Patient-reported preferences for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of parenteral drug treatments in adults with immune disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Vera Bril, Johannes Lampe, Nichola Cooper, Peter Kiessling, Ann Gardulf
{"title":"Patient-reported preferences for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of parenteral drug treatments in adults with immune disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Vera Bril, Johannes Lampe, Nichola Cooper, Peter Kiessling, Ann Gardulf","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Several studies have found subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration of similar drugs for long-lasting immunological and autoimmune diseases to have similar clinical effectiveness, meaning that what patients report they prefer is, or should be, a major factor in treatment choices. Therefore, it is important to systematically compile evidence regarding patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQL) using SC or IV administration of the same drug. <b>Materials & methods:</b> PubMed database searches were run on 15 October 2021. Studies involving patients with experience of both home-based SC and hospital-based IV administration of immunoglobulins or biological therapies for the treatment of any autoimmune disease or primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) were included. The outcomes assessed were patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and HRQL. Preference data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. <b>Results:</b> In total, 3504 citations were screened, and 46 publications describing 37 studies were included in the review. There was a strong overall preference for SC over IV administration, with similar results seen for PIDs and autoimmune diseases: PID, 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-94%) preferred SC; autoimmune diseases, 83% (95% CI: 73-92%); overall, 82% (95% CI: 75-89%). The meta-analysis also found that 84% (95% CI: 75-92%) of patients preferred administration at home to treatment in hospital. Analysis of treatment satisfaction using the life quality index found consistently better treatment interference and treatment setting scores with SC administration than with IV administration. <b>Conclusion:</b> Compared with IV infusions in hospital, patients tend to prefer, to be more satisfied with and to report better HRQL with SC administration of the same drug at home, primarily due to the greater convenience. This study contributes to evidence-based care of patients with autoimmune diseases or PIDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e230171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11363182/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0171","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Several studies have found subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration of similar drugs for long-lasting immunological and autoimmune diseases to have similar clinical effectiveness, meaning that what patients report they prefer is, or should be, a major factor in treatment choices. Therefore, it is important to systematically compile evidence regarding patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQL) using SC or IV administration of the same drug. Materials & methods: PubMed database searches were run on 15 October 2021. Studies involving patients with experience of both home-based SC and hospital-based IV administration of immunoglobulins or biological therapies for the treatment of any autoimmune disease or primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) were included. The outcomes assessed were patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and HRQL. Preference data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: In total, 3504 citations were screened, and 46 publications describing 37 studies were included in the review. There was a strong overall preference for SC over IV administration, with similar results seen for PIDs and autoimmune diseases: PID, 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-94%) preferred SC; autoimmune diseases, 83% (95% CI: 73-92%); overall, 82% (95% CI: 75-89%). The meta-analysis also found that 84% (95% CI: 75-92%) of patients preferred administration at home to treatment in hospital. Analysis of treatment satisfaction using the life quality index found consistently better treatment interference and treatment setting scores with SC administration than with IV administration. Conclusion: Compared with IV infusions in hospital, patients tend to prefer, to be more satisfied with and to report better HRQL with SC administration of the same drug at home, primarily due to the greater convenience. This study contributes to evidence-based care of patients with autoimmune diseases or PIDs.

成人免疫性疾病患者对皮下或静脉注射肠外药物治疗的偏好:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:多项研究发现,皮下注射(SC)和静脉注射(IV)给药治疗类似的长效免疫性和自身免疫性疾病具有相似的临床疗效,这意味着患者所表示的偏好是或应该是治疗选择的主要因素。因此,有必要系统地收集有关使用静脉注射或皮下注射相同药物的患者偏好、治疗满意度和健康相关生活质量(HRQL)的证据。材料与方法:2021 年 10 月 15 日对 PubMed 数据库进行了检索。纳入的研究涉及患者在治疗任何自身免疫性疾病或原发性免疫缺陷(PIDs)时,在家中静脉注射和在医院静脉注射免疫球蛋白或生物疗法的经历。评估的结果包括患者的偏好、治疗满意度和 HRQL。采用随机效应模型对偏好数据进行了元分析。结果共筛选出 3504 篇引用文献,其中 46 篇文献中包含 37 项研究。总体而言,静脉注射比静脉滴注更受青睐,PID 和自身免疫性疾病的结果类似:在 PID 中,80%(95% 置信区间 [CI],64-94%)的患者首选静脉滴注;在自身免疫性疾病中,83%(95% 置信区间:73-92%)的患者首选静脉滴注;在总体上,82%(95% 置信区间:75-89%)的患者首选静脉滴注。荟萃分析还发现,与在医院治疗相比,84%(95% CI:75-92%)的患者更愿意在家中用药。使用生活质量指数对治疗满意度进行分析后发现,使用静脉注射给药的治疗干扰和治疗环境得分始终优于静脉注射给药。结论是与在医院进行静脉输液相比,患者更倾向于在家中进行相同药物的皮下注射,对皮下注射的满意度更高,报告的 HRQL 也更好,这主要是由于皮下注射更方便。本研究有助于为自身免疫性疾病或 PID 患者提供循证护理。
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
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
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