The PEPSIN project: design and validation of a self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of equivalence between pens and prefilled syringes in patients on subcutaneous biological drugs

Pivato, Lisa; Battistutta, Claudia; Torni, Federica; Mengato, Daniele; Temporin, Francesca; Venturini, Francesca

doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003273

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We designed a cross-sectional observational study to assess the factors influencing the degree of self-administration preference in patients on biological drug therapy delivered at the hospital pharmacy in the University Hospital of Padova. We carried out a pilot survey using the web-based questionnaire related to the project ‘PrefillEd Pen-SyriNge’ (PEPSIN) 15. Details of the questionnaire are shown in online supplemental figure 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The patient was asked to choose the main reason for preference from five possibilities already reported in the scientific literature: habit, ease of use, reduced pain sensation (including less pain and no bruising), better administration (including speed of administration and feeling of efficacy) and needle-free vision. As arranged by the pilot study, the top five reasons for preference of one pharmaceutical form over another were derived from recent studies in the literature 10 15 16. Each patient was given a unique and anonymised identification number assigned at the time of enrolment and all information was reported in a web-based database.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We therefore conducted an observational study to measure the degree of perception towards the different auto-injector devices and to identify possible trends towards patient acceptance factors by administering a specially designed and recently validated questionnaire 15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors influencing the acceptability of different devices for subcutaneous drug delivery: a cross-sectional observational study from the patient’s point of view

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent years, an increasing number of patient-reported outcome assessment tools (PROs) have been developed specifically to ascertain patients’ perceptions of different drug treatments. Among them, the injection process has been analysed, especially in patients chronically treated with chronic biological therapies. One of the main advantages of most current biological therapies is the possibility to self-administer medication at home through the use of a variety of devices, including prefilled syringes (PFS) and prefilled pens (PFP).ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct qualitative research to assess the degree of preference between the different pharmaceutical forms PFS and PFP.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional observational study in patients on biological drug therapy through the compilation of a web-based questionnaire at the time of routine delivery of biological therapy. Questions regarding primary diagnosis, adherence to therapy, the preferred pharmaceutical form and the main reason for preference among five possibilities already reported in the scientific literature were included.ResultsDuring the study period, data were collected from 111 patients and 68 (58%) indicated PFP as their preference. From the analysis of reasons that led a patient to choose one device over another, PFSs are chosen mainly out of habit (n=13 (28.3%) PFS vs n=2 (3.1%) PFP) while PFPs are chosen to avoid needle vision (n=15 (23.1%) PFP vs n=1 (2.2%) PFS). Both differences were found to be statistically significant (p<0.001).ConclusionAs biological subcutaneous drugs are increasingly prescribed for a wide variety of long-term therapies, further research focused on identifying patient factors which may enhance adherence to treatment will become even more valuable.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%