Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Huynh, Tuan Khai; Østergaard, Ann; Egsmose, C; Madsen, Ole Rintek

doi:10.2147/ppa.s55156

Cited by 44 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Swiss IBD patients, more patients (approximately 65%) preferred self-injection of biologic agents. Ease of use and the time required for infusion therapy are key factors influencing these patients’ choices of modality for medication 8,10. These studies emphasize that patients’ individual preferences should be taken into account when prescribing immunomodulatory drugs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These issues may be improved when utilizing infusion centers with medical and nursing teams aligned 1,11. Infusion centers are often closer to home (improved access to care) and offer one-on-one time with nurses, and sometimes also with physicians (more time spent with health care providers) 1,8,12. Additionally, infusion center nurses provide direct patient care, such as placement of intravenous lines, laboratory blood draw, administration of medication, and assessment of vital signs and medication tolerance 11,13.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unknown whether there are cultural or geographic differences in perceptions by non-HO patients regarding care at multispecialty centers. It is notable that the limited published literature demonstrating patient preference for types and/or location of biologic therapies is derived from work with varied populations 1,2,5,8,11,12…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center

Ostrov¹,

Reynolds²,

Scalzi³

2014

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeDirect feedback from patients about their preferred modes of medication administration has been increasingly sought by providers to develop care programs that best match patient goals. Multispecialty infusion centers generally provide care to hematology–oncology (HO) and non-HO patients in one unit, with the same nursing staff. Our staff perceived that this was dissatisfying to our non-HO patients. We assessed patient satisfaction, as well as nursing and physician perceptions of patient preference/satisfaction with our infusion center, to determine whether a separate unit should be recommended when designing our new Cancer Institute Infusion Center.Patients and methodsA seven-question Likert scale satisfaction survey for patients, and a separate survey to assess nurses’ and physicians’ perception of patient satisfaction, were developed. The survey was administered to non-HO patients receiving infusions, doctors prescribing infusions, and nurses administering infusions. Results of the survey were compared between groups to assess differences in responses.ResultsResponses were received from 52 non-HO patients, 18 physicians, and 13 nurses. Patients had more satisfaction, on all survey items, with the multispecialty infusion center than had been realized by physicians and nurses. Analysis demonstrated that patients were satisfied with care in a multispecialty infusion unit and were in favor of continuing their care in this combined center. Total scores of patient surveys were significantly different (P<0.001) from those of physicians and nurses, who had assumed patients would prefer to have their care in a non-HO infusion setting.ConclusionUnderstanding patient preferences is an important step in deciding the structure of infusion centers. Based on these survey conclusions, a combined multispecialty infusion center has been continued at our institution, thus improving quality by including patients in decision-making affecting their care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center

Ostrov¹,

Reynolds²,

Scalzi³

2014

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the route and frequency of administration might affect the adherence to treatment [7, 8], to date only a limited number of studies have examined the patients’ preference for one route of administration above another [7–12]. The majority of patients appear to prefer a SC route of administration for biologicals [8–10, 12], with only one study showing no preference between either IV or SC administration [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of patients appear to prefer a SC route of administration for biologicals [8–10, 12], with only one study showing no preference between either IV or SC administration [7]. In this context, factors favoring IV infusion of biologicals in patients include: the safety of hospital administration and the presence of medical staff, social contact in the hospital, patient compliance and the possibility for regular checkups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Nationwide Survey on Patient’s versus Physician´s Evaluation of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Disease Activity and Route of Administration: The Be-Raise Study

Mits

Lenaerts²,

Cruyssen

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesBiological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the cornerstones of current treatment strategies for the disease. Surprisingly little information exists on whether the route of administration affects patients’ treatment satisfaction. It is equally unclear whether rheumatologists are able to accurately perceive their patients’ appreciation. Thus, the Belgian Be-raise survey aimed to examine whether RA patient’s experience of their current biological treatment coincided with the treating physician’s perception.MethodsA nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted by 67 Belgian rheumatologists providing data obtained from 550 RA patients. Patients under stable dose of biologics for at least 6 months, were enrolled consecutively and all completed questionnaires. Separate questionnaires were completed by the treating rheumatologist which evaluated their patient’s perception of the route of treatment administration. This study therefore evaluates whether a treating physician perceives the satisfaction with the route of administration to the same degree as the patient.ResultsCompleted questionnaires were obtained from 293 and 257 patients who obtained treatment via the intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) route of administration, respectively. 58.4% of patients were in DAS28-CRP(3) remission. Patient satisfaction with disease control was higher (44% scored ≥ 9) than that of the treating physician (35%), regardless of the route of administration (p< 0.01). No differences were seen for the patients treated with an IV as opposed to a SC route of administration. The physician´s perception of patient’s satisfaction with disease control was markedly lower for IV treated patients as opposed to SC treated patients (p< 0.001).ConclusionsPatients’ satisfaction with biological treatment is high, but there is a considerable mismatch between patients´ and rheumatologists´ appreciation on the route of administration of biological therapy in RA. Physicians consistently consider IV biological therapy to be less satisfactory. Patient´s appreciation is largely dependent on disease control, irrespective of the route of administration. Therefore, and encouraging shared decision making, we suggest that physicians and patients discuss the route of administration of biologicals in an open way.

show abstract

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open‐Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Emery

Hoogstraten

Thangavelu

et al. 2020

ACR Open Rheumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of open-label sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who completed the phase III double-blind ASCERTAIN study (NCT01768572) and switched from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab to subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab, or who continued SC sarilumab in the open-label extension (OLE) study EXTEND (NCT01146652). Methods. Patients who completed ASCERTAIN were eligible to enroll in EXTEND to receive sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks (Q2W). Safety and efficacy were reported through 96 weeks in the OLE in patients who switched from tocilizumab IV to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, who switched from sarilumab 150 mg SC Q2W to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, or who continued sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W. Results. Of 175 patients who completed ASCERTAIN, 168 (96%) enrolled in EXTEND, and 38 of these patients (23%) discontinued the OLE. Cumulative sarilumab exposure during follow-up was 273.7 patient-years. No new safety signals were identified, infections occurred at a rate of 59.9/100 patient-years, and there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia. Efficacy-as assessed by Disease Activity Score (28 joints) based on C-reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores-was sustained over 96 weeks of follow-up when switching to, or continuing, sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W. Conclusion. Switching from IV to SC interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor therapy produced no new safety concerns, and clinical efficacy was sustained over 96 weeks of follow-up. These findings alleviate potential concerns over switching route of administration with interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor therapy for RA.

show abstract

Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Cited by 44 publications

References 25 publications

Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center

Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center

A Nationwide Survey on Patient’s versus Physician´s Evaluation of Biological Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Relation to Disease Activity and Route of Administration: The Be-Raise Study

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open‐Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About