Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30247100›Full record

SynthesisJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2018

The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies.

Johlee S Odinet, Chelsea E Day, Jennifer L Cruz, Gregory A Heindel

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. The Nocebo Effect.Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johlee S Odinet1 Department of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill.
Chelsea E Day1 Department of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill.
Jennifer L Cruz1 Department of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill.
Gregory A Heindel1 Department of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral authors have hypothesized that adverse drug events (ADEs) upon switching from reference biologics to biosimilar products are related to the nocebo effect. However, a thorough and current review of the existing literature has not been conducted.

objectiveTo evaluate if patient and/or physician knowledge of a switch from a reference biologic product to a biosimilar product was associated with an increase in ADEs likely to be susceptible to the nocebo effect.

methodsStudies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes of a switch from a reference product to a biosimilar product were reviewed. Biologics with FDA-approved biosimilars in the United States were considered for review, including adalimumab, bevacizumab, etanercept, and infliximab. Studies were identified by searching controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH terms) and keywords within MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase. Descriptive statistics were used to quantify subjective and objective complications in double-blinded and single-blinded or open-label studies.

resultsThirty-one trials including 3,271 patients were reviewed in the full analysis. Median discontinuation rates for any reason were 14.3% (range = 0.0-33.3) in open-label studies compared with 6.95% (range = 5.2-11.0) in double-blinded studies. Discontinuation rates for ADEs were 5.6% (range = 0.0-24.2) in open-label studies versus 3.1% (range = 2.0-5.2) in double-blinded studies, suggesting the nocebo effect does affect biosimilar adoption. Subgroup analyses of antidrug antibody (ADA) development and infusion reactions were similar between infliximab open-label and double-blinded studies. Discontinuation rates for any reason, for ADEs, and for lack of efficacy were generally higher in infliximab open-label trials compared with double-blinded trials. Etanercept biosimilar discontinuation rates for any reason were similar between study designs; however, incidences of injection site reactions and discontinuation rates for ADEs were higher in double-blinded compared with open-label study designs.

conclusionsCurrent evidence is insufficient to confirm a biosimilar nocebo effect, although higher discontinuation rates in infliximab biosimilar open-label studies support this theory. Further studies are needed to evaluate the existence of a biosimilar nocebo effect. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsDouble-Blind MethodDrug SubstitutionHumansNocebo EffectObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID30247100
PMCPMC10398229
OpenAlexW2894046119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.