ReviewClinical drug investigation2023
Healthcare Professional (HCP) and Patient Usability Evaluation and Preferences of Two Auto-injector Devices for Self-Injection of Biosimilars, SB4 and SB5: A Literature Review.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Preferences in Acute Allergic Reactions-How Can the Context Impact the Preference for a Corticosteroid Mouth Film Versus Conventional Tablets?Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Benefits of Biosimilars in the Management of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An International Survey.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous biologic drugs, including etanercept and adalimumab, are administered subcutaneously. This study reviewed the evidence on the usability and preference of self-injection devices of SB4 and SB5 compared with the reference product injectors.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed using the search string "(Imraldi OR Hadlima OR SB5 OR Benepali OR Brenzys OR SB4) AND (preference) AND (device)" covering the period from 28 January 2016 (first introduction of SB4) to 31 May 2022. Only articles and abstracts on usability or preference-rating of SB4 and SB5 autoinjectors (AI) written in English were selected. Additional papers identified via manual search supplemented the retrieved papers.
resultsA total of nine articles and one conference poster were selected (seven surveys, one observational study, and two phase II studies). Overall, participants of the studies included nurses and rheumatologists, as well as patients who were from three medical specialties where these medicines are most commonly used (rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology). The majority of patients and healthcare professionals rated ease of use and ease of grip as the most important device attributes. SB4/Pen and SB5/Pen were mostly preferred over their prefilled syringes (PFS), Enbrel/Pen, and Humira/Pen.
conclusionThe analyzed data on usability and device preference indicate that SB4/Pen and SB5/Pen were preferred over the other reference product autoinjectors, thanks to their button-free design, auditory and visual injection feedback, and overall ease of use. Therefore, they were preferred over the other reference product autoinjectors. Because user-friendly devices can improve treatment adherence, pharmaceutical companies should consider patient convenience when developing medical devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.