Patient and Healthcare Professionals Preference for Brenzys vs. Enbrel Autoinjector for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Crossover Simulated-Use Study

Abstract

IntroductionBrenzys was developed as an etanercept biosimilar of Enbrel. The aim of this study was to assess preference and perceived ease of use for the new Brenzys autoinjector compared to the currently available marketed Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector (Australia) and Enbrel SureClick autoinjector (Canada) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because RA affects manual dexterity, ease of use of an autoinjector is a particularly important consideration in developing effective self-delivery of long-term courses of therapy.MethodsPatients (N = 191) reporting a diagnosis of RA and nurses and rheumatologists (N = 90) with experience managing RA were shown how to use Brenzys and Enbrel autoinjectors (in counterbalanced order between participants), then they used each autoinjector by injecting into a pad simulating skin, and completed a questionnaire. Study sessions took place in Australia and Canada.ResultsA binomial test showed that significantly more patients indicated that the Brenzys autoinjector was easier to use than the Enbrel autoinjector (79% reporting Brenzys easier to use; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [73%, 85%]). In addition, significantly more nurses and rheumatologists with experience managing RA also indicated that the Brenzys autoinjector was easier to use (86%; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [77%, 92%) and that they would recommend the buttonless Brenzys autoinjector over the Enbrel autoinjector to patients (83%; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [74%, 90%]). Almost all patients who reported past experience using an Enbrel autoinjector (N = 17) reported on the basis of using the two devices in the study that they would prefer to switch their device to the Brenzys autoinjector rather than continue their course of therapy using the Enbrel autoinjector (16/17, 94%, 95% CI [71%, 100%]).ConclusionOn the basis of the study results, the Brenzys autoinjector was rated statistically significantly easier to use, and was overall preferred by patients and healthcare professionals with experience managing RA patients.FundingMerck & Co., Inc.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0523-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients&#39; and nurses&#39; preferences for autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: results of a European survey

“…A further study, where participants could perform injections into a pad simulating the skin, confirmed the preference for Molly over MyClic for both patients and nurses. 20 …”

<p>Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of the Autoinjector (AI) and Pre-Filled Syringe (PFS) of SB4 in Healthy Subjects</p>

“…24 Similarly, when patients, nurses, and rheumatologists in Australia and Canada were shown how to use SB4 AI and reference etanercept AI and asked to fill out brief paper-and-pencil questionnaires, results showed that patients and healthcare professionals were significantly more likely to indicate a preference for SB4 AI than reference etanercept AI for "ease of use". 25 Nurses and rheumatologists indicated that SB4 AI is simpler to learn and easier to use, thus it has the potential to reduce the time taken in training session. 25 With the benefit of convenience, SB4 AI can potentially increase medication adherence in patients with rheumatologic conditions.…”

“…25 Nurses and rheumatologists indicated that SB4 AI is simpler to learn and easier to use, thus it has the potential to reduce the time taken in training session. 25 With the benefit of convenience, SB4 AI can potentially increase medication adherence in patients with rheumatologic conditions.…”

Medication safety risks to be managed in national implementation of automatic substitution of biological medicines: a qualitative study

“…Substitution may also be inappropriate if the patient will not be able to use the new product due to physical handicap or other relevant reasons. Nevertheless, the patients and healthcare providers may also consider a new device as easier to use 55–57. It is important that the physicians will have to present a clinically sound justification if they wish to prohibit the substitution.…”