Nocebo effects of a simplified package leaflet compared to unstandardised oral information and a standard package leaflet: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Mitigating the Nocebo Effect in Biosimilar Use and Switching: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In the context of biosimilar use and switching, a patient's negative perception of a biosimilar might trigger a nocebo effect, where negative expectations unrelated to its pharmacologic action may lead to worsened symptoms, resulting in less perceived therapeutic benefit or worsened adverse events. Considering the crucial role biosimilars have in reducing health care costs and expanding access to safe biologics globally, it is essential to develop and implement effective strategies to mitigate the possible occurrence of such nocebo effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic literature review was two-fold: (i) to review strategies that have been applied and/or tested for minimising the nocebo effect in clinical practice, within and outside the context of biosimilar switching, and (ii) to propose recommendations on useful mitigation strategies to minimise the occurrence of the nocebo effect in the context of biosimilar switching.

METHODS

Biomedical databases PubMed and Embase were screened up until the end of April 2023 with a search string consisting of the following search terms "nocebo", "biosimilar", "mitigation", "strategy", and "prevention" and related synonyms. The search strategy was supplemented by snowballing of the included studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses, the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Of the 1617 identified and screened records, 60 met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 10 (17%) were conducted within the context of biosimilar switching, 7 of which specifically tested strategies to mitigate the nocebo effect. Among the remaining 50 studies conducted outside the biosimilar switching context, 46 tested mitigation strategies. Across the included studies, 13 distinct mitigation strategies were identified, which can be employed within the context of biosimilar switching: (i) open non-verbal communication, (ii) positive framing, (iii) empathic communication, (iv) validating communication, (v) shared decision making, (vi) self-affirmation, (vii) education of patients and health care professionals about the nocebo effect, (viii) education of patients and health care professionals about biosimilars, (ix) soft-skills training for health care professionals, (x) personalised information, (xi) supporting information, (xii) multidisciplinary approach, (xiii) organisation of the switch.

CONCLUSION

This review has identified a set of strategies that have been tested to mitigate the nocebo effect, which can be applied by health care professionals in the context of biosimilar switching with the aim of mitigating the occurrence of a nocebo effect. We recommend implementing a combination of mitigation strategies for patients and health care professionals to utilise before, during, and after a switch. It should be noted that given the limited number of studies specifically testing nocebo mitigation strategies within the biosimilar switching context to date, it is not yet possible to draw definite conclusions about the effect size of each mitigation strategy individually or in combination.

The effects of modifying elements of written informed consent forms for elective surgical or invasive procedures: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of modifying content and design elements within written informed-consent-forms (ICF) for patients undergoing elective surgical or invasive procedures.

METHODS

We included (quasi-)randomized trials in which a modified written ICF (e.g. visual aids) was compared to a standard written ICF. We searched PubMed, Web-of-Science and PsycINFO until 08/2021. Risk of Bias was assessed. The complexity of intervention was assessed using the Intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Eleven trials with 1091 participants were eligible. Effect sizes and levels of evidence varied from trivial to moderate andthere were contradictory findings for some outcomes. Providing patients with more informationin general or specific information on risks and complications mostly increased anxiety. The use of verbal risk presentation decreased anxiety and increased satisfaction.A lower readability level decreased anxiety and improved comprehension and knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that providing more information and addressing certain types of risks have differential effects. While more information improved knowledge, it also increased anxiety. We did not find any or only insufficient evidence for many other possible ICF modifications.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When developing ICFs the differential impact of different elements on patient important outcomes should be carefully considered.

Choice and the nocebo effect: If a little is good, more is better?

OBJECTIVE

Lack of choice over treatment may increase the nocebo effect, whereby unpleasant side effects can be triggered by the treatment context, beyond any inherent physiological effects of the treatment itself. Excessive choice may also increase the nocebo effect. The current studies tested these possibilities.

METHOD

Participants took part in studies ostensibly investigating the influence of beta-blockers (Study 1, n = 71) and benzodiazepines (Study 2, n = 120) on anxiety. All treatments were placebos. In Study 1, participants were randomly allocated to three groups: no-treatment control, no-choice, and choice between two treatments. In Study 2, a ten-choice group was added. Participants were warned about possible treatment side effects. These warned symptoms were assessed, and scores summed. Nocebo effects were evidenced by significantly higher warned symptoms scores in any placebo-treated group compared to the control group.

RESULTS

In both studies, the no-choice groups experienced a nocebo effect (S1: p = .003, η_p²= 0.121; S2: p = .022, η_p²= 0.045). A significant nocebo effect was not present in groups who chose between two treatments (S1: p = .424, η_p²= 0.009; S2: p = .49, η_p²= 0.004). In Study 2, choosing between ten treatments resulted in a nocebo effect (p = .006, η_p²= 0.065).

CONCLUSION

Lack of choice resulted in the development of nocebo effects, while having a limited choice between two placebos did not generate significant nocebo effects. However, a larger choice between ten placebos generated a nocebo effect of similar magnitude to lack of choice. Facilitating (some) choice in medical care may reduce the development of nocebo effects, but more extensive choice options may not offer similar benefits.

Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is performed to treat end-stage knee osteoarthritis. In Germany, a minimum volume threshold of 50 TKAs/hospital/year was implemented to ensure outcome quality. This study, embedded within a systematic review, aimed to investigate the perspectives of potential TKA patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship for TKA (higher volumes associated with better outcomes).

METHODS

A convenience sample of adults with knee problems and heterogeneous demographic characteristics participated in the study. Qualitative data were collected during a focus group prior to the systematic review (n = 5) and during telephone interviews, in which preliminary results of the systematic review were discussed (n = 16). The data were synthesised using content analysis.

RESULTS

All participants (n = 21) believed that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA while recognising that patient behaviour or the surgeon could also influence outcomes. All participants would be willing to travel longer for better outcomes. Most interviewees would choose a hospital for TKA depending on reputation, recommendations, and service quality. However, some would also choose a hospital based on the results of the systematic review that showed slightly lower mortality/revision rates at higher-volume hospitals. Half of the interviewees supported raising the minimum volume threshold even if this were to increase travel time to receive TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential patients believe that a hospital volume-outcome relationship exists for TKA. Hospital preference is based mainly on subjective factors, although some potential patients would consider scientific evidence when making their choice. Policy makers and physicians should consider the patient perspectives when deciding on minimum volume thresholds or recommending hospitals for TKA, respectively.

Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Practitioners frequently use informed consent forms to support the physician-patient communication and the informed consent process. Informed consent for surgery often focuses on risk centered information due to high liability risks for treatment errors. This may affect patients' anxiety of adverse events and the nocebo effect. This study focuses on the optimization of pre-surgical information on risks and complications, and at the same time reconciles these information with legal requirements.

METHODS

The development, piloting, and evaluation of evidence-based informed consent forms for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and related anesthesia procedures will follow the UK MRC Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Conducting different sub-studies, we will (I) qualitatively explore the information acquisition and decision-making processes, (II) develop and pilot test evidence-based informed consent forms on the example of TKA and related anesthesia procedures, (III) conduct a monocentric interrupted time series (ITS) pilot study to evaluate the effects of evidence-based informed consent forms in comparison with standard consent forms, and (IV) perform a process evaluation to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the intervention and to analyze mechanisms of impact.

DISCUSSION

The evidence-based and understandable presentation of risks in informed consent forms aims at avoiding distorted risk depiction and strengthening the patients' competencies to correctly assess the risks of undergoing surgery. This might reduce negative expectations and anxiety of adverse events, which in turn might reduce the nocebo effect. At the same time, the practitioners' acceptance of evidence-based informed consent forms meeting legal requirements could be increased.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04669483 . Registered 15 December 2020. German Clinical Trials Registry, DRKS00022571 . Registered 15 December 2020.

The Unintended Consequences of Adverse Event Information on Medicines' Risks and Label Content

Patients and prescribers need to be aware of adverse drug events to minimize the risk of their occurrence and the severity with which they appear. However, numerous studies show that being informed about adverse events can increase the possibility of suffering from them. Patients tend to overestimate the likelihood of experiencing the adverse events included in the label, and this can contribute to worsening the negative expectations which are at the root of the nocebo effect. In fact, patients can become anxious after reading the undesirable effects section of the leaflet and, in addition to suffering from the nocebo effect, might not take a drug they could benefit from due to the fear of experiencing adverse events. In addition, patients' attention can focus towards non-specific symptoms of daily living that can be misattributed to the drug and included in the labelling. This article proposes a number of suggestions to reduce the abovementioned unintended effects associated with labelling, namely, an increased focus on the excess risk of experiencing adverse events rather than crude incidence, using attribute framing to help patients to better understand the risk of experiencing adverse events, dividing the undesirable effect section of the leaflet into subsections according to the level of evidence supporting causal relationships and, finally, restricting the addition of non-specific adverse events that are also symptoms of daily living to only those where there is enough evidence to show they have been caused by the drug. More studies on how to minimize the nocebo effect induced by adverse event information should be performed, and these should be done in collaboration with health authorities, to reach a shared consensus on how to better present adverse event information in the label.