PurposeThis survey investigated patients’ and nurses’ preferences among four different autoinjectors used for subcutaneous delivery of medication for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn a multinational survey in five countries, 200 patients with RA and 100 nurses training patients on the use of autoinjectors participated in face-to-face interviews. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of eleven autoinjector attributes and to compare the autoinjectors for etanercept (Enbrel®, MyClic® autoinjector), adalimumab (Humira®, Humira pen), and an etanercept biosimilar (Benepali®, Molly® autoinjector) with a demonstration autoinjector for a new etanercept biosimilar – Erelzi® (SensoReady® autoinjector).ResultsEasy grip and ease of performing self-injection were the most important attributes identified by both groups. Overall, 79% of the patients rated the SensoReady autoinjector easier to use than their currently used injection device (86% of MyClic users, 84% of Humira pen users, and 63% of Molly users). In the patient survey, the SensoReady performed better than the other autoinjectors on the attributes visual feedback after completion of injection, easy to grip, and convenient shape. Nurses also rated the SensoReady easier to use than the MyClic (95%), Humira pen (97%), or Molly (91%). When asked which autoinjector they would recommend to a patient with RA who had not used an autoinjector before, 81% of patients and 90% of nurses selected the SensoReady.ConclusionBoth patients and nurses perceived the SensoReady to be easier to use compared with other available injection devices. The main reasons for this preference were the buttonless injection, 360° viewing window for feedback (visual confirmation of dose injection), and convenient triangular shape making the injection device easy to grip. Patients and nurses were most likely to recommend the SensoReady autoinjector over other autoinjectors to patients with RA.

PurposeAs epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are associated with a variety of dermatologic adverse events (dAEs), the purpose of this study was to develop an overview of current knowledge of dAEs associated with EGFR inhibitors and to identify knowledge gaps regarding incidence, treatment, impact on quality of life (QOL), and patient acceptance.MethodA structured literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed (January 1983 to January 2014). In total, 71 publications published from 2004 to 2014 were identified for consideration in the final evidence review.ResultsThe majority of published articles concentrate on the incidence of skin reactions, duration, treatment, and prevention strategies. Different grading systems based on the symptoms of skin rash or on health-related QOL (HRQOL) are used. An additional topic is the possible correlation between acneiform rash and efficacy of EGFR inhibitors. Knowledge gaps identified in the literature were how dAEs impact QOL compared with other AEs from a patient’s perspective, patients’ acceptance of dAEs (willingness to tolerate), and the impact of physician-patient communication on treatment decisions.ConclusionsResearch is needed on the impact of dAEs on patients’ acceptance of cancer treatments. Systematic studies are missing that compare the impact of dAEs with other toxicities on therapy decisions from both physician’s and patient’s view, and that investigate the balance between efficacy and avoidance of acneiform rash in treatment decisions. Such studies could provide deeper insights into the acceptance of the risk of untoward dermatologic events by both physicians and patients when treating advanced cancers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-016-3419-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo gain insights into the usage of factor VIII (FVIII) products by patients diagnosed with moderate/severe hemophilia A, and to assess the impact and perceived importance of product storage.MethodsIn this study, 200 patients diagnosed with moderate or severe hemophilia A across seven countries participated. Data were collected via a 30-minute, face-to-face interview in six countries and via a web-based survey in the seventh country. The questionnaire evaluated the effect of six features associated with FVIII products on the choice of the product; the structure and flow of data collection was designed to eliminate potential bias.ResultsTwo-thirds of the respondents were using recombinant FVIII products. Only 17% were generally dissatisfied with current FVIII products, whereas >40% of the respondents were dissatisfied with frequency of administration and storage issues when traveling. The majority noted restrictions in their daily activities, particularly travel and sports. Most of them (85%), stored their product in the refrigerator and of these, 88% believed that it should always be stored there. These patients were also less satisfied with the product overall, more concerned about storage temperature, more restricted in daily activities, and spent more time on preparation and injection compared with patients who stored their product at room temperature. Conjoint analysis revealed that origin of FVIII (plasma-derived vs recombinant) was the strongest driver of product choice among all respondents, followed by storage flexibility (temperature), reconstitution device, and administration frequency. In this study, we did not investigate the efficacy and safety of the product.ConclusionNot refrigerating FVIII products was associated with greater patient satisfaction and less restriction on daily activities. If efficacy and safety are unaffected, then storing FVIII at room temperature might have a positive impact on product choice. Few patients were aware that FVIII can be stored without refrigeration, suggesting that health care professionals who treat hemophilia should communicate this aspect to the patient (depending on the labeled option); this approach might offer patients greater flexibility when traveling and require less time for reconstitution.

BackgroundInhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) extends patient survival in multiple tumor types. Skin toxicities are the most common adverse event (AE) elicited by EGFR inhibitors. Here, we provide deeper insights into patients’ and physicians’ acceptance of the risk/benefit trade-offs of skin toxicities during cancer therapy, including comparison of their perceptions and experiences with dermatologic AEs.MethodsA multinational survey of 195 patients and 120 physicians was conducted to gauge attitudes regarding skin toxicities as an AE during cancer therapy.ResultsSkin toxicities were identified by patients and physicians as the AE that is most discouraging to patients when undergoing cancer therapies. Skin toxicities were cited as causing pain, impairing quality of life, and proving difficult to manage. Despite these negative influences, the majority of patients (71%) indicated they were willing to accept skin toxicities as an AE of an effective therapy. Indeed, the majority of patients and physicians preferred a more effective therapy that induces more severe skin toxicities than a less efficacious therapy that induces less severe skin toxicities; interestingly, patients were willing to accept a higher likelihood of severe skin toxicities than physicians.ConclusionIn this examination of patients’ perspectives, we found that patients were willing to accept skin toxicities if they were the anticipated byproduct of a more effective therapeutic regimen. Important differences were observed between patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding risk/benefit trade-offs during cancer therapy, suggesting that patient’s considerations and shared decision-making are key to cancer care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-017-3938-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.