患者对生物仿制药的认知:一项系统综述。

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
BioDrugs Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1007/s40259-023-00620-7
Qiyou Wu, Zhitao Wang, Xin Wang, Hui Yu, Jing Sun
{"title":"患者对生物仿制药的认知:一项系统综述。","authors":"Qiyou Wu,&nbsp;Zhitao Wang,&nbsp;Xin Wang,&nbsp;Hui Yu,&nbsp;Jing Sun","doi":"10.1007/s40259-023-00620-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9022,"journal":{"name":"BioDrugs","volume":" ","pages":"829-841"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Qiyou Wu,&nbsp;Zhitao Wang,&nbsp;Xin Wang,&nbsp;Hui Yu,&nbsp;Jing Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40259-023-00620-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BioDrugs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"829-841\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BioDrugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00620-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioDrugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-023-00620-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过评估患者的态度和知识,系统总结和评估现有关于患者对生物仿制药认知的研究结果。方法:我们使用中国国家知识基础设施、SinoMed、Web of Science、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library的数据库,对已发表的关于患者对生物仿制药认知的研究进行了系统回顾。两位独立评审员筛选了2018年1月1日至2022年10月1日期间发表的2197篇中文或英文论文。我们通过应用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的评估工具来评估纳入研究的质量。结果:43项研究被纳入综述,其中大多数来自欧洲(n = 22)和北美(n = 10) 。在这些研究中,37项是横断面定量研究,3项是准实验研究,其余3项是基于半结构化访谈的定性研究。纳入研究的样本量在9至6554名患者之间。在31项调查患者对生物仿制药接受程度的研究中,有22项发现,大多数参与者对使用生物仿制药的治疗表示满意。然而,对临床效果和监管批准途径的怀疑可能会对患者的态度产生负面影响。大多数患者了解生物仿制药的经济优势;然而,一些人错误地将较低的价格与较低的质量联系在一起。患者通常缺乏对生物仿制药的了解。6-51%的参与者熟悉生物仿制药,25-58%的参与者认为他们对生物仿制药了解不够。医生、药剂师、药品机构、学术界和患者协会被确定为患者生物仿制药的主要信息来源。医疗保健提供者不告知或建议患者转换可能会阻碍患者获得足够的知识。结论:大多数患者对使用生物仿制药的治疗表示满意,但有限的知识继续阻碍他们的认知。对临床效果和监管批准途径的怀疑被确定为对患者对生物仿制药态度产生负面影响的主要因素,而价格优势的影响则是喜忧参半。至关重要的是,要重点教育医疗保健专业人员有关生物仿制药的知识,包括其临床结果和监管途径,使他们能够为患者提供全面和知情的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

Results: Forty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

Conclusions: The majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BioDrugs
BioDrugs 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: An essential resource for R&D professionals and clinicians with an interest in biologic therapies. BioDrugs covers the development and therapeutic application of biotechnology-based pharmaceuticals and diagnostic products for the treatment of human disease. BioDrugs offers a range of additional enhanced features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist patients, caregivers and others in understanding important medical advances. The journal also provides the option to include various other types of enhanced features including slide sets, videos and animations. All enhanced features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. Peer review is conducted using Editorial Manager®, supported by a database of international experts. This database is shared with other Adis journals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信