Trial reportZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2012
Comparison of patient satisfaction with two different etanercept delivery systems. A randomised controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Trial report in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- GP2015, a proposed etanercept biosimilar: Pharmacokinetic similarity to its reference product and comparison of its autoinjector device with prefilled syringes.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Trial
- International Survey to Evaluate Current Options for Subcutaneous Injection of Methotrexate (MTX) and a New Button-Free MTX Autoinjector.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Usability Study of PF-06410293, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Prefilled Pen: Open-Label, Single-Arm, Sub-Study of a Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2022Article
- Treatment pattern, satisfaction, and productivity loss of patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in Korea: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2022Observational
- A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience.Drug delivery · 2019Review
- Review
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate patients' perceptions of the acceptability of two devices delivering etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment and to explore whether specific patients' attributes are associated with device preferences. Two similar multicenter, open-label, randomised, parallel-design studies were conducted in a total of 13 European countries. A total of 640 adult patients with RA were randomised to receive etanercept 50 mg once-weekly subcutaneously for 12 weeks in either a pre-filled syringe (PFS) or a pre-filled pen (PFP). Patient satisfaction at week 12 was measured on a 0- to 10-point Likert scale (primary endpoint). The study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of a PFP over PFS for the primary endpoint. At week 12, mean patient satisfaction was 8.3 (± 2.4) points in the pen group and 7.2 (± 2.6) points in the syringe group. Non-inferiority and even superiority of the pen over the syringe was demonstrated. In conclusion, this study showed higher patient satisfaction in the group of patients injecting etanercept with a PFP compared with the group of patients using a PFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.