Managing Complexity: Exploring Decision Making on Medication by Young Adults with ADHD

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) causes difficulties with hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention. Treatment of ADHD includes both medication and non-pharmacological options. Knowledge of treatment preferences by young adults with ADHD is sparse. The objective of this study was to explore the beliefs and experiences of young adults with ADHD related to their medication treatment decisions. Data were collected in Denmark in 2016 through a focus group and individual in-depth interviews. Conventional content analysis was used. Ten young adults with ADHD (22-to 29-year-old) participated. Three major themes were identified: (1) the patient’s right to choose concerning ADHD medicine; (2) the patient’s decision of whether or not to treat ADHD with medication; and (3) factors affecting the patient’s decision on whether to take ADHD medication or not. The latter theme contained 15 factors, which were distributed across three levels: individual, between-individuals, and societal. The dominant factors were increasing quality of life and improving oneself e.g., improving social skills. For counselling at the pharmacy and by prescribers, it is important to be aware of the different factors that affect young adult patients’ decisions on whether to take ADHD medication or not. This knowledge will aid to understand reasons for non-adherence and to determine appropriate treatment for the individual patient

Recommendations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use in clinical practice: a comparison of European gastroenterology IBD guidance

Background: Professional associations publish guidance advising gastroenterologists on prescribing biosimilars; however, guidelines differ between countries and change over time. This study aimed to map the presence and content of guidance from European gastroenterology associations on TNFα inhibitor biosimilar use and its development over time. Research design and methods: Guidelines on biosimilar prescribing from national gastroenterology associations in the European Economic Area (EEA) partnered with the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) were collected. Treatment guidelines and biosimilar position papers from 2010 to 2022 were included. Data were extracted using a template. Results: 26 of 30 EEA countries have an ECCO-partnered gastroenterology association, of which 14 (53.8%) had national guidelines addressing biosimilars, four (15.4%) followed ECCO’s position, and three (11.6%) had treatment guidelines without mentioning biosimilars. From five countries (19.2%) no guidelines were retrieved. Among 18 countries with guidance, 14 (77.8%) associations endorsed initiating biological treatment with biosimilars, and 13 (72.2%) endorsed transitioning from originator to biosimilar. Nine associations published multiple guidelines over time addressing biosimilars; overall, their positions became more encouraging. Conclusions: The majority of gastroenterology associations endorsed biosimilar use. The lack of (up-to-date) guidelines for some associations indicates an area of improvement to support biosimilar use in clinical practice

"Biosimilar, so it looks alike, but what does it mean?" A qualitative study of Danish patients' perceptions of biosimilars

Biosimilars are highly similar follow‐on products for biologics that can foster biologics competition. Questionnaire studies have attempted to gauge the patient perspective on biosimilars, but none have delved deeper into how patients view biologics and switching of these. Considering Denmark has one of the highest biosimilar uptakes worldwide, the aim of this study was to investigate how Danish patients with psoriasis, arthritic diseases or inflammatory bowel disease perceive biosimilars. Twelve participants were semi‐structurally interviewed in either a focus group or an internet‐based, individual interview between May 2019 and July 2019. Content analysis was inductively applied. Participants on originators voiced more reluctance towards using biosimilars than those already using them. Both participants using originator and biosimilar products expressed concerns about reoccurrence of disease symptoms due to differences in effectiveness and safety. Participants generally struggled with understanding biosimilarity, and they voiced a need to be well‐informed about switching. They were all aware of and accepted how healthcare budget restrictions played a role in the push to use biosimilars. To improve biosimilar uptake and willingness to switch to a biosimilar, patient‐centred information on efficacy and safety and explanation of the societal benefits of the savings from using biosimilars must be carefully communicated