ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Patient satisfaction and acceptability of an on-demand and on-prophylaxis device for factor VIII delivery in patients with hemophilia A.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychosocial Outcomes and Quality of Life in Patients with Hemophilia a Without Inhibitors: The HemoLIFE Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- TSUBASA study: evaluation of the quality and content of daily life of people with hemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors on prophylactic treatment with emicizumab.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Real-World Rates of Bleeding, Factor VIII Use, and Quality of Life in Individuals with Severe Haemophilia A Receiving Prophylaxis in a Prospective, Noninterventional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Patients' and parents' satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021Observational
- [Optimized AAV package and experimental application of recombinant AAV8/hFⅧ for gene therapy on hemophilia A mice].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFuseNGO is a relatively new device consisting of a prefilled dual-chamber syringe (DCS) that was recently introduced for the reconstitution of recombinant factor VIII. Herein, the DCS device was assessed using five questionnaires with the primary aim of evaluating patient perceptions and preferences.
methodsAn observational, non-interventional, longitudinal study on 86 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of hemophilia A was carried out at 21 sites in Italy. Each patient underwent a baseline visit and final study visit within 3-6 months. Patients were administered five questionnaires: HemoPREF; Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM); VeritasPRO; Hemophilia Well-being Index (HWBI); Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) + Classroom Impairment Questions (CIQ): Hemophilia Specific (HS).
resultsCompared to baseline, scores for HemoPREF were higher at follow-up; significant increases in the percentage of positive responses were seen for all questions regarding the ease of use (
conclusionConsidering patient-reported outcomes, the DCS device was associated with easier preparation, storage, disposal of equipment, and overall use. Of particular note, preparation times were reduced by around 50%. The majority of patients were satisfied with the device and overall adherence scores were high. Considering these results, the device has the potential to increase adherence to therapy and, possibly, reduce healthcare costs.
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.