ObjectiveThis study assessed patient experiences of using an autoinjector device to self-administer subcutaneous belimumab for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Satisfaction, ease and convenience of use, and confidence with the device were assessed, in addition to overall experience with belimumab.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted among patients who completed a phase IIb open-label, multi-dose usability, tolerability, and safety study of subcutaneous belimumab (NCT02124798), in which patients receiving intravenous belimumab or subcutaneous belimumab using a prefilled syringe were switched to eight weekly self-administered doses of subcutaneous belimumab using the autoinjector. This follow-up study comprised an online/paper questionnaire and qualitative telephone interviews.ResultsIn total, 43 patients receiving belimumab completed the questionnaire, 21 of whom also completed a follow-up telephone interview. Qualitative interviews indicated that 17 of 21 (81%) patients had a positive experience using the autoinjector; all patients considered the autoinjector to be convenient. Of the 42 patients who switched from intravenous belimumab to the autoinjector, 32 (76%) expressed a preference for the autoinjector over intravenous administration; reasons included convenience, time saved, cost, and reduced injection pain. The most commonly reported disadvantage of the autoinjector was injection discomfort (n = 5 [24%]; qualitative interview). Compared with intravenous administration, the autoinjector improved ability to work (17 of 29 [59%] of those employed) and carry out daily activities (40%).ConclusionPatients with SLE reported high levels of satisfaction with the belimumab autoinjector and preferred the autoinjector to intravenous administration, citing advantages such as time saved, cost, and improved ability to work and carry out daily activities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-017-0276-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

PIONEER (Prostate Cancer DIagnOsis and TreatmeNt Enhancement through the power of big data in EuRope) is a European network of excellence for big data in prostate cancer, consisting of 32 private and public stakeholders from 9 countries across Europe. Launched by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 and part of the Big Data for Better Outcomes Programme (BD4BO), the overarching goal of PIONEER is to provide high-quality evidence on prostate cancer management by unlocking the potential of big data. The project has identified critical evidence gaps in prostate cancer care, via a detailed prioritisation exercise including all key stakeholders. By standardising and integrating existing high quality and multidisciplinary data sources from prostate cancer patients across different stages of the disease, rich big data will be assembled into a single innovative data platform for research. Based on a unique set of methodologies, PIONEER aims at advancing the field of prostate cancer care with particular focus on improving prostate cancer-related outcomes, health system efficiency by streamlining patient management, and the quality of health and social care delivered to all prostate cancer patients and their families. The literature suggests there is underuse of effective treatments and overuse of ineffective treatment. For example, androgen deprivation therapy is sometimes overused in situations where it is not recommended. It is therefore crucial to identify the best treatment option for the individual patient.

Compared to other currently licensed treatment options, SMV + PR represents a cost effective treatment option for patients with chronic genotype 1 HCV infection.

Relapse in schizophrenia is a major clinical event and commonly affects the personal and social functioning of the person. Moreover, relapses are associated with a high economic burden. A study conducted in the UK showed that the 6-month direct cost of healthcare services for individuals who experience a relapse is four times higher than for those who do not (£8212 v. £1899), most of the difference being explained by in-patient costs.