Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies - impact of drug packaging and administration method on patient reported outcomes.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY BMC Immunology Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1186/s12865-024-00608-0
R Mallick, G Solomon, P Bassett, X Zhang, P Patel, O Lepeshkina
{"title":"Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies - impact of drug packaging and administration method on patient reported outcomes.","authors":"R Mallick, G Solomon, P Bassett, X Zhang, P Patel, O Lepeshkina","doi":"10.1186/s12865-024-00608-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Here, the perspective of patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency receiving subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) via introductory smaller size pre-filled syringes (PFS) or vials were compared.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was conducted in Canada by the Association des Patients Immunodéficients du Québec (APIQ) (10/2020-03/2021). Survey questions included: reasons for choosing SCIg packaging and administration methods, training experiences, infusion characteristics, and switching methods. The survey captured structured patient-reported outcomes: treatment satisfaction and its sub-domains, symptom state, general health perception, and physical and mental function. Respondents using PFS were compared with vial users, overall and stratified by their administration method (pump or manual push).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 132 total respondents, 66 respondents used vials, with 38 using a pump and 28 using manual push. PFS (5 and 10 mL sizes) were being used by 120 respondents, with 38 using a pump and 82 using manual push. PFS users were associated with a 17% lower median (interquartile range) SCIg dose (10 [8, 12] vs. 12 [9, 16] g/week, respectively), a significantly shorter infusion preparation time (15 [10, 20] vs. 15 [10, 30] mins, respectively), and a trend for shorter length of infusion (60 [35, 90] vs. 70 [48, 90] mins, respectively) compared with those on vials. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction scores were overall similar between vial and PFS users (including on the domains of effectiveness and convenience), except for a higher score for vials over PFS on the domain of global satisfaction (p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Consistent with prescribing that reflects a recognition of less wastage, PFS users were associated with a significantly lower SCIg dose compared with vial users. PFS users were also associated with shorter pre-infusion times, reflecting simpler administration mechanics compared with vial users. Higher global satisfaction with treatment among vial users compared with PFS users was consistent with users being limited to smaller PFS size options in Canada during the study period. Patient experience on PFS is expected to improve with the introduction of larger PFS sizes. Overall, treatment satisfaction for SCIg remains consistently high with the introduction of PFS packaging compared with vials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9040,"journal":{"name":"BMC Immunology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10880328/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12865-024-00608-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Here, the perspective of patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency receiving subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) via introductory smaller size pre-filled syringes (PFS) or vials were compared.

Methods: An online survey was conducted in Canada by the Association des Patients Immunodéficients du Québec (APIQ) (10/2020-03/2021). Survey questions included: reasons for choosing SCIg packaging and administration methods, training experiences, infusion characteristics, and switching methods. The survey captured structured patient-reported outcomes: treatment satisfaction and its sub-domains, symptom state, general health perception, and physical and mental function. Respondents using PFS were compared with vial users, overall and stratified by their administration method (pump or manual push).

Results: Of the 132 total respondents, 66 respondents used vials, with 38 using a pump and 28 using manual push. PFS (5 and 10 mL sizes) were being used by 120 respondents, with 38 using a pump and 82 using manual push. PFS users were associated with a 17% lower median (interquartile range) SCIg dose (10 [8, 12] vs. 12 [9, 16] g/week, respectively), a significantly shorter infusion preparation time (15 [10, 20] vs. 15 [10, 30] mins, respectively), and a trend for shorter length of infusion (60 [35, 90] vs. 70 [48, 90] mins, respectively) compared with those on vials. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction scores were overall similar between vial and PFS users (including on the domains of effectiveness and convenience), except for a higher score for vials over PFS on the domain of global satisfaction (p=0.02).

Conclusions: Consistent with prescribing that reflects a recognition of less wastage, PFS users were associated with a significantly lower SCIg dose compared with vial users. PFS users were also associated with shorter pre-infusion times, reflecting simpler administration mechanics compared with vial users. Higher global satisfaction with treatment among vial users compared with PFS users was consistent with users being limited to smaller PFS size options in Canada during the study period. Patient experience on PFS is expected to improve with the introduction of larger PFS sizes. Overall, treatment satisfaction for SCIg remains consistently high with the introduction of PFS packaging compared with vials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
免疫缺陷患者的皮下免疫球蛋白替代疗法--药物包装和给药方法对患者报告结果的影响。
背景:方法:魁北克免疫缺陷患者协会(APIQ)于 2020 年 10 月至 2021 年 3 月在加拿大进行了一项在线调查:魁北克免疫缺陷患者协会(APIQ)在加拿大开展了一项在线调查(10/2020-03/2021)。调查问题包括:选择 SCIg 包装和给药方法的原因、培训经历、输液特点和转换方法。调查收集了患者报告的结构性结果:治疗满意度及其子域、症状状态、总体健康感知以及身心功能。将使用 PFS 的受访者与使用药瓶的受访者进行了整体比较,并按其给药方法(泵或手动推注)进行了分层:结果:在总共 132 位受访者中,66 位受访者使用小瓶,38 位使用泵,28 位使用手推。120 名受访者使用 PFS(5 毫升和 10 毫升规格),其中 38 人使用泵,82 人使用手推式。与使用药瓶的受访者相比,PFS 使用者的 SCIg 剂量中位数(四分位数间距)低 17%(分别为 10 [8, 12] vs. 12 [9, 16] g/周),输液准备时间显著缩短(分别为 15 [10, 20] vs. 15 [10, 30] 分钟),输液时间有缩短的趋势(分别为 60 [35, 90] vs. 70 [48, 90] 分钟)。患者报告的治疗满意度得分在小瓶和 PFS 使用者之间总体相似(包括有效性和便利性方面),但在总体满意度方面,小瓶的得分高于 PFS(P=0.02):结论:PFS 使用者的 SCIg 剂量明显低于小瓶使用者,这与处方中减少浪费的理念一致。PFS 使用者的预输液时间也更短,这反映出与小瓶使用者相比,PFS 使用者的给药方法更简单。与 PFS 使用者相比,小瓶使用者对治疗的总体满意度更高,这与研究期间加拿大的使用者只能选择较小的 PFS 规格是一致的。随着更大规格 PFS 的推出,患者对 PFS 的体验有望得到改善。总体而言,采用 PFS 包装后,SCIg 的治疗满意度始终高于小瓶包装。
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 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Immunology
BMC Immunology 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Immunology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in molecular, cellular, tissue-level, organismal, functional, and developmental aspects of the immune system as well as clinical studies and animal models of human diseases.
期刊最新文献
From bioinformatics to clinical applications: a novel prognostic model of cuproptosis-related genes based on single-cell RNA sequencing data in hepatocellular carcinoma Revised version with tracked changes oral Magnesium reduces levels of pathogenic autoantibodies and skin disease in murine lupus. Sepsis induced dysfunction of liver type 1 innate lymphoid cells. Antagonist anti-LIF antibody derived from naive human scFv phage library inhibited tumor growth in mice. Pre-treatment plasma retinol binding protein 4 level and its change after treatments predict systemic treatment response in psoriasis patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1