ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
In-depth interviews of patients with primary immunodeficiency who have experienced pump and rapid push subcutaneous infusions of immunoglobulins reveal new insights on their preference and expectations.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Values and preferences of patients with inborn errors of immunity and their caregivers: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous IgPro20 at High Infusion Parameters in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency: Findings from the Pump-Assisted Administration Cohorts of the HILO Study.Journal of clinical immunology · 2021Trial
- Article
- Patient Experience and Improvement Opportunities in Self-Administered, Large-Volume Subcutaneous Infusions at Home.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies - impact of drug packaging and administration method on patient reported outcomes.BMC immunology · 2024Article
- Primary Immune Deficiency: Patients' Preferences for Replacement Immunoglobulin Therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Review
- Safety and Tolerability of Manual Push Administration of Subcutaneous IgPro20 at High Infusion Rates in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency: Findings from the Manual Push Administration Cohort of the HILO Study.Journal of clinical immunology · 2021Article
- Recovering autonomy is a key advantage of home-based immunoglobulin therapy in patients with myositis: A qualitative research study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Psychosocial services for primary immunodeficiency disorder families during hematopoietic cell transplantation: A descriptive study.Palliative & supportive care · 2019Article
- Supporting caregivers during hematopoietic cell transplantation for children with primary immunodeficiency disorders.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) often receive immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). Physicians and patients have the choice between various methods of administration. For subcutaneous immunoglobulin infusions, patients may use an automated pump (P) or push the plunger of a syringe (rapid push [RP]). P infusions are performed once a week and last around 1 hour. RP decreases the duration of administration, but requires more frequent infusions. PATIENTS AND
methodsEight out of 30 patients (coming from a single center) who had participated in the cross-over, randomized, open-label trial comparing P and RP participated in a focus group or underwent in-depth interviews. Patients had a long history of home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin using P. The trial suggested that RP had slightly greater interference on daily life than P, but similar efficacy and better cost-effectiveness. When asked about the delivery method they had preferred, around one-third of patients pointed out RP rather than P. In-depth interviews may reveal unforeseen reasons for patients' preferences.
resultsInterviews underlined the complexity of the relationship that the patients maintain with their disease and IgRT. Even if they recognized the genetic nature of the disease and claimed PID was a part of them, patients tried not to be overwhelmed by the disease. IgRT by P was well integrated in patients' routine. By contrast, RP too frequently reminded the patients of their disease. In addition, some patients pointed out the difficulty of pushing the plunger due to the viscosity of the product. Coming back too frequently, RP was not perceived as time saving over a week. Long-lasting use of P could partly explain patients' reasonable reluctance to change to RP.
conclusionIn-depth interviews of PID patients highlighted unforeseen reasons for patients' preference that the physician needs to explore during the shared medical decision-making process.
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.