects with self-reported psoriasis were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing platform. Participants were randomized to one of ten groups. Group A started with a hypothetical bio-originator; group B started with a hypothetical biosimilar. The remaining groups were provided a hypothetical scenario in which they were switching to a biosimilar after achieving great results with a bio-originator, and were randomized to receive either no reassurance (group C) or one of the following psychologic interventions: reassurance of comparable effectiveness (group D), an illustration implying comparable effectiveness (group E), anecdote of great results obtained in "other psoriasis patients" (group F), anecdote of great results obtained in another psoriasis patient "a lot like you" (group G), reassurance of the rigorous evaluation process to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (group H), engagement in a task designed to facilitate recognition of biosimilars' comparability through answering multiple choice (group I) or free response questions (group J). Confidence levels were assessed using six-point Likert scales and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and two-group t-tests.

RESULTS

While no statistically significant differences were detected, illustrations implying comparability (mean 4.19), explanations of the rigorous process to gain FDA approval (mean 4.21), testimonials of treatment success in another psoriasis patient "a lot like you" (mean 4.07) and "other psoriasis patients" (mean 4.01), and engagement with multiple choice (mean 4.02) and free response answers (mean 4.08) improved biosimilar confidence compared with the biosimilar switch control group (mean 3.96).

CONCLUSION

Identifying highly impactful methods of improving biosimilar confidence remains a challenge.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Healthcare Providers, Healthcare Regulatory Practitioners and Patients Toward Biosimilars in China: Insights From a Nationwide Survey

Objective: With increasing numbers of biosimilars entering the market or in the approval pipeline in China, understanding the current awareness and attitudes of biosimilars still remains the first step to promote uptake. This study aims to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of multiple stakeholders toward biosimilars, including healthcare providers (HCPs), healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, and to provide practical information for future uptake of biosimilars in China.

Methods: This nationwide cross-sectional online survey was conducted in mainland China. The questionnaire with a high level of reliability and validity was designed based on previous studies and clinical questions in the Clinical Practice Guideline for Clinical Application of Biosimilars. Logistic regression model was employed to identify possible impact factors, and Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to identify the correlation between knowledge and attitudes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the differences between different stakeholders.

Results: Overall, 599 valid respondents were recruited, of whom 77.63%, 7.01% and 15.36% were HCPs, healthcare regulatory practitioners and patients, respectively. A total of 504 respondents who had heard of biosimilars were included in the KAP analysis. 76.70% of HCPs, 90.24% of healthcare regulatory practitioners and 50.98% of patients had good knowledge about the definition, while less familiarity with the development process and regulations on interchangeability and indication extrapolation was found in the former two groups. For attitudes toward biosimilars, an overall lack of positivity was shown, as only 18.20% HCPs, 14.63% healthcare regulatory practitioners and 23.53% patients were classified as having positive attitudes. More specifically, most respondents were positive about the influence of payment policy on the uptake of biosimilars, but they showed a neutral attitude toward the clinical medication and interchangeability of biosimilars. Efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, interchangeability and indication extrapolation are major concerns when utilizing biosimilars. Regarding practice, our study showed an inadequate utilization of biosimilars in China. Several further suggestions on the regulation of biosimilars were proposed by healthcare regulatory practitioners.

Conclusions: There is still plenty of room for improvement of knowledge, attitudes and practice toward biosimilars among multiple stakeholders in China, which can be improved through high-quality real world evidence, educational programs and other effective measures directed towards barriers.

"Biosimilar, so it looks alike, but what does it mean?" A qualitative study of Danish patients' perceptions of biosimilars

Biosimilars are highly similar follow‐on products for biologics that can foster biologics competition. Questionnaire studies have attempted to gauge the patient perspective on biosimilars, but none have delved deeper into how patients view biologics and switching of these. Considering Denmark has one of the highest biosimilar uptakes worldwide, the aim of this study was to investigate how Danish patients with psoriasis, arthritic diseases or inflammatory bowel disease perceive biosimilars. Twelve participants were semi‐structurally interviewed in either a focus group or an internet‐based, individual interview between May 2019 and July 2019. Content analysis was inductively applied. Participants on originators voiced more reluctance towards using biosimilars than those already using them. Both participants using originator and biosimilar products expressed concerns about reoccurrence of disease symptoms due to differences in effectiveness and safety. Participants generally struggled with understanding biosimilarity, and they voiced a need to be well‐informed about switching. They were all aware of and accepted how healthcare budget restrictions played a role in the push to use biosimilars. To improve biosimilar uptake and willingness to switch to a biosimilar, patient‐centred information on efficacy and safety and explanation of the societal benefits of the savings from using biosimilars must be carefully communicated.

Regulatory Information and Guidance on Biosimilars and Their Use Across Europe: A Call for Strengthened One Voice Messaging

Background

Beyond evaluation and approval, European and national regulators have a key role in providing reliable information on biosimilars and the science underpinning their development, approval, and use.

Objectives

This study aims to (i) review biosimilar information and guidance provided by EMA and national medicines agencies and (ii) explore stakeholder perspectives on the role of regulators in enabling acceptance and use of biosimilars.

Methods

This study consists of (i) a comparative review of regulatory information and position statements across medicine agencies (n = 32) and (ii) qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Europe (n = 14).

Results

The comparative analysis showed that regulatory information and guidance about biosimilars offered by national medicines agencies in Europe varies, and is limited or absent in multiple instances. Approximately 40% (13/31) of the national medicines agencies' websites did not offer any information regarding biosimilars, and for about half (15/31) no educational materials were provided. Only less than half of national medicines agencies provided guidance on biosimilar interchangeability and switching (8/31 and 12/31, respectively). Among the national medicines agencies that did offer guidance, the extent (e.g., elaborate position vs. brief statement) and content (e.g., full endorsement vs. more cautious) of the guidance differed substantially. Countries that have a strong involvement in EU level biosimilar regulatory activities generally had more elaborate information nationally. Interviewees underwrote the need for (national) regulators to intensify biosimilar stakeholder guidance, especially in terms of providing clear positions regarding biosimilar interchangeability and switching, which in turn can be disseminated by the relevant professional societies more locally.

Conclusion

This study revealed that, despite strong EU-level regulatory biosimilar guidance, guidance about biosimilars, and their use differs considerably across Member States. This heterogeneity, together with the absence of a clear EU-wide position on interchangeability, may instill uncertainty among stakeholders about the appropriate use of biosimilars in practice. Regulators should strive for a clear and common EU scientific position on biosimilar interchangeability to bridge this gap and unambiguously inform policy makers, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, there is a clear opportunity to expand information at the national level, and leverage EU-developed information materials more actively in this regard.

Perceptions About Biosimilar Medicines Among Belgian Patients in the Ambulatory Care

Background and objectives: Biosimilar medicines have been on the European market for 15 years. Despite the extensive and positive experience with biosimilars across Europe, their uptake remains limited in Belgium. One of the possible factors limiting uptake in clinical practice is the inadequate understanding and lack of trust in biosimilars among patients. This study aimed to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions about biosimilar medicines among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care. Methods: This study consisted of online questionnaires among Belgian patients in the ambulatory care (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, diabetes mellitus type I and II). The results were collected between December 2020 and February 2021. The data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: In total, 657 patients across all disease areas of interest participated in this study. Only 38% of patients had heard of biosimilars before. Of those patients, most (58%) were aware that biosimilars are as safe and effective as their reference product. The vast majority of respondents (68%) would agree with transitioning to a biosimilar if their physician prescribed it, only 3% would never agree with a transition to a biosimilar. If a physician would propose to change their current originator biological therapy with its biosimilar, nearly all patients (95%) want their physician to explain the decision and inform them. For additional information about biosimilars, Belgian patients prefer brochures or folders (41%), or available resources on the internet (35%). Physicians were indicated as the preferred source of information (95%), followed by pharmacists (51%), academia (39%), and patient associations (35%). Most patients require information regarding the safety and efficacy (78%), price and reimbursement (64%), and the clinical development process (56%) of the biosimilar. Conclusion: Belgian patients require information about biosimilar medicines. However, most patients are open and positive towards transitioning their current biological therapy with its biosimilar if sufficiently supported by their healthcare providers.

Developments and challenges in dermatology: an update from the Interactive Derma Academy (IDeA) 2019

The 2019 Interactive Derma Academy (IDeA) meeting was held in Lisbon, Portugal, 10-12 May, bringing together leading dermatology experts from across Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Over three days, the latest developments and challenges in relation to the pathophysiology, diagnosis, evaluation and management of dermatological conditions were presented, with a particular focus on acne, atopic dermatitis (AD) and actinic keratosis (AK). Interesting clinical case studies relating to these key topics were discussed with attendees to establish current evidence-based best practices. Presentations reviewed current treatments, potential therapeutic approaches and key considerations in the management of acne, AK and AD, and discussed the importance of the microbiome in these conditions, as well as the provision of patient education/support. It was highlighted that active treatment is not always required for AK, depending on patient preferences and clinical circumstances. In addition to presentations, two interactive workshops on the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs) presenting to the dermatology clinic, and current and future dermocosmetics were conducted. The potential for misdiagnosis of STIs/STDs was discussed, with dermoscopy and/or reflectance confocal microscopy suggested as useful diagnostic techniques. In addition, botulinum toxin was introduced as a potential dermocosmetic, and the possibility of microbiome alteration in the treatment of dermatological conditions emphasized. Furthermore, several challenges in dermatology, including the use of lasers, the complexity of atopic dermatitis, wound care, use of biosimilars and application of non-invasive techniques in skin cancer diagnosis were reviewed. In this supplement, we provide an overview of the presentations and discussions from the fourth successful IDeA meeting, summarizing the key insights shared by dermatologists from across the globe.

Informing Patients about Biosimilar Medicines: The Role of European Patient Associations

Biosimilar medicines support the sustainability of national healthcare systems, by reducing costs of biological therapies through increased competition. However, their adoption into clinical practice largely depends on the acceptance of healthcare providers and patients. Patients are different from health care professionals (HCPs), who are informing themselves professionally. For patients, the biosimilar debate only becomes actual when they are confronted with disease and drug choices. This paper provides a literature review on how patients are and should be informed about biosimilars, searching in scientific databases (i.e., Medline, Embase). Several large surveys have shown a lack of knowledge and trust in biosimilars among European patients in recent years. This review identified five main strategies to inform patients about biosimilars: (1) provide understandable information, (2) in a positive and transparent way, (3) tailored to the individual’s needs, (4) with one voice, and (5) supported by audiovisual material. Moreover, the importance of a multistakeholder approach was underlined by describing the role of each stakeholder. Patients are a large and diffuse target group to be reached by educational programs. Therefore, patient associations have become increasingly important in correctly informing patients about biosimilar medicines. This has led to widespread biosimilar information for patients among European patient associations. Therefore, a web-based screening of European Patients’ Forum (EPF) and International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO) member organizations on publicly available information about biosimilars was performed. We found that the level of detail, correctness, and the tone of the provided information varied. In conclusion, it is paramount to set up a close collaboration between all stakeholders to communicate, develop, and disseminate factual information about biosimilars for patients.

European Stakeholder Learnings Regarding Biosimilars: Part I-Improving Biosimilar Understanding and Adoption

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits offered by biosimilars in terms of cost savings and improved patient access to biological therapies, and an established regulatory pathway in Europe, biosimilar adoption is challenged by a lack of knowledge and understanding among stakeholders such as healthcare professionals and patients about biosimilars, impacting their trust and willingness to use them. In addition, stakeholders are faced with questions about clinical implementation aspects such as switching.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide recommendations on how to improve biosimilar understanding and adoption among stakeholders based on insights of healthcare professionals (physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses), patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

METHOD

The study consists of a structured literature review gathering original research data on stakeholder knowledge about biosimilars, followed by semi-structured interviews across five stakeholder groups including physicians, hospital pharmacists, nurses, patient(s) (representatives) and regulators across Europe.

RESULTS

Although improvement in knowledge was observed over time, generally low to moderate levels of awareness, knowledge and trust towards biosimilars among healthcare professionals and patients are identified in literature (N studies = 106). Based on the provided insights from interviews with European experts (N = 44), a number of challenges regarding biosimilar stakeholder understanding are identified, including a lack of practical information about biosimilars and their use, a lack of understanding about biosimilar concepts and a lack of knowledge about biologicals in general. Misinformation by originator industry is also believed to have impacted stakeholder trust. In terms of possible solutions and actions to improve stakeholder understanding, broad support exists to (1) organize initiatives focussed on explaining the rationale behind biosimilar concepts and the approval pathway, (2) invest in education about biologicals in general, (3) develop clear and one-voice regulatory guidance about biosimilar interchangeability and switching across Europe, (4) disseminate real-world clinical biosimilar (switch) data, (5) share biosimilar experiences by key opinion leaders and among peers, (6) provide practical biosimilar product information, (7) provide guidance about biosimilar use, (8) actively counterbalance misinformation and organize information initiatives by neutral entities, (9) organize multi-stakeholder informational and educational efforts, aligning information between involved stakeholder groups and (10) design initiatives in a way that ensures active information uptake. Furthermore, interviewees argue that governments should be proactive in these regards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study argues in favour of a structural, multi-stakeholder framework at both European and national level to improve stakeholder biosimilar understanding and acceptance. It proposes a number of actionable recommendations that can inform policy making and guide stakeholders, which can contribute to realizing healthcare system benefits offered by biosimilar competition.

Biosimilars in psoriasis: what should your positioning be?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of biosimilars into our therapeutic arsenal has revolutionized the accessibility of biological treatments to patients with psoriasis, mainly from an economic standpoint. At this point, it is interesting to assess what their current positioning is.

AREAS COVERED

A bibliographic review has been carried out that includes the technical sheets of the different drugs, criteria for the use of biosimilars, the current situation of the main prescribing countries, and data on actual clinical practice in the period 2015-2020 using the Pubmed® and Embase databases. ®.Accessibility varies from country to country, regardless of the standards set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA), owing to the need for biosimilars to be submitted for approval to local regulatory agencies. The switching/interchangeability/substitution criteria are not homogeneous, with variable outcomes ranging from clinical trials (for example, Norway) to mere non-binding recommendations.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of biosimilars is appropriate for a high percentage of patients. Its position as first-line drugs compared to traditional systemic drugs and the new anti-IL molecules must be reviewed since clinical choice cannot be based on economic aspects only.

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia

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.