| Literature DB >> 26951043 |
Virginia A Devonshire1, Anthony Feinstein2, Patrick Moriarty3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a multicentre, single-arm, observational, phase IV study, we evaluated 24-week treatment adherence of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) patients using an electronic auto-injection device (RebiSmart(®)) for subcutaneous injection of interferon (IFN) β-1a.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26951043 PMCID: PMC4782351 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-016-1948-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Schedule of study assessments. Asterisk assessments at weeks 4, 8, and 16 were done by telephone contact. The current report focuses on data up to week 24 of treatment. BRB brief repeatable battery, HAD hospital anxiety and depression scale, SD1 study day 1, STAI state–trait anxiety inventory
Baseline demographic and disease characteristics of ITT patient population
| Characteristic | Result (n = 162) |
|---|---|
| Demographics | |
| Age, years | 37.4 ± 9.8 |
| Sex | |
| Male, n (%) | 40 (24.7 %) |
| Female, n (%) | 122 (75.3 %) |
| Race | |
| Caucasian, n (%) | 153 (94.4 %) |
| Black, n (%) | 2 (1.2 %) |
| Asian, n (%) | 2 (1.2 %) |
| Other, n (%) | 5 (3.1 %) |
| Education, total years completed | 14.9 ± 3.3 |
| Disease characteristics | |
| MS classification | |
| Relapsing-remitting, n (%) | 156 (96.3 %) |
| Secondary progressive, n (%) | 6 (3.7 %) |
| Months since onset of MS symptoms | 53.3 ± 76.1 |
| Months since MS diagnosis | 24.0 ± 57.6 |
| Months since last relapse | 6.4 ± 9.5 |
| Number of relapses since onset of MS symptoms, n (%) | |
| 0 | 6 (3.7 %) |
| 1 | 44 (27.2 %) |
| 2 | 55 (34.0 %) |
| 3 | 34 (21.0 %) |
| 4 | 12 (7.4 %) |
| ≥5 | 11 (6.8 %) |
| Expanded disability status scale (EDSS) Score | 1.8 ± 1.3 |
| Cognitive function | |
| Symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) | 51.0 ± 13.1 |
| Patients failing test, n (%) | 35 (22.9 %) |
| Selective reminding test (SRT) | |
| Long-term storage | 41.8 ± 15.5 |
| Patients failing test, n (%) | 61 (40.4 %) |
| Consistent long-term retrieval | 30.0 ± 15.8 |
| Patients failing test, n (%) | 59 (39.1 %) |
| 3-second paced auditory serial addition test (PASAT) | 42.8 ± 11.4 |
| Patients failing test, n (%) | 47 (31.3 %) |
| Cognitively impaired (failing ≥2 of the above tests) | 67 (47.8 %) |
Data presented as mean ± standard deviation except as indicated
ITT intent-to-treat, MS multiple sclerosis
Fig. 2Proportion of participants with ≥80 % treatment adherence and compliance at week 12 and 24 (mITT population). Adherence calculated as 100 × the number of administered injections recorded in the electronic device log divided by the expected number of injections (e.g., 72 injections over 24 weeks). Compliance calculated as 100 times the number of injections recorded in the electronic device log divided by (the number of days on-study) × 3/7. mITT modified intent-to-treat
Fig. 3Proportion of participants with ≥80 % treatment adherence according to cognitive impairment at weeks 12 and 24 (mITT population). p value assessed via Fisher’s exact test. mITT modified intent-to-treat
Fig. 4Participant self-reported fear of injection at baseline, week 12, and week 24 (mITT population). Based on patient response to the following question: “Please rate your current fear of self-injection.” mITT modified intent-to-treat
Fig. 5Proportion of participants with ≥80 % treatment adherence according to fear of injection at weeks 12 and 24 (mITT population). p value assessed via Fisher’s exact test. mITT modified intent-to-treat
Change in anxiety during treatment (mITT population)
| Measure | Baseline | Week 12 | Week 24 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital anxiety and depression scale | |||
| Anxiety subscale score | 7.0 ± 4.1 | 5.8 ± 4.3* | 5.9 ± 4.1* |
| State–trait anxiety inventory | |||
| State anxiety subscale | 40.4 ± 12.3 | 35.9 ± 12.7* | 36.6 ± 12.9* |
| Trait anxiety subscale | 38.8 ± 10.9 | 36.7 ± 12.1* | 37.6 ± 12.1 |
* p < 0.005 by comparison to baseline, as calculated by a paired t-test
mITT modified intent-to-treat
Multiple Sclerosis Treatment Concern Questionnaire score for subscales relating to injection-site reactions and flu-like symptoms (mITT population)
| Injection-site reaction score | Flu-like symptom score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed | Paired change | Observed | Paired change | |
| Week 4 | ||||
| N (missing) | 152 (5) | – | 152 (2) | – |
| Mean (SD) | 11.2 (3.6) | – | 11.1 (4.6) | – |
| Median (range) | 12 (1–20) | – | 12 (1–20) | – |
| Week 12 | ||||
| N (missing) | 149 (2) | 144 (7) | 148 (3) | 143 (8) |
| Mean (SD) | 12.3 (3.0) | 1.1 (2.8) | 10.8 (4.2) | –0.2 (4.3) |
| Median (range) | 13 (4–20) | 1 (−6 to +12) | 11 (1–20) | 0 (–12 to +17) |
| Week 24 | ||||
| N (missing) | 137 (1) | 133 (5) | 137 (1) | 133 (5) |
| Mean (SD) | 12.4 (3.0) | 1.3 (3.1) | 10.1 (4.3) | –0.8 (4.1) |
| Median (range) | 13 (1–18) | 1 (−8 to +14) | 10 (1–20) | –1 (–3 to +1) |
Fig. 6Patient self-reported degree of “bother” associated with RebiSmart® use (mITT population) Based on patient response to the following question: “How bothersome was the amount of time and preparation it took to get everything ready for your Rebif® injection with RebiSmart®?”