ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Patient Preference and Time Allocation Associated with Transition from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Administration of Natalizumab (Tysabri) in Patients with Relapsing Remitting MS - A Questionnaire Study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Societal Costs and Efficiency of Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A U.S. Cost Comparison Model.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Natalizumab (NTZ, Tysabri, Biogen) is an established treatment for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), administered either intravenously (IV) in hospital settings or subcutaneously (SC), the latter of which can be administered in primary care. This study investigated self-reported preferences, satisfaction, and time allocation of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: A total of 83 patients with RRMS and 14 HCPs participated and completed questionnaires across five Swedish hospitals. Participants had experience with both NTZ IV and SC administration, and data collection focused on time efficiency, impact on daily activities, satisfaction, and the ease of transitioning to SC. Results: SC administration was reported as more time-efficient, with 72% of patients spending ≤30 min at the hospital vs 83% reporting 1-2 h for IV. In primary care, 75% of patients reported that SC treatments required less than 15 minutes. The setting of the SC administration had an effect on work disruption according to patients; 60% of patients in primary care reported no impact on work, compared to 35% for SC treatments in hospitals. Regarding preference, 80% of patients favoured SC over IV. Among patients offered SC in primary care, 75% preferred it over hospital treatment. HCPs reported shorter preparation times and improved workflow efficiency with SC, with 93% completing SC treatments within 30 minutes. Both patients and HCPs found the transition from IV to SC manageable, and 86% of HCPs expressed confidence in their ability to inform patients about SC administration. Discussion: The results align with previous studies, showing SC NTZ provides time savings, less disruption to daily life, and high satisfaction for patients and HCPs. Its feasibility in primary care supports broader adoption, with implications for improving healthcare resource allocation and patient adherence. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and global implementation.
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.