Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36002245›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists2022

How to select a best-value biological medicine? A practical model to support hospital pharmacists.

Liese Barbier, Yannick Vandenplas, Niels Boone, Isabelle Huys, Rob Janknegt, Arnold G Vulto

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An innovative tool to prioritize the assessment of investigational COVID-19 therapeutics: A pilot project.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Liese BarbierDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Yannick VandenplasDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Niels BooneHospital Pharmacy, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Rob JanknegtSittard-Geleen, the Netherlands.
Arnold G VultoDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEErasmus MC · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability InsuranceKU Leuven
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWith the growing availability of biosimilars on the global market, clinicians and pharmacists have multiple off-patent biological products to choose from. Besides the competitiveness of the product's price, other criteria should be considered when selecting a best-value biological. This article aims to provide a model to facilitate transparent best-value biological selection in the off-patent biological medicines segment. SUMMARY: The presented model was developed on the basis of established multicriteria decision analysis tools for rational and transparent medicine selection, ie, the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis and InforMatrix. Criteria for the model were informed by earlier research, a literature search, and evaluation by the authors. The developed model includes up-to-date guidance on criteria that can be considered in selection and provides background on the allocation of weights that may aid hospital pharmacists and clinicians with decision-making in practice. Three main categories of criteria besides price were identified and included in the model: (1) product-driven criteria, (2) service-driven criteria, and (3) patient-driven criteria. Product-driven criteria include technical product features and licensed therapeutic indications. Service-driven criteria consist of supply conditions, value-added services, and environment and sustainability criteria. Patient-driven criteria contain product administration elements such as ease of use and service elements such as patient support programs. Relative weighting of the criteria is largely context dependent and should in a given setting be determined at the beginning of the process.

conclusionThe practical model described here may support hospital pharmacists and clinicians with transparent and evidence-based best-value biological selection in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsPharmacistsHospitalsHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsPharmaceutical Preparationsbest-value biologicalbiologicalbiosimilarprocurementselection

Identifiers

PMID36002245
PMCPMC9452170
OpenAlexW4293010066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.