Dataset Information

Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: A cross-sectional observational survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Understanding how patients generate preferences for administration route alternatives may improve health-care delivery and clinical outcomes. Recently, novel biological therapies with subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration routes have been approved for severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the preferred route of biologic therapy administration and related beliefs among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey study. Patients answered an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire after an outpatient visit in pulmonary disease clinics located throughout Italy. Socio-demographic and clinical information together with the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), Work Productivity Impairment Scale and the medical resources utilization module of the Health & Work Survey were collected. Patients beliefs and preference towards SC and IV administration were investigated by means of an ad hoc 13 item questionnaire.

Results the main findings

150 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire (47.3% males). Preference for IV and SC administration was 18.7% and 81.3%, respectively. Compared with patients preferring SC formulation, patients that favored IV were older (p ?= ?0.04), less likely to escalate corticosteroid dose (p ?= ?0.03) and had emergency room (ER) access (p ?= ?0.009) during asthma exacerbations. Patients felt that SC was more convenient than IV, but this belief was not associated with higher likelihood of preferring SC administration. IV formulations were more likely associated with quicker and more effective drug action (p ?= ?0.0001), procedural safety and medical oversight (p ?= ?0.0002) and social support (p ?= ?0.007). Predictors of IV preference were represented by the association of worse asthma control and increased use of ER services, and by beliefs toward formulation effectiveness/efficiency in reducing symptoms (p ?= ?0.04 and p ?< ?0.0001, respectively). The model achieved excellent discrimination of administration route preference (area under the curve ?= ?0.87).

Conclusions

Preference is guided by partially misleading beliefs, which may generate wrong expectations that in turn can affect treatment satisfaction and adherence. Convenience and efficacy beliefs for drugs with different routes of administration always should be discussed with patients to achieve informed shared-decision making.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

SUBMITTER: Santus P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6488569 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: A cross-sectional observational survey study.

Santus Pierachille P Ferrando Matteo M Baiardini Ilaria I Radovanovic Dejan D Fattori Alice A Braido Fulvio F

The World Allergy Organization journal 20190428 4

<h4>Background</h4>Understanding how patients generate preferences for administration route alternatives may improve health-care delivery and clinical outcomes. Recently, novel biological therapies with subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration routes have been approved for severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the preferred route of biologic therapy administration and related beliefs among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted ...[more]

PMID: 31061688

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsBiologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia.MethodsA pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists' demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents' estimates.ResultsEighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%).LimitationsThe limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation.ConclusionsCroatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.

Project description:BackgroundSevere asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience.MethodsWe conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared.ResultsTwo hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05).ConclusionsUncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice.

Project description:Background and objectiveDexmedetomidine is a potent agonist of α2-adrenoceptors causing dose-dependent sedation in humans. Intravenous dexmedetomidine is commonly used perioperatively, but an extravascular route of administration would be favoured in palliative care. Subcutaneous infusions provide desired therapeutic plasma concentrations with fewer unwanted effects as compared with intravenous dosing. We aimed to develop semi-mechanistic population models for predicting pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of dexmedetomidine after intravenous and subcutaneous dosing.MethodsNon-linear mixed-effects modelling was performed using previously collected concentration and haemodynamic effects data from ten (eight in the intravenous phase) healthy human subjects, aged 19-27 years, receiving 1 µg/kg of intravenous or subcutaneous dexmedetomidine during a 10-min infusion.ResultsThe absorption of dexmedetomidine from the subcutaneous injection site, and distribution to local subcutaneous fat tissue was modelled using a semi-physiological approach consisting of a depot and fat compartment, while a two-compartment mammillary model explained further disposition. Dexmedetomidine-induced reductions in plasma norepinephrine concentrations were accurately described by an indirect response model. For blood pressure models, the net effect was specified as hyper- and hypotensive effects of dexmedetomidine due to vasoconstriction on peripheral arteries and sympatholysis mediated via the central nervous system, respectively. A heart rate model combined the dexmedetomidine-induced sympatholytic effect, and input from the central nervous system, predicted from arterial blood pressure levels. Internal evaluation confirmed the predictive performance of the final models, as well as the accuracy of the parameter estimates with narrow confidence intervals.ConclusionsOur final model precisely describes dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics and accurately predicts dexmedetomidine-induced sympatholysis and other pharmacodynamic effects. After subcutaneous dosing, dexmedetomidine is taken up into subcutaneous fat tissue, but our simulations indicate that accumulation of dexmedetomidine in this compartment is insignificant. CLINICALTRIALS.ORG: NCT02724098 and EudraCT 2015-004698-34.

Dataset Information

Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: A cross-sectional observational survey study.

Background

Methods

Results the main findings

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Patients beliefs on intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration of biologics for severe asthma treatment: A cross-sectional observational survey study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets