Barbara Domańska1, Brenda VanLunen2, Luke Peterson2, Irina Mountian3, Michael Schiff4. 1. a UCB Celltech , Slough , UK. 2. b UCB Pharma , Raleigh , NC , USA. 3. c UCB Pharma , Brussels , Belgium. 4. d Department of Rheumatology , University of Colorado School of Medicine , Denver , CO , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the usability of a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) autoinjector with the adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab devices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS:Two identical studies were performed in 2013 and 2016; patients performed asimulated self-injection with the CZP autoinjector and the most up-to-date device versions at the time in a randomized, consecutive sequence. The primary end point was the ranking of the four autoinjectors in order of preference. Device usability and intuitiveness were assessed across a range of secondary and exploratory end points. RESULTS:The 2013 and 2016 study populations included 76 patients each; a significant majority (2013: 67%; 2016: 59%) ranked the CZP autoinjector as their most preferred device (p < 0.001). Most patients agreed that the CZP autoinjector was easier to use, start, and manipulate, and were more willing to use it than the comparator devices (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons with CZP). Likert score differences also favored the CZP autoinjector regarding how easy it was to determine injection completion. The CZP autoinjector was associated with a low rate of use error. CONCLUSIONS: In both studies, the CZP autoinjector was the preferred choice compared to the alternative devices and was associated with a high level of patient satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the usability of a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) autoinjector with the adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab devices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two identical studies were performed in 2013 and 2016; patients performed a simulated self-injection with the CZP autoinjector and the most up-to-date device versions at the time in a randomized, consecutive sequence. The primary end point was the ranking of the four autoinjectors in order of preference. Device usability and intuitiveness were assessed across a range of secondary and exploratory end points. RESULTS: The 2013 and 2016 study populations included 76 patients each; a significant majority (2013: 67%; 2016: 59%) ranked the CZP autoinjector as their most preferred device (p < 0.001). Most patients agreed that the CZP autoinjector was easier to use, start, and manipulate, and were more willing to use it than the comparator devices (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons with CZP). Likert score differences also favored the CZP autoinjector regarding how easy it was to determine injection completion. The CZP autoinjector was associated with a low rate of use error. CONCLUSIONS: In both studies, the CZP autoinjector was the preferred choice compared to the alternative devices and was associated with a high level of patient satisfaction.
Authors: Andreas Schneider; Philipp Richard; Philippe Mueller; Christoph Jordi; Mary Yovanoff; Jakob Lange Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Juan Aw; Hedley Griffiths; Jane Zochling; Alfred Lanzafame; Andrew Jordan Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.711