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

BACKGROUND: Biologic 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. METHODS: Patient 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. RESULTS: Eight 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%). CONCLUSIONS: There 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.

Attitudes of Australians with inflammatory arthritis to biologic therapy and biosimilars.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and beliefs of Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis regarding biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) and biosimilars and their sources of information. Methods: Participants enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) with RA, PsA and axial SpA were sent an online survey. They were asked about information sources for b/tsDMARDs and how positive or negative this information was. The Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ) was used to measure beliefs about b/tsDMARDs with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants were asked about their knowledge of biosimilars and willingness to switch to biosimilar. Results: There was a response rate of 66% (994/1498; 67% female, median age 62 years). Participants currently taking b/tsDMARDs (n = 794) had a high b/tsDMARD-specific BMQ 'necessity' score {median 4.2 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.6-4.8]}, with a lower specific 'concerns' score [median 2.4 (IQR 2.0- 3.0)]. Participants consulted multiple information sources [median 3 (IQR 2-5)]. Positive sources were rheumatologists and educational websites and negative were chat rooms and social media. Only 18% were familiar with biosimilars, with half knowing of availability in Australia. Following a short paragraph describing biosimilars, 75% (744) of participants indicated they would consider switching if recommended by their rheumatologist, with nearly half identifying safety and efficacy of biosimilars as an important concern. Conclusion: Australian patients have positive attitudes towards b/tsDMARDs overall, although little knowledge of biosimilars specifically. They have a high degree of trust in their rheumatologist regarding treatment decisions, even if they are unfamiliar with the medication recommended.

Disparities in cancer care in australia and the pacific.

Disparities in cancer care across populations become apparent only when there is a cancer registry to record the cancer incidence and mortality statistics and data capture is comprehensive. In Australia, one of the obvious disparities is geography, with mortality in some cancers being worse with increasing remoteness. The reasons are not just poorer access to screening and treatment but lifestyle and occupational factors which encompass increased cancer risk factors compared with urban counterparts. There are also higher proportions of lower socioeconomic groups and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, both of which in addition to remoteness have poorer cancer outcomes. Indigenous Australians have a higher exposure to risk factors of smoking and obesity, live remotely, and have lower participation rates in screening and treatment than non-Indigenous Australians. Immigrants to Australia from diverse backgrounds have a lower incidence of the common cancers and a lower overall mortality. They have a different spectrum of cancers such as more liver cancer because of their exposure to hepatitis B. The Maori in New Zealand are well studied and display disparities in cancer outcomes similar to Indigenous Australians. There is less known of the Pacific Islanders, but they often have worse outcomes than Europeans living in the same environment, a greater exposure to risk factors, and the added problem of often needing to travel from the Pacific Islands to New Zealand for treatment. Poorer socioeconomic status is the other major factor associated with poorer outcomes in cancer treatment. Often, low socioeconomic status groups have lifestyles with higher levels of smoking and obesity, do not participate in screening as readily, and may not be able to afford unsubsidized treatments such as high-cost drugs.

Reaching further with online education? The development of an effective online program in palliative oncology.

Patients in rural and remote Australia have less access to specialist oncology services and rely more on local health professionals for provision of cancer care. We have developed a 7.5-h online educational program on palliative oncology for health professionals focused on the needs of rural providers. There were 501 active (enrolled) users and 268 ad hoc (non-enrolled) users, with 90 completing evaluation. Eighty-two (91%) indicated that their learning needs were partially or entirely met. Sixty-five (75%) respondents planned to review or change their practice as a result. The online program is effective in meeting learning needs of Australian health providers, reaching high numbers with high acceptability.