ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2025
Barriers to adoption of biosimilar insulins in Europe: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2025. 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.
- Exploring Stakeholder Perceptions and Experience of Biosimilar Insulin Switching: A Scoping Review.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2026Article
- Barriers to adoption of biosimilar insulins in Europe: A mixed-methods study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the introduction of biosimilar insulins to improve affordability and enhance patient access, their adoption remains limited in Europe.
objectivesThis study aims to (i) provide an up-to-date overview of EMA-approved insulin products and their reimbursement status across selected European countries, and (ii) explore the key factors influencing physicians' prescribing decisions regarding biosimilar and originator insulin.
methodsA mixed-method design was applied, comprising (i) a quantitative analysis of EMA-approved insulin products and their reimbursement status in nine European countries, and (ii) semi-structured interviews with physicians (N = 20).
resultsBetween 1996 and 2022, 43 insulin products received EMA approval, including six biosimilars (14.0%). Over 95% of approvals originated from three manufacturers: Novo Nordisk (39.1%), Sanofi (32.6%) and Eli Lilly (23.9%). Across the nine European countries, an average of 56.3% of EMA-approved insulin products, including biosimilar insulins, were reimbursed, ranging from 71.7% in the Netherlands to 41.3% in Belgium. The proportion of originator and second-generation insulin analogs was consistently higher than that of biosimilar insulins. In the qualitative phase, six thematic domains influencing physician prescribing choices for insulin products were identified, encompassing a total of 14 distinct factors. Prominent domains included (i) product-related (second-generation insulin analogs, and drug-device compatibility), (ii) pharmaceutical industry-related (company reputation trustworthiness, and marketing activities) and (iii) physician-related factors (habit persistence).
conclusionThis study highlights interrelated factors contributing to the limited adoption of biosimilar insulin in Europe. Addressing these barriers through targeted policy interventions may support more informed decision making and facilitate biosimilar insulin adoption in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.