IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cvh/coecwp/2015-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trading between perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar biological treatment in Crohn’s disease; discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists

Author

Listed:
  • Baji, Petra
  • Gulácsi, László
  • Lovász, Barbara D.
  • Golovics, Petra A.
  • Brodszky, Valentin
  • Péntek, Márta
  • Rencz, Fanni
  • Lakatos, Péter L.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study is to explore preferences of gastroenterologists for biosimilar drugs in Crohn’s Disease and reveal trade-offs between the perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar drugs. Method: Discrete choice experiment was carried out involving 51 Hungarian gastroenterologists in May, 2014. The following attributes were used to describe hypothetical choice sets: 1) type of the treatment (biosimilar/originator) 2) severity of disease 3) availability of continuous medicine supply 4) frequency of the efficacy check-ups. Multinomial logit model was used to differentiate between three attitude types: 1) always opting for the originator 2) willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only 3) willing to consider biosimilar treatment for both types of patients. Conditional logit model was used to estimate the probabilities of choosing a given profile. Results: Men, senior consultants, working in IBD center and treating more patients are more likely to willing to consider biosimilar for biological-naïve patients only. Treatment type (originator/biosimilar) was the most important determinant of choice for patients already treated with biologicals, and the availability of continuous medicine supply in the case biological-naïve patients. The probabilities of choosing the biosimilar with all the benefits offered over the originator under current reimbursement conditions are 89% vs 11% for new patients, and 44% vs 56% for patients already treated with biological. Conclusions: Gastroenterologists were willing to trade between perceived risks and benefits of biosimilars. The continuous medical supply would be one of the major benefits of biosimilars. However, benefits offered in the scenarios do not compensate for the change from the originator to the biosimilar treatment of patients already treated with biologicals.

Suggested Citation

  • Baji, Petra & Gulácsi, László & Lovász, Barbara D. & Golovics, Petra A. & Brodszky, Valentin & Péntek, Márta & Rencz, Fanni & Lakatos, Péter L., 2015. "Trading between perceived risks and benefits related to biosimilar biological treatment in Crohn’s disease; discrete choice experiment among gastroenterologists," Corvinus Economics Working Papers (CEWP) 2015/17, Corvinus University of Budapest.
  • Handle: RePEc:cvh:coecwp:2015/17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unipub.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/2080/
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk perception; biologicals; biosimilars; Crohn’s Disease; Discrete Choice Experiment; Preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cvh:coecwp:2015/17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Adam Hoffmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bkeeehu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.