Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Intravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Results

The search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference.

Conclusions

Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Josephson D. Patient preparation and site selection for peripheral IV infusion therapy. Intravenous infusion therapy for nurses: principles and practice. 2nd ed. New York: Thomson Delmare Learning; 2004. p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro RS. Why I use subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG). J Clin Immunol. 2013;33(Suppl 2):95–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Besarab A, Reyes CM, Hornberger J. Meta-analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous epoetin in maintenance treatment of anemia in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;40:439–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shpilberg O, Jackisch C. Subcutaneous administration of rituximab (MabThera) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) using hyaluronidase. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:1556–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mazer M, Chen E. Is subcutaneous administration of rapid-acting insulin as effective as intravenous insulin for treating diabetic ketoacidosis? Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53:259–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Challiner YC, Jarrett D, Hayward MJ, al-Jubouri MA, Julious SA. A comparison of intravenous and subcutaneous hydration in elderly acute stroke patients. Postgrad Med J. 1994;70:195–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. The Matisse Investigators. Subcutaneous fondaparinux versus unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1695–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Elsner F, Radbruch L, Loick G, Gaertner J, Sabatowski R. Intravenous versus subcutaneous morphine titration in patients with persisting exacerbation of cancer pain. J Palliat Med. 2005;8:743–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gurpide A, Sadaba B, Martin-Algarra S, Azanza JR, Lopez-Picazo JM, Campanero MA, et al. Randomized crossover pharmacokinetic evaluation of subcutaneous versus intravenous granisetron in cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Oncologist. 2007;12:1151–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kostic MA, Gutierrez FJ, Rieg TS, Moore TS, Gendron RT. A prospective, randomized trial of intravenous prochlorperazine versus subcutaneous sumatriptan in acute migraine therapy in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moreau P, Pylypenko H, Grosicki S, Karamanesht I, Leleu X, Grishunina M, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:431–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ismael G, Hegg R, Muehlbauer S, Heinzmann D, Lum B, Kim SB, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of (neo)adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive, clinical stage I-III breast cancer (HannaH study): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:869–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Aron A, Wang J, Collier B, Ahmed N, Brateanu A. Subcutaneous versus intravenous insulin therapy for glucose control in non-diabetic trauma patients. A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38:24–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Keystone EC, Kremer JM, Russell A, Box J, Abud-Mendoza C, Elizondo MG, et al. Abatacept in subjects who switch from intravenous to subcutaneous therapy: results from the phase IIIb ATTUNE study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:857–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nikas SN, Voulgari PV, Alamanos Y, Papadopoulos CG, Venetsanopoulou AI, Georgiadis AN, et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from infliximab to adalimumab: a comparative controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:257–60.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Davies A, Merli F, Mihaljevic B, Siritanaratkul N, Solal-Céligny P, Barrett M, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous rituximab in follicular lymphoma (SABRINA): stage 1 analysis of a randomised phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):3543–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Beerse, Belgium. Subcutaneous Velcade approved in the EU for the treatment of multiple myeloma. Published 28/09/2012. http://www.investor.jnj.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=710106. Accessed 19 Mar 2014.

  18. Allen PB, Lindsay H, Tham TCK. How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered? BMC Gastroenterol. 2010;10:1.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barbee MS, Harvey RD, Lonial S, Kaufman JL, Wilson NM, McKibbin T, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: efficiency practice variable and patient preferences. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:1136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Williams EL, Edwards CJ. Patient preferences in choosing anti-TNF therapies-R1. Rheumatology. 2006;45:1575–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Scarpato S, Antivalle M, Favalli EG, Nacci F, Frigelli S, Bartoli F, et al. Patient preferences in the choice on anti-TNF therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a questionnaire survey (RIVIERA study). Rheumatology. 2010;49:289–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Desai SH, Chouksey A, Poll J, Berger M. A pilot study of equal doses of 10 % IGIV given intravenously or subcutaneously. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:854–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soremekun OA, Shear ML, Patel S, Kim GJ, Biddinger PD, Parry BA, et al. Rapid vascular glucose uptake via enzyme-assisted subcutaneous infusion: enzyme-assisted subcutaneous infusion access study. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27:1072–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matza LS, Cong Z, Chung K, Stopeck A, Tonkin K, Brown J, et al. Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:855–65.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials: why are randomised controlled trial important? BMJ. 1998;316:201.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 19 Mar 2014.

  27. Robinson AM, McLean KA, Greaves M, Channer KS. Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis; which do patients prefer? A randomized cross-over study. Postgrad Med J. 1993;69:115–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Assche G, Vermeire S, Ballet V, Gabriels F, Noman M, D’Haens G, et al. Switch to adalimumab in patients with Crohn’s disease controlled by maintenance infliximab: prospective randomised SWITCH trial. Gut. 2012;61:229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Harbo T, Andersen H, Hess A, Hansen K, Sindrup SH, Jakobsen J. Subcutaneous versus intravenous immunoglobulin in multifocal motor neuropathy: a randomized, single-blinded cross-over trial. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16:631–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pivot X, Gligorov J, Müller V, Barrett-Lee P, Verma S, Knoop A, et al. Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:962–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Urquhart ML, Klapp K, White PF. Patient-controlled analgesia: a comparison of intravenous versus subcutaneous hydromorphone. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:428–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chapel HM, Spickett GP, Ericson D, Engl W, Eibl MM, Bjorkander J. The comparison of efficacy and safety of intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2000;20:94–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bjoerner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Bech P, Rasmusen NK, Kristensen TS, et al. Danish manual for SF-36. Copenhagen: Lif Lægemiddelindustriforeningen; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ, Singer J, Williams N, Goodacre R, et al. A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:804–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kawata AK, Kieinman L, Harding G, Ramachandran S. Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patient. 2014;. doi:10.1007/s40271-014-0064-1.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson P, Bancroft T, Barron R, Legg J, Li X, Watson H, et al. Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value Health. 2014;17(4):380–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Huynh TK, Østergaard A, Egsmose C, Madsen OR. Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biological agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;20(8):93–9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Abolhassani H, Sadaghiani MS, Aghamohammadi A, Ochs HD, Rezaei N. Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin versus hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin in treatment of primary antibody deficiencies: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Immunol. 2012;32:1180–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Miss Kelly Stoner, Dr Helena Harder, Professor Lesley Fallowfield, and Dr Valerie Jenkins have no conflicts of interest to declare. SHORE-C received funding from Hoffmann-La Roche to conduct the PREFER study. Kelly Stoner and Helena Harder conducted the literature search and article selection. All authors contributed equally to data interpretation and writing of the systematic review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Science Park Road, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RX, UK

    Kelly L. Stoner, Helena Harder, Lesley J. Fallowfield & Valerie A. Jenkins

Authors
  1. Kelly L. Stoner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helena Harder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lesley J. Fallowfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valerie A. Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helena Harder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stoner, K.L., Harder, H., Fallowfield, L.J. et al. Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review. Patient 8, 145–153 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0075-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0075-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation