Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A bio-what? Medical companions’ perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology

  • Observational Research
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patient perceptions influence biosimilar uptake in non-mandatory transitions. Companions (support people) are often actively involved in the patient’s medical journey and are likely to have unique perceptions of biosimilars, which may shape patient attitudes. This study explores the congruence between patient and companion perceptions towards biosimilars and their information needs. Patients taking bio-originators for rheumatic diseases (59% for rheumatoid arthritis) and their companions received an explanation about biosimilars. Participants (N = 78) completed questionnaires assessing their familiarity with biosimilars, perceptions, concerns, and benefits of being accompanied. Contingency tables and paired sample t-tests were used to explore differences in familiarity, confidence in knowledge, and perceptions. Intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of congruence for perceptions towards biosimilars. Companions were significantly less familiar with biosimilars (p = 0.014, Cramer’s V = 0.28) and reported lower confidence in their knowledge (p = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 0.47) than patients. Companions and patients had moderate to good congruency for perceptions toward confidence in biosimilar use and safety, efficacy, and side-effect expectations (intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.81). Companions and patients were most concerned about safety and effectiveness. Companions also reported concerns about cost savings driving the transition, while patients had concerns about uncertainty and testing. Patients reported the ability for discussion, improved understanding, and validation as benefits of being accompanied. Companions and patients have similar levels of perceptions and expectations towards biosimilars but report some unique information needs. Future educational interventions should involve companions and address their concerns to help improve biosimilar acceptance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Odinet JS, Day CE, Cruz JL, Heindel GA (2018) The biosimilar nocebo effect? A systematic review of double-blinded versus open-label studies. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 24:952–959. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.10.952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tweehuysen L, van den Bemt BJF, van Ingen IL, de Jong AJL, van der Laan WH, van den Hoogen FHJ, den Broeder AA (2018) Subjective complaints as the main reason for biosimilar discontinuation after open-label transition from reference infliximab to biosimilar infliximab. Arthritis Rheumatol 70:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. van Overbeeke E, De Beleyr B, de Hoon J, Westhovens R, Huys I (2017) Perception of originator biologics and biosimilars: a survey among Belgian rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists. BioDrugs 31:447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0244-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kovitwanichkanont T, Raghunath S, Wang D, Kyi L, Pignataro S, Morton S, Morand E, Leech M (2020) Who is afraid of biosimilars? Openness to biosimilars in an Australian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Intern Med J 50:374–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jacobs I, Singh E, Sewell KL, Al-Sabbagh A, Shane LG (2016) Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey. Patient Prefer Adher 10:937–948. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S104891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Oskouei ST, Kusmierczyk AR (2021) Biosimilar uptake: the importance of healthcare provider education. Pharmaceut Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-021-00396-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rezk MF, Pieper B (2017) Treatment outcomes with biosimilars: be aware of the nocebo effect. Rheumatol Ther 4:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-017-0085-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Peyrin-Biroulet L, Lonnfors S, Roblin X, Danese S, Avedano L (2017) Patient perspectives on biosimilars: a survey by the European Federation of Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis Associations. J Crohns Colitis 11:128–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rezk MF, Pieper B (2018) To see or NOsee: the debate on the nocebo effect and optimizing the use of biosimilars. Adv Ther 35:749–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0719-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Germain V, Scherlinger M, Barnetche T, Schaeverbeke T (2020) Long-term follow-up after switching from originator infliximab to its biosimilar CT-P13: the weight of nocebo effect. Ann Rheum Dis 79:e11. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vandenplas Y, Simoens S, Van Wilder P, Vulto AG, Huys I (2021) Informing patients about biosimilar medicines: the role of European patient associations. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14020117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gasteiger C, Jones ASK, Kleinstäuber M, Lobo M, Horne R, Dalbeth N, Petrie KJ (2020) Effects of message framing on patients’ perceptions and willingness to change to a biosimilar in a hypothetical drug switch. Arthritis Care Res 72:1323–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wolff JL, Roter DL (2011) Family presence in routine medical visits: a meta-analytical review. Soc Sci Med 72:823–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Laidsaar-Powell RC, Butow PN, Bu S, Charles C, Gafni A, Lam WWT, Jansen J, McCaffery KJ, Shepherd HL, Tattersall MHN, Juraskova I (2013) Physician–patient–companion communication and decision-making: a systematic review of triadic medical consultations. Patient Educ Couns 91:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.11.007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ho A (2008) Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family’s role in medical decision-making. Scand J Caring Sci 22:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00561.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein RM, Street RL Jr (2011) The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med 9:100–103. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1239

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hale JL, Householder BJ, Greene KL (2002) The theory of reasoned action. In: Dillard JP, Pfau M (eds) The persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice, vol 14. SAGE Publications, California, pp 259–286. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds) Action control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Holt-Lunstad J (2018) Why social relationships are important for physical health: a systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Annu Rev Psychol 69:437–458. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cené CW, Haymore LB, Lin FC, Laux J, Jones CD, Wu JR, DeWalt D, Pignone M, Corbie-Smith G (2015) Family member accompaniment to routine medical visits is associated with better self-care in heart failure patients. Chronic Illn 11:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395314532142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Betegnie A, Gauchet A, Lehmann A, Grange L, Roustit M, Baudrant M, Bedouch P, Allenet B (2016) An assessment of patients’ adherence using a self-report questionnaire. J Rheumatol 43:724–730. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.150414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vriezekolk JE, Peters AJF, van den Ende CHM, Geenen R (2019) Solicitous and invalidating responses are associated with health-care visits in fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Adv Pract 3:rkz008. https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkz008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Renton WD, Leveret H, Guly C, Smee H, Leveret J, Ramanan AV (2019) Same but different? A thematic analysis on adalimumab biosimilar switching among patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Rheumatol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-019-0366-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Laidsaar-Powell R, Butow P, Bu S, Fisher A, Juraskova I (2016) Attitudes and experiences of family involvement in cancer consultations: a qualitative exploration of patient and family member perspectives. Support Care Cancer 24:4131–4140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3237-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hemmington A, Dalbeth N, Jarrett P, Fraser AG, Broom R, Browett P, Petrie KJ (2017) Medical specialists’ attitudes to prescribing biosimilars. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 26:570–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gasteiger C, Groom KM, Lobo M, Scholz U, Dalbeth N, Petrie KJ (2021) Is three a crowd? The influence of companions on a patient’s decision to transition to a biosimilar. Ann Behav Med. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lamore K, Montalescot L, Untas A (2017) Treatment decision-making in chronic diseases: What are the family members’ roles, needs and attitudes? A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 100:2172–2181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bracher M, Stewart S, Reidy C, Allen C, Townsend K, Brindle L (2020) Partner involvement in treatment-related decision making in triadic clinical consultations: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Patient Educ Couns 103:245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Danese S, Fiorino G, Raine T, Ferrante M, Kemp K, Kierkus J, Lakatos PL, Mantzaris G, van der Woude J, Panes J, Peyrin-Biroulet L (2017) ECCO position statement on the use of biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease-an update. J Crohns Colitis 11:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Frantzen L, Cohen JD, Trope S, Beck M, Munos A, Sittler MA, Diebolt R, Metzler I, Sordet C (2019) Patients’ information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: a French nation-wide survey. Jt Bone Spine 86:491–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2019.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilkins AR, Venkat MV, Brown AS, Dong JP, Ran NA, Hirsch JS, Close KL (2014) Patient perspectives on biosimilar insulin. J Diabetes Sci Technol 8:23–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296813515132

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Scherlinger M, Langlois E, Germain V, Schaeverbeke T (2019) Acceptance rate and sociological factors involved in the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept (SB4). Semin Arthritis Rheum 48:927–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Petit J, Antignac M, Poilverd RM, Baratto R, Darthout S, Desouches S, Louati K, Deparis N, Berenbaum F, Beauvais C (2021) Multidisciplinary team intervention to reduce the nocebo effect when switching from the originator infliximab to a biosimilar. RMD Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001396

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Gasteiger C, Lobo M, Dalbeth N, Petrie KJ (2021) Patients’ beliefs and behaviours are associated with perceptions of safety and concerns in a hypothetical biosimilar switch. Rheumatol Int 41:163–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04576-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Laidsaar-Powell R, Butow P, Charles C, Gafni A, Entwistle V, Epstein R, Juraskova I (2017) The TRIO framework: conceptual insights into family caregiver involvement and influence throughout cancer treatment decision-making. Patient Educ Couns 100:2035–2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.05.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Weir K, Nickel B, Naganathan V, Bonner C, McCaffery K, Carter SM, McLachlan A, Jansen J (2018) Decision-making preferences and deprescribing: perspectives of older adults and companions about their medicines. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 73:e98–e107. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Clayman ML, Roter D, Wissow LS, Bandeen-Roche K (2005) Autonomy-related behaviors of patient companions and their effect on decision-making activity in geriatric primary care visits. Soc Sci Med 60:1583–1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tweehuysen L, Huiskes VJB, van den Bemt BJF, Vriezekolk JE, Teerenstra S, van den Hoogen FHJ, van den Ende CH, den Broeder AA (2018) Open-label, non-mandatory transitioning from originator etanercept to biosimilar SB4: Six-month results from a controlled cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol 70:1408–1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Beisecker AE, Brecheisen MA, Ashworth J, Hayes J (1997) Perceptions of the role of cancer patients’ companions during medical appointments. J Psychosoc Oncol 14:29–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J077v14n04_03

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Associate Professor Katie Groom for her help with the explanation, the participants who generously gave their time to take part in this study, and the clinical and administrative staff at the Auckland and Waitematā District Health Boards Rheumatology and Endocrinology Departments for their help with recruiting and data collection.

Funding

This study was not financially supported by any funding agency or grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Chiara Gasteiger & Keith J. Petrie

  2. Department of Psychology-Applied Social and Health Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Urte Scholz

  3. University Research Priority Program “Dynamics of Healthy Aging”, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Urte Scholz

  4. Department of Rheumatology, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand

    Nicola Dalbeth

  5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Nicola Dalbeth

Authors
  1. Chiara Gasteiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Urte Scholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keith J. Petrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Dalbeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CG, KP, US, and ND contributed to the study conception and design, and material preparation. CG and ND contributed to data collection. CG analyzed the data. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CG and ND. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Gasteiger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Nicola Dalbeth has received speaker fees, consulting fees, or grants from Janssen and Abbvie, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was obtained from the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (19/CEN/163) and institutional approval was obtained from Auckland District Health Board (A+8700) and Waitematā District Health Board (RM14629). Research was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gasteiger, C., Scholz, U., Petrie, K.J. et al. A bio-what? Medical companions’ perceptions towards biosimilars and information needs in rheumatology. Rheumatol Int 42, 1993–2002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-021-05037-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-021-05037-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation