Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907384›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2021

Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Paul M Overton, Natalie Shalet, Fabian Somers, Jeffrey A Allen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul M OvertonBeacon Medical Communications, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1557-3413
Natalie ShaletNAS Healthcare Solutions, London, UK.
Fabian SomersUCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium.
Jeffrey A AllenDepartment of Neurology, Section of Neuromuscular Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8753-2680
UCB Pharma (Belgium) · BEUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor many chronic immune system disorders, the available treatments provide several options for route of administration. The objective of this systematic literature review is to inform discussions about therapy choices for individual patients by summarizing the available evidence regarding the preferences of patients with chronic immune system disorders for intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) administration.

methodsSearches of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were conducted using terms designed to capture studies reporting patient preferences between IV and SC therapy published in English. Relevant studies were limited to those in which mode of administration, including treatment frequency and setting, was the main difference between comparators.

resultsIn total, 49 studies were included in the review. Among 18 studies that compared IV and SC immunoglobulin therapy, 16 found patients to prefer the SC administration route. The results of the 31 studies comparing IV infusion and SC injection of non-immunoglobulin therapies were mixed, with patients favoring SC administration in 20, IV infusion in seven, and having no overall preference in four. Patient experience had a strong effect on preferences, with treatment-experienced patients preferring their current administration route in most studies. Patients preferring SC administration tended also to prefer treatment at home, mainly due to the convenience and comfort of home treatment and the avoidance of having to attend hospital. By contrast, patients preferring IV infusion tended to cite the lower treatment frequency and a dislike of self-injecting, and preferred hospital treatment, mainly due to the presence of healthcare professionals and resulting feelings of safety.

conclusionIn general patients with chronic immune system disorders tend to be more likely to choose SC administration than IV infusion, but preferences may vary according among individuals. These findings may assist discussions around appropriate treatment choices for each patient.

Indexed as

administration routeautoimmune disordersdecision makingimmunodeficiencypreferencesystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID33907384
PMCPMC8064718
OpenAlexW3153303568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.