Patient experience with intravenous biologic therapies for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis
Authors Bolge SC, Eldridge HM, Lofland JH, Ravin C, Hart PJ, Ingham MP
Received 30 August 2016
Accepted for publication 15 October 2016
Published 28 March 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 661—669
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Akshita Wason
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Susan C Bolge,1 Helen M Eldridge,2 Jennifer H Lofland,3 Caitlin Ravin,3 Philip J Hart,4 Michael P Ingham1
1Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, 2Payer Provider Insights & Analytics, Janssen Services, LLC, Titusville, NJ, 3Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Horsham, PA, 4Value Communications, Medaxial Group, New York, NY, USA
Objective: The objective of this study was to describe patient experience with intravenous (IV) biologics for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ulcerative colitis.
Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in 405 patients with these autoimmune diseases who were receiving an IV biologic to treat their disease.
Results: On a 7-point scale (1= not at all satisfied; 7= very satisfied), mean satisfaction with IV medication was rated 6.1; 77% of patients rated satisfaction as 6 or 7. The most frequently perceived benefits of IV therapy were related to supervision provided by health care professionals. Most patients (82%, n=332) preferred their IV medication to subcutaneous injection. The three most common reasons for preferring IV were not wanting to self-inject (43%), less frequent dosing (34%), and preference for administration by a health care professional (24%). African–American/black patients had a stronger preference for IV administration than Caucasian/white patients (97% vs 80%, P<0.05) and a greater dislike of needles/self-injection (71% vs 40%, P<0.05). Hospital outpatient departments were not rated as well as physician in-office infusion. Only half (49%) of the patients reported that both they and their physician equally influenced the choice to switch from subcutaneous to IV therapy, and only 30% were given a choice of infusion center.
Conclusion: Users of IV biologics are highly satisfied with their medications and perceive the opportunity for health care provider interaction at their infusion facilities as an advantage of their regimen. These findings support continued need for IV therapeutic options and shared decision-making between patients and physicians while selecting biologic treatments.
Keywords: patient experience, biologic, intravenous, subcutaneous, anti-TNF, preference
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]