Nocebos in rheumatology: emerging concepts and their implications for clinical practice

An Exploration of Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical Students and Rheumatologists to Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Threshold Concepts in Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient-practitioner interactions may challenge medical students' understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development.

METHOD

In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents' understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism.

RESULTS

There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a 'diagnostic tool'; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one's agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.

The Clinical Implications of Nocebo Effects for Biosimilar Therapy

Nocebo effects encompass negative responses to inert interventions in the research setting and negative outcomes with active treatments in the clinical research or practice settings, including new or worsening symptoms and adverse events, stemming from patients' negative expectations and not the pharmacologic action of the treatment itself. Numerous personality, psychosocial, neurobiological, and contextual/environmental factors contribute to the development of nocebo effects, which can impair quality of life and reduce adherence to treatment. Biologics are effective agents widely used in autoimmune disease, but their high cost may limit access for patients. Biosimilar products have gained regulatory approval based on quality, safety, and efficacy comparable to that of originator biologics in rigorous study programs. In this review, we identified gaps in patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness, understanding, and perceptions of biosimilars that may result in negative expectations and nocebo effects, and may diminish their acceptance and clinical benefits. We also examined features of nocebo effects with biosimilar treatment that inform research and clinical practices. Namely, when biosimilars are introduced to patients as possible treatment options, we recommend adoption of nocebo-reducing strategies to avoid negative expectations, including delivery of balanced information on risk-benefit profiles, framing information to focus on positive attributes, and promoting shared decision-making processes along with patient empowerment. Healthcare professionals confident in their knowledge of biosimilars and aware of bias-inducing factors may help reduce the risk of nocebo effects and improve patients' adherence in proposing biosimilars as treatment for autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.

Same but different? A thematic analysis on adalimumab biosimilar switching among patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Biologic medications have dramatically enhanced the treatment of many chronic paediatric inflammatory conditions. Their high cost is a factor that prohibits their broader use. Cheaper generic versions, or biosimilars, are increasingly being used. Healthcare services are switching some patients over to biosimilars for economic reasons, known as 'non-medical switching'. Some patients unsuccessfully switch due to perceived decreases in efficacy or non-specific drug effects. The implications of failed switching include exhaustion of therapeutic options, unnecessary exposure to other medications, increased healthcare utilisation, worse patient outcomes and higher overall healthcare costs. Patient perceptions almost certainly play a role in these 'failed switches'.

METHODS

A thematic analysis was performed to better understand patient and parent perceptions on non-medical biosimilar switching. The study was conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research recommendations. Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis currently taking adalimumab were included.

RESULTS

Nine families were interviewed just prior to a hospital trust-wide non-medical switch to an adalimumab biosimilar. Several common themes were identified. The most frequent concerns were regarding practical aspects of the switch including the medication administration device type; the colour of the medication and administration device; and whether the injections would sting more. The relative safety and efficacy of the biosimilar was raised although most families felt that there would be no significant difference. Anxieties about the switch were largely placated by reassurances from the medical team.

CONCLUSIONS

We derived recommendations based on existing adult literature and the observations from our study to optimise the benefits from non-medical biosimilar switching.

Biosimilars in rheumatology

Biotechnologicals are an invaluable resource in the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) non-responsive or intolerant to conventional therapies. However, they are the main driver for increase in direct costs and represent a significant economic burden to healthcare systems worldwide. Since biosimilars are similar and more affordable versions of previously licenced biotechnologicals, they are expected to contribute to healthcare system sustainability and reduce inequities in treatment access. The landmark approval of CT-P13 as the first infliximab biosimilar paved the way for new infliximab but also etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab biosimilars. In Europe, North America and some countries of Asia, development is strictly regulated and only those presenting a totality-of-evidence dossier with highly similar physicochemical, biological and clinical performances are endorsed by regulatory agencies as biosimilars. The current article addresses the importance of biosimilar medicines in the treatment of IRD, as well as their innovative development and regulatory pathways, clinical evidence of similarity and challenges that may undermine their widespread use and success.

Nocebo in Biosimilars and Generics in Neurology: A Systematic Review

Background: Nocebo refers to adverse events related to patients’ negative expectations and previous experiences, mediated by several neurobiological pathways within the brain. It is common among neurological patients and affects adherence and treatment outcomes, representing a real clinical challenge.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in MEDLINE database, using several keywords for studies that can be processed to investigate the magnitude of nocebo in generics and biosimilars used in the most common neurological diseases. The aim was to estimate its size and suggest strategies to minimize its prevalence in clinical trials and practice.

Results: Of a total of 2,606 identified articles, after criteria-based selection, 35 studies were included for analysis. Overall, there was vast heterogeneity across the studies concerning population, study design, and outcomes. Nocebo response could be estimated only in one double-blind randomized trial of generic glatiramer acetate in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis that included a placebo arm. In this trial, no significant differences observed between the three arms (innovator, bioequivalent, and placebo) in favorable and unfavorable outcomes. In the open-label phase of the trial, an increased withdrawal rate was recorded in patients switched from placebo to bioequivalent (8.4%) that may be related to nocebo. In other open-label and real-world studies evaluating biosimilars or generics for brain disorders, a similar indirect nocebo effect is assuming by several investigators. Also, knowledge gaps between health-care providers and patients exist towards generics and biosimilars.

Conclusions: Despite its presence, the true burden of the nocebo response and effect cannot be accurately estimated in existing studies with generics and biosimilars in neurological diseases. Targeted strategies for clinical trials’ design are needed in order to measure the exact nocebo’s size.

Maintained Clinical Remission in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients Switched from Reference Infliximab to Its Biosimilar: An 18-Month Comparative Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

Switching from reference infliximab (RI) to biosimilar infliximab (BI) had no detrimental effects on efficacy and safety. However, long-term follow-up data is missing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in clinical remission who were switching from RI to BI, in terms of the safety and efficacy of this, in a long-term fashion.

METHODS

One hundred and nine consecutive unselected AS patients were investigated. All were naïve to other biologics and were followed-up at predefined times receiving RI. Patients in clinical remission were asked to switch from RI to BI. Those who switched to BI were compared with a matched control-group receiving continuous RI. During follow-up, several parameters were recorded for at least 18 months. Disease activity was measured using the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), and the Ankylosing Spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS), using the C-reactive protein. Remission was defined as BASDAI < 4 and ASDAS < 1.3.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were evaluated (21 excluded for different reasons). From those, 45 switched to BI, while 43 continued receiving RI. No differences between groups regarding demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters were observed. All patients were in clinical remission. During follow-up, five patients from the BI-group and three from the maintenance-group discontinued the study (4 patients nocebo effect, 1 loss of efficacy). After 18 months of treatment, all patients in both groups remained in clinical remission. No significant adverse events were noted between groups.

CONCLUSION

BI is equivalent to RI in maintaining AS in clinical remission for at least 18 months.

Biosimilars in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases: The Dutch experience

These days, the use of biosimilars for the treatment of bio-naive patients is well established. However, the transition of patients being treated with a bio-originator to its biosimilar is still a topic of discussion. The main issue is which approach to use when initiating the non-medical transition. The first real-world examples contain both mandatory and non-mandatory approaches, resulting in a variety of acceptance and discontinuation rates. At this moment a non-mandatory approach, based on shared decision making, is preferred by international guidelines and the Task Force on the Use of Biosimilars to Treat Rheumatological Diseases. However, clear definitions of mandatory and non-mandatory are lacking, as a result of which these terms may be wrongly used in some studies. This article aims to provide an overview of transition approaches used in the Netherlands, and how the approach used relates to acceptance and discontinuation rates of the biosimilar.

Update of the Position Paper of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on Biosimilar Drugs

In 2015 the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (Sociedad Española de Reumatología [SER]) published its position paper on biosimilar drugs. In this update, the SER, continues to manifest its unequivocal commitment to the sustainability of the health system of our country and is aligned with the measures that, without reducing quality of care, are aimed at ensuring its continuity. Since the publication of the previous position paper, the European Commission has authorized new biosimilar drugs, which provides an excellent opportunity to advance the efficiency of health care. In this new scenario of increased therapeutic offer of biologics, the SER considers it crucial to preserve the freedom of prescription of physicians who prescribe drugs based exclusively on the characteristics and individual circumstances of each patient, without forgetting the economic aspects there of.

The placebo response in myasthenia gravis assessed by quantitative myasthenia gravis score: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis investigates the placebo response in generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) trials by means of Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, and EMBASE were searched. QMG score, dropouts rate, adverse events (AEs), and AEs responsible for dropouts were examined, together with treatment moderators.

RESULTS

The magnitude of placebo response showed an effect size of 0.24, which was significantly lower than 0.67 of the drug response (P = 0.019). Furthermore, the forest plot revealed that, overall, active treatments showed a significantly higher impact on QMG scores than placebos.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo and drug responses in MG trials are small and moderate, respectively. The lack of MG trials with a pure placebo arm or a no-treatment control arm made it impossible to disentangle improvements due to the placebo psychological effect from other effects such as natural history and/or regression to the mean. Muscle Nerve 59:671-678, 2019.

Biosimilars for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar to a previously approved reference (or originator) biologic drug in terms of safety, purity, and potency (efficacy). These medications are increasingly being approved by global regulatory agencies in the hopes of reducing treatment costs. To date, six biosimilars in the United States have been approved for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Despite their approval by regulatory bodies and several years-worth of 'real world' evidence supporting their use, this class of medications remain somewhat unfamiliar to many clinicians and patients. This review aims to answer common questions regarding biosimilars and their use for IBD. It is written in a question/answer format for easy reference and guides the reader from the basics of biosimilars, to clinically relevant questions encountered in the clinic, to their policy implications, among other topics.