ArticlePatient preference and adherence2014
Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health utility values associated with pharmaceutical treatment process attributes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Subcutaneous versus intravenous ultra-low-dose rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled PK-PD non-inferiority trial.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Trial
- Pharmacokinetic Comparability of ABP 654, a Biosimilar to Ustekinumab, Administered Either via Prefilled Syringe or Autoinjector in Healthy Adults: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Study.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of subcutaneous vs intravenous infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized phase III trial.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2023Trial
- Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional DMARDs in patients with RA at week 97 (SUMMACTA).Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2016Trial
- Switch from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Formulation of Tocilizumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Systematic Literature Review.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2025Article
- Prevention of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis by vaccination with the Tocilizumab mimotope.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Expenditure of biological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in the Brazilian public health system.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Subcutaneous Infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Understanding Pharmacokinetics and Exposure Response Relationships in a New Era of Subcutaneous Biologics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Prevalence of adverse reactions to intravenously administered originator biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A 5-year retrospective study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022Article
- Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Review
- Perspectives on Subcutaneous Infliximab for Rheumatic Diseases and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Era.Advances in therapy · 2022Review
- Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Review
- Reliability, Satisfaction and Effectiveness of Benralizumab Home Self-Administration in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Real-World Practice: The Auto-Benra Study.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2022Article
- Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Review
- Preferences and satisfaction of IBD patients after switching from adalimumab 40 mg weekly to 80 mg every other week given as a single injection: the ADASCAL study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Correlation of patient preferences to treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in Greece.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Article
- Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial.ACR open rheumatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the preferences of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and health professionals (HPs) for the route and frequency of administration of biologic drugs.
methodsOne hundred and seven RA patients treated with biological agents for intravenous or subcutaneous use, 35 biologic-naïve RA patients treated with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and 30 rheumatology HPs (physicians and nurses) were recruited from two outpatient clinics in Copenhagen, Denmark. All subjects filled out a questionnaire interrogating their choice of preferred route and frequency of administration of a biologic corresponding to current available options, given that effects, adverse effects, and financial costs were identical for the different choices. The subjects were also asked to justify their preferences. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was used to examine the distributions over different preferences. Proportions were compared using Fisher's exact test.
resultsForty-one patients were currently treated with subcutaneous self-injections at home (SCH) and 66 intravenously at the clinic (IVC). IVC was preferred by 85% of patients currently treated with IVC (P<0.0001). SCH was preferred by 71% of patients currently treated with SCH (P<0.001), by 77% of the biologic-naïve patients (P<0.01), and by 87% of HPs (P<0.0001). The proportion of patients favoring SCH was significantly higher for patients currently receiving SCH and for biologic-naïve RA patients than for those currently on IVC (P<0.0001). SCH once a month and IVC every 8 weeks were the most appealing treatment frequencies (P<0.01). The most frequent reason among patients for choosing IVC or SCH was a wish for safety, and a wish to minimize the time of transportation and treatment, respectively.
conclusionThe majority of RA patients treated with biologics preferred their current route of administration. Most patients, those inexperienced with biologics, and HPs favored SCH. Low treatment frequencies were generally preferred.
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.