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

Abstract

Background: For 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. Methods: Searches 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. Results: In 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. Conclusion:In 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.

Patient Preferences in the Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Results of a Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment in Europe

“…Patients generally preferred 12 months duration of treatment benefit over 6 months but did not prefer the benefits to last 24 months, which may indicate patients' reluctance to commit to a therapy administered as an injection or oral pill beyond 1 year. The least preferred mode of administration was the monthly intravenous injection, which is aligned to the conclusions of a recent literature review in chronic immune system disorders that patients preferred treatment at home owing to the convenience and comfort of home treatment and the avoidance of having to attend hospital for an intravenous injection albeit less frequently administered [55]. Extensive subgroup analyses confirmed that observed differences in preferences were not explained by patient characteristics or disease history as participants' treatment preferences were generally consistent across subgroups.…”

Positioning Filgotinib in the Treatment Algorithm of Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis

“…Most UC patients are young of working age so infusion medications may be challenging and limit their quality of life. 46 Some patients are afraid of needles, hindering the use of subcutaneous drugs. 47 The use of oral drugs could reduce the indirect treatment costs as it could reduce hospital admissions and overcrowding by preventing the risks of viral infection in the current global pandemic context.…”

Management of Non-response and Loss of Response to Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

“…Of note, while many physicians think that patients prefer subcutaneous treatments over intravenous administration, this is not true for all patients ( 117 ). Some patients prefer IV administration with reasons given varying from less frequent dosing, convenience, the chance for interaction with hospital staff, and reassurance with medical presence ( 120 ).…”