Dataset Information

Evaluation of Usability and Acceptance of a New Autoinjector Intended for Methotrexate Subcutaneous Self-Administration in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease, for which the introduction of injectable treatments has had a major impact on quality of life directly related to the disease. The purpose of this descriptive study was to evaluate the usability of a new autoinjector, intended for methotrexate self-administration, based on the device's design and instructions for use (IFU).

Methods

This multicenter trial included three user groups: a group of patients with established RA subdivided into two groups according to their hand disability, and a group of caregivers or nurses. Each subject performed three simulated injections with a water-filled device on a foam pad. The first injection was made just after reading the IFU without further instructions (first phase). The second phase consisted of two injections made after explanations provided upon request of the subject in an optimum environment and in a "worst-case" home environment. The usability of the autoinjector was assessed by a questionnaire (success: ≥75% of positive responses) and by a score card reflecting injection performances (success: execution of ≥75% of handling steps).

Results

Forty-two subjects were enrolled in the study. During the first phase, the great majority of subjects succeeded in the usability questionnaire (90.5%) and in the injection performance (95.2%) with no major differences between the user groups. In the Second phase, all subjects from all three user groups succeeded in the usability questionnaire and had a positive rate of device handling, regardless of the environment and of the user group. No safety concerns were raised during the study.

Conclusions

This study found a very high level of usability and subject acceptance of the autoinjector, intended for methotrexate self-administration, regardless of the hand disability and environmental conditions.

Funding

Nordic Group.

Trial registration

EudraCT reference number: 2014-A0141245.

SUBMITTER: Hudry C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5443726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of the present study was to determine whether the abatacept autoinjector can be used by the intended population without patterns of preventable use errors, and is acceptable when assessed against key user needs.MethodsTwo independently conducted simulated-use studies, with no active drug administered, quantified use errors and evaluated the abatacept autoinjector and competitor devices on key attributes (comfort, control, ease of use, confidence of dose) and overall acceptability. Autoinjector preference was also assessed. Participants were patients with rheumatoid arthritis, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were informed that a new rheumatoid arthritis autoinjector was being tested but were blinded to the intended drug and sponsor identity.ResultsIn the formative (pre-validation) study (n = 54), two high-priority use errors occurred, both of which resulted from protocol non-compliance rather than mental confusion or physical limitations. In the summative (validation) study (n = 99), one high-priority use error occurred; this was deemed a simulated-use study artifact as participant behavior was guided by actual experience associated with the feel of drug delivery into the skin rather than by protocol, so no mitigation steps were considered necessary. Across user groups, average scores were consistently high for the pre-defined key attributes. Overall acceptability scores (7-point scale) were significantly higher for the abatacept versus competitor autoinjectors-formative study: patients 6.7 vs 5.2 (P = 0.0001), caregivers 7.0 vs 4.6 (P = 0.0093), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0020); summative study: patients 6.5 vs 5.9 (P = 0.0404), caregivers 6.8 vs 5.8 (P = 0.0047), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0002). The abatacept autoinjector was preferred to competitor devices: patients 85.7% vs 14.3% (P = 0.00002), caregivers 84.2% vs 15.8% (P = 0.00443), HCPs 95.0% vs 5.0% (P = 0.00004). Positive experiences with the abatacept autoinjector were attributed to the rubberized grip, device size, visualization of dose progression, button ergonomics, and ease of use.ConclusionThe abatacept autoinjector demonstrated usability without patterns of preventable use errors, and with high acceptability ratings across all key attributes assessed. Preference over competitor autoinjectors was due to device ergonomics, visualization of dose progression, confidence of dose delivery, and overall ease of use.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune condition which affects approximately 1% of the adult population worldwide and is characterized by joint inflammation, with extra-articular features being common. Interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the chief pro-inflammatory cytokines found in the joints and sera of patients with RA. Increased levels of IL-6 correlate with inflammation, disease activity, and radiological damage. RA treatment should focus on minimizing the signs and symptoms of disease (pain, stiffness, and swelling of the joints) and on preventing or minimizing joint damage to preserve functionality and quality of life. The benefits of early, intensive intervention are now acknowledged, with all patients with newly diagnosed, active RA being started on methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy or combination therapy. Lack of efficacy, intolerance, and/or toxicity can lead to discontinuation of this drug, and there is a need for exploring further treatment options. In the UK, patients with persistently high disease activity who have failed at least two conventional disease-modifying agents (DMARDs) including MTX may qualify for biologic therapy. Numerous trials have shown intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ), a biologic drug targeting and inhibiting IL-6, to be effective for controlling inflammation in RA, with an acceptable safety profile. Its superiority in monotherapy when compared with other biologic agents makes it the drug of choice for patients who are intolerant or have contraindications to traditional DMARDs. However, one of the drawbacks of IV TCZ is the requirement for monthly infusions, which is inherently inconvenient for the patient and associated with increased cost. Subcutaneous (SC) TCZ has now been approved following two clinical trials which showed similar efficacy and safety compared to IV TCZ, and better efficacy compared to placebo (SUMMACTA and BREVACTA trials, respectively). Respiratory infections are the most common side effects in patients receiving SC TCZ. Advantages of SC formulations include convenience and reduced cost compared with IV therapies. Overall, patients tend to have a preference for SC over IV administration of medications. Close monitoring of patients should be undertaken in all cases, paying particular attention to the full blood count, liver enzymes, and cholesterol levels.