ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2011
[Patient/rheumatologist evaluation of infusion treatment for rheumatoid arthritis].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Review
- Assessing Preferences for Rare Disease Treatment: Qualitative Development of the Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patient Preference Questionnaire (PNH-PPQPatient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Patients', physicians', nurses', and pharmacists' preferences on the characteristics of biologic agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Article
- Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- Examining patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using a discrete-choice approach.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- Novel Adherence Measures for Infusible Therapeutic Agents Indicated for Rheumatoid Arthritis.American health & drug benefits · 2015Article
- Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe various biologic agents currently available for the treatment of RA can be administered subcutaneously (s.c.) or via intravenous (i.v.) infusion with variable intervals depending on the drug. This investigation aims to identify the preferences and concerns of affected patients and their physicians.
methodsWe conducted a survey of 102 patients with RA currently receiving Rituximab (RTX) therapy. They were asked about different aspects of their current and previous RA therapy, including overall satisfaction, tolerability, mode of drug administration, as well as duration and intervals. In addition, 17 rheumatologists were asked about different aspects of s.c. or i.v. drug administration, their preference and the suspected preference of their patients.
resultsThe mean age of our patients was 59 ± 11.2 years. Patients had failed ≥2 DMARD therapies and ≥ 1 biologic treatment. The impact of RTX infusions on planning different activities including job, hobbies or travelling was considered as low or very low in 76% of the respondents. Interestingly, 63.4% of patients would prefer an infusion every 6-9 months as RA therapy, whereas 21.5% would prefer tablets only; 12.9% of our patient cohort would prefer s.c. injections every second week, and only 2% would prefer an infusion every month. In all, 92% of patients questioned would choose RTX therapy again. In contrast, 88% of rheumatologists preferred s.c. injection and even 94% of them assumed that their patients would do so as well if they had the choice. The suggested reasons included greater flexibility, convenience and independence during s.c. therapy.
conclusionContrary to the assumption of rheumatologists, we have demonstrated a preference among RTX patients for i.v. drug administration every 6-9 months over other methods of administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21359555What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.