TABLE 3

Responses Among Participants Exposed to Different Naming and Interchangeability Conditions of Biosimilars on Advertisements

Experiment 1Experiment 2
Group 1: Suffix Absent, Interchangeable (n = 252)Group 2: Suffix Present, Interchangeable (n = 203)Group 3: Suffix Absent, Not Interchangeable (n = 223)Group 4: Suffix Present, Not Interchangeable (n = 186)Group 5: Suffix Present for Both Biosimilar and Biologic, Not Interchangeable (n = 193)Group 6: Suffix Absent, No Mention of Interchangeability (n = 122)Group 7: Suffix Present, No Mention of Interchangeability (n = 127)
Ask your doctor about the drug16.18 (1.16)6.09 (1.24)5.84 (1.45)5.86 (1.52)6.02 (1.17)6.02 (1.35)6.16 (1.11)
Research the drug online6.35 (1.14)6.37 (1.03)6.14 (1.33)6.05 (1.49)6.18 (1.06)6.27 (1.10)6.25 (1.12)
Ask your insurer about the drug5.56 (1.70)5.75 (1.46)5.52 (1.62)5.37 (1.77)5.56 (1.495.65 (1.55)5.43 (1.64)
Use the drug5.52 (1.39)5.34 (1.33)5.13 (1.56)5.09 (1.61)5.28 (1.28)5.37 (1.31)5.02 (1.40)
Overall interest20.20 (1.64)0.17 (1.57)−0.16 (1.89)−0.25 (2.01)−0.01 (1.50)0.07 (1.77)−0.08 (1.68)
Perceived effectiveness36.05 (0.90)5.96 (0.94)5.96 (1.06)5.87 (1.05)5.86 (1.00)6.08 (0.75)5.95 (0.86)
Perceived similarity44.23 (0.90)4.20 (0.87)4.20 (0.81)4.01 (0.92)4.16 (0.77)4.28 (0.73)4.13 (0.75)
Rating Comparisons5
Group 7 Versus Group 6Groups 2 and 4 Versus Groups 1 and 3Groups 1 and 2 Versus Groups 3 and 4Group 5 Versus Group 4
Ask your doctor about the drug6.16 (1.11) vs. 6.02 (1.35), P = 0.755.98 (1.39) vs. 6.02 (1.31), P = 0.836.14 (1.20) vs. 5.85 (1.48), P = 0.0076.02 (1.17) vs. 5.86 (1.52), P = 0.96
Research the drug online6.25 (1.12) vs. 6.27 (1.10), P = 0.926.22 (1.28) vs. 6.25 (1.24), P = 0.866.36 (1.10) vs. 6.10 (1.41), P = 0.036.18 (1.03) vs. 6.05 (1.49), P = 0.45
Ask your insurer about the drug5.43 (1.64) vs. 5.65 (1.55), P = 0.245.57 (1.63) vs. 5.54 (1.66), P = 0.945.65 (1.60) vs. 5.45 (1.69), P = 0.055.56 (1.49) vs. 5.37 (1.78), P = 0.64
Use the drug5.02 (1.40) vs. 5.37 (1.31), P = 0.02)5.22 (1.48) vs. 5.34 (1.48), P = 0.165.44 (1.37) vs. 5.11 (1.58), P = 0.0055.28 (1.28) vs. 5.09 (1.61), P = 0.71
Overall interest−0.08 (1.68) vs. 0.07 (1.77), P = 0.23−0.03 (1.80) vs. 0.03 (1.77), P = 0.500.19 (1.61) vs. −0.20 (1.95), P = 0.009−0.01 (1.50) vs. −0.25 (2.01), P = 0.92
Perceived effectiveness5.95 (0.86) vs. 6.08 (0.75), P = 0.285.92 (0.99) vs. 6.00 (0.98), P = 0.156.01 (0.91) vs. 5.92 (1.06), P = 0.355.86 (1.00) vs. 5.87 (1.05), P = 0.77
Perceived similarity4.13 (0.75) vs. 4.28 (0.73), P = 0.104.11 (0.88) vs. 4.22 (0.86), P = 0.044.22 (0.87) vs. 4.11 (0.86), P = 0.034.16 (0.77) vs. 4.01 (0.92), P = 0.17
  • Response rate data are mean (SD). 1The likelihood of asking your doctor about the drug, researching the drug online, asking your insurer about the drug, and using the drug were asked in random order and measured by a Likert scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). 2Overall interest is a factor score created using principle component analysis. The four dependent variables loaded onto a single factor with an eigenvalue of 3.02, which captured 75% of the overall variance. 3The perceived effectiveness of the drug was measured by a Likert scale from 1 (extremely ineffective) to 7 (extremely effective). 4The perceived similarity of the drug was measured by a Likert scale from 1 (not similar at all) to 5 (extremely similar). 5Differences in ratings across conditions were tested using two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.