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

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lisa Pivato, Daniele Mengato, Federica Torni, Claudia Battistutta, Francesca Temporin, Francesca Venturini
{"title":"Factors influencing the acceptability of different devices for subcutaneous drug delivery: a cross-sectional observational study from the patient's point of view.","authors":"Lisa Pivato, Daniele Mengato, Federica Torni, Claudia Battistutta, Francesca Temporin, Francesca Venturini","doi":"10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 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).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to conduct qualitative research to assess the degree of preference between the different pharmaceutical forms PFS and PFP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12050,"journal":{"name":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","volume":" ","pages":"348-351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11265559/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003477","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In 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).

Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct qualitative research to assess the degree of preference between the different pharmaceutical forms PFS and PFP.

Methods: We 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.

Results: During 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).

Conclusion: As 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.

影响不同皮下给药设备可接受性的因素:一项从患者角度进行的横断面观察研究。
背景:近年来,越来越多的患者报告结果评估工具(PROs)被开发出来,专门用于确定患者对不同药物治疗的看法。其中,注射过程得到了分析,尤其是对长期接受慢性生物疗法的患者。目前大多数生物疗法的主要优点之一是可以通过使用各种装置(包括预灌封注射器(PFS)和预灌封笔(PFP))在家自行用药:本研究旨在开展定性研究,评估人们对不同药物形式 PFS 和 PFP 的偏好程度:方法:我们通过编制一份网络问卷,在患者常规接受生物药物治疗时对其进行横断面观察研究。其中包括有关主要诊断、治疗依从性、首选药物形式以及在科学文献已报道的五种可能性中首选的主要原因等问题:在研究期间,共收集了 111 名患者的数据,其中 68 人(58%)表示首选 PFP。从导致患者选择一种设备而非另一种设备的原因分析来看,选择 PFS 主要是出于习惯(n=13 (28.3%) PFS vs n=2 (3.1%) PFP),而选择 PFP 是为了避免针眼(n=15 (23.1%) PFP vs n=1 (2.2%) PFS)。两者差异均有统计学意义(p结论:随着生物皮下注射药物越来越多地用于各种长期治疗,进一步研究重点在于确定可提高治疗依从性的患者因素将变得更有价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
104
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (EJHP) offers a high quality, peer-reviewed platform for the publication of practical and innovative research which aims to strengthen the profile and professional status of hospital pharmacists. EJHP is committed to being the leading journal on all aspects of hospital pharmacy, thereby advancing the science, practice and profession of hospital pharmacy. The journal aims to become a major source for education and inspiration to improve practice and the standard of patient care in hospitals and related institutions worldwide. EJHP is the only official journal of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信