Comparative evaluation and preference of MixPro® versus Mix2Vial® reconstitution devices among people with haemophilia and caregivers

Abstract

Abstract Introduction People with haemophilia (PwH) require frequent infusions with plasma-derived or recombinant coagulation factors to help prevent and treat acute bleeding episodes. This ‘replacement therapy’ can be administered at home by PwH or their caregivers using a drug reconstitution device. MixPro® and Mix2Vial® are two such devices. Aims/Objectives To compare the experiences and evaluate the preferences of PwH and caregivers using two reconstitution devices: MixPro® and Mix2Vial®. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted between the 22 June and 4 August 2021 with male PwH or caregivers of PwH. Participants were asked questions about the reconstitution devices they have used in general, followed by questions relating specifically to the MixPro® or Mix2Vial® devices. Demonstration devices were provided to all participants during the interview. Results In total, 105 participants (71 PwH and 34 caregivers) were interviewed in the USA, Italy, UK, and Japan. PwH had a mean age of 29 years (3–69 years). Overall, participants reported the number of parts, speed of reconstitution, and ease of use to be the largest unmet needs with reconstitution devices. Regarding the device features, low contamination risk was ranked as most important (importance score: 15.1) for all countries except Italy, where portability of the device was most important (11.7 for portability vs. 10.6 for low contamination risk). When MixPro® and Mix2Vial® features were independently evaluated, MixPro® outperformed Mix2Vial® across 17 of the 18 features; both devices were rated equally for low contamination risk. When asked which device performed best on each feature, MixPro® was chosen by the majority of participants (74%). MixPro® was associated with words such as quick (54%), user-friendly (47%), and easy (46%), while Mix2Vial® was associated with the words easy (33%), safe (32%), and awkward (30%). Participants felt MixPro® would make a positive difference to their lives citing reasons such as saving time, ease of portability, and general confidence in using the system. Relatively few participants thought Mix2Vial® would make a positive difference to their lives, with some noting it was not much different than the previous generation of devices. Conclusion In this study, MixPro® was preferred over Mix2Vial® as a reconstitution device for PwH and caregivers of PwH.