Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choosing the subcutaneous (SC) route of administration of abatacept and tocilizumab is more cost-effective than the intravenous (IV) route. The objective of this study was to examine patients’ reasons for choosing to keep with their IV infusions or to switch to subcutaneous SC injections. This study was based upon a self-administered questionnaire given to consecutive rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with abatacept or tocilizumab. Patients were asked to express their opinions concerning reasons explaining why they chose to keep the IV route or switch to the SC route. A total of 201 questionnaires completed by 127 patients treated by tocilizumab and 74 by abatacept were analysed. Overall, 45.8% of the patients chose to keep the IV route of administration. Another ongoing SC treatment was noted more often in patients choosing the SC route (15.9 versus 4.3%, p < 0.05). Reasons guiding the choice of the SC route were concerns about repeated hospital day-care (72%), greater autonomy with SC injections (38.7%) and economic considerations (21.5%). Reasons associated with choosing to maintain the IV route were worries about a lack of follow-up (72.1%), the absence of medical assistance during the SC injection (61.2%), maintaining social relationships with other patients developed at the hospital (40.5%), lower frequency of injection (32.9%), fear of adverse events (27.7%) and fear of SC injections (17.9%). Patients reject the SC switch from the IV route of tocilizumab and abatacept mainly because of fears about the unknown SC route, while those who accept it find it more convenient.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alten R, Kaine J, Keystone E, Nash P, Delaet I, Genovese MC (2014) Long-term safety of subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis of clinical trial data representing more than four years of treatment. Arthritis Rheumatol 66:1987–1997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Burmester GR, Rubbert-Roth A, Cantagrel A, Hall S, Leszczynski P, Feldman D et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional DMARDs in patients with RA at week 97 (SUMMACTA). Ann Rheum Dis 75:68–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ogata A, Atsumi T, Fukuda T, Hirabayashi Y, Inaba M, Ishiguro N et al (2015) Sustainable efficacy of switching from intravenous to subcutaneous tocilizumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 67:1354–1362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Curtis JR, Schabert VF, Harrison DJ, Yeaw J, Korn JR, Quach C et al (2014) Estimating effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: application of a validated algorithm to commercial insurance claims. Clin Ther 36:996–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bluett J, Morgan C, Thurston L, Plant D, Hyrich KL, Morgan AW et al (2015) Impact of inadequate adherence on response to subcutaneously administered anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs: results from the Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate cohort. Rheumatology (Oxford) 54:494–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Morgan C, McBeth J, Cordingley L, Watson K, Hyrich KL, Symmons DPM et al (2015) The influence of behavioural and psychological factors on medication adherence over time in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a study in the biologics era. Rheumatology (Oxford) 54:1780–1791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hifinger M, Hiligsmann M, Ramiro S et al (2016) Economic considerations and patients’ preferences affect treatment selection for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete choice experiment among European rheumatologists. Ann Rheum Dis. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209202

    Google Scholar 

  8. Say RE, Thomson R (2003) The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors. BMJ 327:542–545

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Louder AM, Singh A, Saverno K et al (2016) Patient preferences regarding rheumatoid arthritis therapies: a conjoint analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits 9:84–93

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Scarpato S, Antivalle M, Favalli EG, Nacci F, Frigelli S, Bartoli F et al (2010) Patient preferences in the choice of anti-TNF therapies in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a questionnaire survey (RIVIERA study). Rheumatology (Oxford) 49:289–294

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chilton F, Collett RA (2008) Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 6:1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fallowfield L, Osborne S, Langridge C, Monson K, Kilkerr J, Jenkins V (2015) Implications of subcutaneous or intravenous delivery of trastuzumab; further insight from patient interviews in the PrefHer study. Breast 24:166–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pivot X, Gligorov J, Müller V, Curigliano G, Knoop A, Verma S et al (2014) Patients’ preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study. Ann Oncol 25:1979–1987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sylwestrzak G, Liu J, Stephenson JJ et al (2014) Considering patient preferences when selecting anti-tumor necrosis factor therapeutic options. Am Health Drug Benefits 7:71–81

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Huynh TK, Ostergaard A, Egsmose C, Madsen OR (2014) Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adherence 8:93–99

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all of the patients who participated in the study and the rheumatologist colleagues from Amiens, Lille and Lomme for their help in the data collection and their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tristan Pascart.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

MD, TP and JG have no competing interests. RMF participated to scientific boards of BMS and Roche-Chugaï. A specific grant was received by Roche for clinical research. PP received a specific grant by Roche for clinical research. EH received fees for punctual interventions for BMS and Roche-Chugaï. VG received fees for punctual interventions for BMS and Roche-Chugaï.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desplats, M., Pascart, T., Jelin, G. et al. Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study. Clin Rheumatol 36, 1395–1400 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3587-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3587-8

Keywords

Navigation