Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36550585›Full record

ArticleBMC rheumatology2022

Perceptions towards biologic and biosimilar therapy of patients with rheumatic and gastroenterological conditions.

Thomas Khoo, Navkiran Sidhu, Franca Marine, Susan Lester, Alannah Quinlivan, Debra Rowett, Rachelle Buchbinder, Catherine L Hill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Biosimilars for Australian Dermatologists.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas KhooRheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia. thomas.khoo@sa.gov.au.
Navkiran SidhuRheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia.
Franca MarineArthritis Australia, Glebe, NSW, Australia.
Susan LesterRheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia.
Alannah QuinlivanRheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia.
Debra RowettUniSA Clinical and Health Science, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Rachelle BuchbinderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Catherine L HillRheumatology Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital · AUArthritis Australia · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying agents (b/tsDMARDs) have broadened the treatment landscape for autoimmune diseases particularly in patients refractory to conventional DMARDs. More recently, the introduction of biosimilars has reduced the price of bDMARDs, potentially improving accessibility. Though efficacy and safety have been described, patient attitudes to b/tsDMARDs are not well-understood. We aim to investigate patients' beliefs about biologic and biosimilar therapy, and the factors influencing their perceptions.

methodsPatient consumer groups (Arthritis Australia, Crohn's and Colitis Australia) assisted in advertising an online questionnaire for people with a self-reported diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis (IA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The questionnaire incorporated the Belief about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) and the single-item literacy screener (SILS). Sources and favourability of biologic/biosimilar information were analysed, using the chi-square and a non-parametric trend test for unordered and ordered categorical variables respectively, comparing respondents with IA and IBD.

resultsEight hundred and thirty eight people (686-IA, 144-IBD, 8 both) responded. 658 (79%) used b/tsDMARDs. The BMQ demonstrated high necessity belief (median 4.2) with moderate concerns (median 2.8) about biologics. 95% of respondents obtained medication information from specialists though most used multiple sources (median 4). The most positive resources were specialists and specialist nurses. 73/141 (52%) respondents with IBD obtained information from specialist nurses compared with 202/685 (29%) with IA (p = 0.012). Respondents with limited reading ability on SILS were more likely to discuss information with a general practitioner or pharmacist. Younger respondents and those with higher BMQ concern scores more frequently consulted less reliable sources (e.g. social media). 502 respondents (60%) answered the biosimilar questions. Only 23 (4.6%) reported currently using a biosimilar and 336 (66.9%) were unsure if biosimilars were available in Australia. Specialist recommendation was the most frequent factor that would influence a patient to change from originator to biosimilar (352/495, 71.1%).

conclusionsThere is a high level of trust in specialists' recommendations about b/tsDMARDs, although most people also utilise additional information sources. Contextual factors influencing resource selection include age, reading ability and degree of concern about medicines. People with IA and IBD have similar attitudes though those with IBD more frequently access specialist nurse advice.

Indexed as

ArthritisBiological productsBiosimilar pharmaceuticalsHealth knowledge, attitudes, practiceInflammatory bowel diseases

Identifiers

PMID36550585
PMCPMC9783393
OpenAlexW4312140654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.