OBJECTIVE: To identify the determinants of anti-TNF-naive patients' preferences for the route of administration of anti-TNF agents. METHODS: The study was carried out in 50 Italian rheumatology centres (802 patients). All patients completed a 31-item questionnaire addressing their perceptions of current treatment and the preferences for treatment with anti-TNF agents. Statistical methods included analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test and chi-square test. RESULTS: The response rate to the questionnaire was 97.6%. At the time of the survey, 310 (39.9%) patients were dissatisfied with current treatments, owing to inefficacy, side effects and inconvenience of administration. The i.v. and s.c. routes of administration were preferred by 50.2 and 49.8%, respectively. No significant difference was found in patients by gender, age, RA duration or number of drugs used. Reasons for the choice of i.v. administration were the safety of treatment at the hospital and the reassuring effect of physician presence. The s.c. administration was chosen for the convenience of treatment and in particular for home treatment. Patients dissatisfied with current therapy due to side effects preferred s.c. administration (P = 0.029), whereas patients choosing the i.v. route had slightly higher scores on 'today pain' (P = 0.047) and 'articular pain' (P = 0.023) of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI). CONCLUSIONS: Both i.v. and s.c. treatments were well accepted by patients. However, treatment choice has to be discussed with patients, as individual preference seems to be determined by personal attitudes towards safety and convenience, by past experience and by the perception of current disease status.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the determinants of anti-TNF-naive patients' preferences for the route of administration of anti-TNF agents. METHODS: The study was carried out in 50 Italian rheumatology centres (802 patients). All patients completed a 31-item questionnaire addressing their perceptions of current treatment and the preferences for treatment with anti-TNF agents. Statistical methods included analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test and chi-square test. RESULTS: The response rate to the questionnaire was 97.6%. At the time of the survey, 310 (39.9%) patients were dissatisfied with current treatments, owing to inefficacy, side effects and inconvenience of administration. The i.v. and s.c. routes of administration were preferred by 50.2 and 49.8%, respectively. No significant difference was found in patients by gender, age, RA duration or number of drugs used. Reasons for the choice of i.v. administration were the safety of treatment at the hospital and the reassuring effect of physician presence. The s.c. administration was chosen for the convenience of treatment and in particular for home treatment. Patients dissatisfied with current therapy due to side effects preferred s.c. administration (P = 0.029), whereas patients choosing the i.v. route had slightly higher scores on 'today pain' (P = 0.047) and 'articular pain' (P = 0.023) of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI). CONCLUSIONS: Both i.v. and s.c. treatments were well accepted by patients. However, treatment choice has to be discussed with patients, as individual preference seems to be determined by personal attitudes towards safety and convenience, by past experience and by the perception of current disease status.
Authors: R W Stidham; T C H Lee; P D R Higgins; A R Deshpande; D A Sussman; A G Singal; B J Elmunzer; S D Saini; S Vijan; A K Waljee Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-04-20 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: D E Furst; S A Shaikh; M Greenwald; B Bennett; O Davies; K Luijtens; F Staelens; W Koetse; P Bertin Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.794