Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia

References

• Kanis JA, Melton LJ 3rd, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 1994;9(8):1137–1141. doi:10.1002/jbmr.5650090802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergrd M, et al. Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. Arch Osteoporos. 2013;8(1–2):136. doi:10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG, et al. The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res. 2014;29(11):2520–2526. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latin America Regional Audit. Epidemiology, costs and burden of osteoporosis in 2012. International osteoporosis foundation; 2012. Available at: https://www.iofbonehealth.org/sites/default/files/media/PDFs/Regional%20Audits/2012-Latin_America_Audit-ES_0_0.pdf. Accessed December 7, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ardila E. Epidemiology of osteoporosis in Colombia. Bone. 2001;29(3):297. doi:10.1016/S8756-3282(01)00518-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neer RM, Arnaud CD, Zanchetta JR, et al. Effect of parathyroid hormone (1–34) on fractures and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(19):1434–1441. doi:10.1056/NEJM200105103441904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman JM, Orwoll E, Goemaere S, et al. Teriparatide effects on vertebral fractures and bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis: treatment and discontinuation of therapy. Osteoporos Int. 2005;16(5):510–516. doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1713-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendler DL, Marin F, Zerbini CAF, et al. Effects of teriparatide and risedronate on new fractures in post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis (VERO): a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10117):230–240. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32137-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geusens P, Marin F, Kendler DL, et al. Effects of teriparatide compared with risedronate on the risk of fractures in subgroups of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis: the VERO trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2018;33(5):783–794. doi:10.1002/jbmr.3384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy DR, Smolen LJ, Klein TM, Klein RW. The cost effectiveness of teriparatide as a first-line treatment for glucocorticoid-induced and postmenopausal osteoporosis patients in Sweden. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):213. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-213
   Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration. Biosimilar and interchangeable products. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/Biosimilars/ucm580419.htm#biosimilar. Accessed May 21, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Mulcahy AW, Hlavka JP, Case SR. Biosimilar cost savings in the united states: initial experience and future potential. Rand Health Q. 2018;7:3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marciano I, Ingrasciotta Y, Giorgianni F, et al. Pattern of use of biosimilar and originator somatropin in Italy: a population-based multiple databases study during the years 2009–2014. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:95. doi:10.3389/fendo.2018.00095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard E, Wascovich M, Oskouei S, Gurz P, Carpenter D. Factors affecting health care provider knowledge and acceptance of biosimilar medicines: a systematic review. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(1):102–112. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.1.102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HAP, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(7):1029–1037. doi:10.1007/s00198-007-0535-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink D. Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(5):729–735. doi:10.1002/art.22229
   Google Scholar
• Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE Jr. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102(4):520–528. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-520
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daltry LH. Doctor-patient communication in rheumatological disorders. Ballieres Clin Rheumatol. 1993;7(2):221–239. doi:10.1016/S0950-3579(05)80087-1
   Google Scholar
• Lee S, Glendenning P, Inderjeeth C. Efficacy, side effects and route of administration are more important than frequency of dosing of anti-osteoporosis treatments in determining patient adherence: a critical review of published articles from 1970 to 2009. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(3):741–753. doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1335-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–189. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(7):1324–1331. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medical Device Innovation Consortium. Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) patient centered benefit-risk project report: a framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk in regulatory assessments of new medical technology; 2015. Available at: https://mdic.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MDIC_PCBR_Framework_Web.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, de Bekker-grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–226. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–172. doi:10.1002/hec.1697
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–413. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W, Tobias F, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res. 1994;31(4):545–557. doi:10.1177/002224379403100408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W Efficient experimental designs using computerized searches. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings. Provo, UT, 1997: 71–86.
   Google Scholar
• Chrzan K, Orme B. An Overview and Comparison of Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Technical Paper Series. Sawtooth Software Inc; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld W. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–315. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ. 2000;15(5):447–470. doi:10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Second ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Train K, Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa R, Alberini A, editors. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Swait J, Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Marketing Res. 1993;30(3):305–314. doi:10.1177/002224379303000303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Hess S, Rose JM. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? Transportation. 2012;39(6):1225–1239. doi:10.1007/s11116-012-9394-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;268(8):661–677. doi:10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
   Google Scholar
• Silverman S, Calderon A, Kaw K, et al. Patient weighting of osteoporosis medication attributes across racial and ethnic groups: a study of osteoporosis medication preferences using conjoint analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24(7):2067–2077. doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2241-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Bours SP, Boonen A. A review of patient preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2015;17(9):61. doi:10.1007/s11926-015-0533-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Overbeeke E, de Beleyr B, de Hoon J, Westhovens R, Huys I. Perception of originator biologics and biosimilars: a survey among Belgian rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists. BioDrugs. 2017;31(5):447–549. doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0244-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baji P, Gulácsi L, Lovász BD, et al. Treatment preferences of originator versus biosimilar drugs in Crohn’s disease; discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016;51(1):22–27. doi:10.3109/00365521.2015.1054422
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baji P, Gulácsi L, Golovics PA, et al. Perceived risks contra benefits of using biosimilar drugs in ulcerative colitis: discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists. Value Health Reg Issues. 2016;10:85–90. doi:10.1016/j.vhri.2016.07.004
   Google Scholar
• Azevedo A, Bettencourt A, Selores M, Torres T. Biosimilar agents for psoriasis treatment: the Perspective of Portuguese patients. Acta Med Port. 2018;31(9):496–500. doi:10.20344/amp.10127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller J, Sullivan E, Piercy J, Black CM, Kachroo S. Assessing physician and patient acceptance of infliximab biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis across Germany. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:519–530. doi:10.2147/PPA.S129333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan E, Piercy J, Waller J, Black CM, Kachroo S. Assessing gastroenterologist and patient acceptance of biosimilars in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease across Germany. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0175826. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tischer B, Mehl A. Patients’ and nurses’ preferences for autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: results of a European survey. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1413–1424. doi:10.2147/PPA.S169339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egeth M, Soosaar J, Nash P, et al. Patient and healthcare professionals preference for Brenzys vs. Enbrel autoinjector for rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized crossover simulated-use study. Adv Ther. 2017;34(5):1157–1172. doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0523-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakur K, Biberger A, Handrich A, Rezk MF. Perceptions and preferences of two etanercept autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: a new European Union-approved etanercept biosimilar (Benepali®) versus etanercept (Enbrel®) - findings from a nurse survey in Europe. Rheumatol Ther. 2016;3(1):77–89. doi:10.1007/s40744-016-0035-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick S, Thakur K, Munro D. Nurse and patient perceptions and preferences for subcutaneous autoinjectors for inflammatory joint or bowel disease: findings from a European survey. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(2):195–206. doi:10.1007/s40744-019-0144-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, et al. Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology. 2017;56(7):1167–1176. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kex071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darbà J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, et al. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22(6):1947–1954. doi:10.1007/s00198-010-1382-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–2993. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weernink MGM, van Til JA, Witteman HO, Fraenkel L, IJzerman MJ. Individual value clarification methods based on conjoint analysis: a systematic review of common practice in task design, statistical analysis, and presentation of results. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(6):746–755. doi:10.1177/0272989X18765185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Özdemir S, Siegel CA, Hass S, Sands BE. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences in Crohn’s disease management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(8):616–628. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2010.16.8.616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laba TL, Essue B, Kimman M, et al. Understanding patient preferences in medication nonadherence: a review of stated preference data. Patient. 2015;8(5):385–395. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0099-3
   Google Scholar