Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39385143›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Public deliberation to assess patient views on biosimilar medication switching for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Kerry A Ryan, Shirley Cohen-Mekelburg, Jessica A Baker, Eileen M Weinheimer-Haus, Chris Krenz, Jason K Hou, Raymond De Vries, Akbar K Waljee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Kerry A RyanCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Shirley Cohen-MekelburgHealth Services Research and Development Center of Clinical Management Research, VHA Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jessica A BakerHealth Services Research and Development Center of Clinical Management Research, VHA Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Eileen M Weinheimer-HausMichigan Medicine, Department of Learning Health Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Chris KrenzCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Jason K HouCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Raymond De VriesCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Akbar K WaljeeHealth Services Research and Development Center of Clinical Management Research, VHA Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. awaljee@med.umich.edu.

Funding

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs IIR 19-045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiosimilars are highly similar, but not identical, versions of originator biologic medications. Switching patients to biosimilars presents an opportunity to mitigate rising drug costs and expand patient access to important biologic therapies. However, decreased patient acceptance and adherence to biosimilar medications have been reported, which can lead to loss of treatment response, adverse reactions, and inefficient resource utilization. Understanding patient perceptions of biosimilars and biosimilar switching is needed to inform patient-centered care strategies that promote efficient resource utilization.

methodsWe used democratic deliberation methods to solicit the informed and considered opinions of patients regarding biosimilar switching. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 29) from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) participated in 5-hour deliberation sessions over two days. Following educational presentations with experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions. Transcripts and facilitators' notes were used to identify key themes. Participants completed surveys pre- and post-deliberation to collect sociodemographic and clinical features as well as to assess IBD treatment knowledge and attitudes toward care and approaches to biosimilar switching.

resultsFive major themes emerged from the small group discussions in the context of biosimilar switching: 1) concerns about adverse consequences and unclear risk-benefit balance; (2) importance of communication and transparency; (3) desire for shared decision making and patient involvement in treatment decisions; (4) balancing cost-saving with competing priorities; and (5) advocating for individualized care and prioritization based on risk levels. These views led participants to favor approaches that prioritize switching the sickest patients last (i.e., those with poorly controlled disease) and that offer patients control and choices around biosimilar switching. Participants also expressed preferences for combining elements of different approaches to maximize fairness.

conclusionsApproaches to biosimilar switching should consider patients' desires for transparency and effective communication about biosimilar switching and engagement in their medical decision-making as part of patient-centered care. Incorporating patient preferences around biosimilar switching is critical when navigating the quality and affordability of care in resource constrained settings, both within the VHA and in other healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsInflammatory Bowel DiseasesAdultAgedDrug SubstitutionFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsBiosimilar switchingDeliberative democracyInflammatory bowel diseasePatient-centered carePatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID39385143
PMCPMC11462922

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.