ArticleAdvances in therapy2016
Usability and Acceptability of the Abatacept Pre-Filled Autoinjector for the Subcutaneous Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in subcutaneous injections: PRECISE II: a study of safety and subject preference for an innovative needle-free injection system.Drug delivery · 2021Trial
- Patient and Healthcare Professionals Preference for Brenzys vs. Enbrel Autoinjector for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Crossover Simulated-Use Study.Advances in therapy · 2017Trial
- Patient experience of medication administration and development of a Patient Experience and Preference Questionnaire (PEPQ) for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- The Adherence and Outcomes Benefits of Using a Connected, Reusable Auto-Injector for Self-Injecting Biologics: A Narrative Review.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
- User-Centric Approach to Specifying Technical Attributes of Drug Delivery Devices: Empirical Study of Autoinjector-Cap Removal Forces.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Potential Benefits of the Self-Administration of Subcutaneous Methotrexate with Autoinjector Devices for Patients: A Review.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2021Review
- Formative Study on the Wearability and Usability of a Large-Volume Patch Injector.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience.Drug delivery · 2019Review
- Usability and Patient Preference Phase 3 Study of the Sarilumab Pen in Patients with Active Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and therapy · 2018Article
- Abatacept: A Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Drugs · 2017Review
- Perceptions and Preferences of Two Etanercept Autoinjectors for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A New European Union-Approved Etanercept Biosimilar (BenepaliRheumatology and therapy · 2016Article
- Usability of a novel disposable autoinjector device for ixekizumab: results from a qualitative study and an open-label clinical trial, including patient-reported experience.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of the present study was to determine whether the abatacept autoinjector can be used by the intended population without patterns of preventable use errors, and is acceptable when assessed against key user needs.
methodsTwo independently conducted simulated-use studies, with no active drug administered, quantified use errors and evaluated the abatacept autoinjector and competitor devices on key attributes (comfort, control, ease of use, confidence of dose) and overall acceptability. Autoinjector preference was also assessed. Participants were patients with rheumatoid arthritis, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were informed that a new rheumatoid arthritis autoinjector was being tested but were blinded to the intended drug and sponsor identity.
resultsIn the formative (pre-validation) study (n = 54), two high-priority use errors occurred, both of which resulted from protocol non-compliance rather than mental confusion or physical limitations. In the summative (validation) study (n = 99), one high-priority use error occurred; this was deemed a simulated-use study artifact as participant behavior was guided by actual experience associated with the feel of drug delivery into the skin rather than by protocol, so no mitigation steps were considered necessary. Across user groups, average scores were consistently high for the pre-defined key attributes. Overall acceptability scores (7-point scale) were significantly higher for the abatacept versus competitor autoinjectors-formative study: patients 6.7 vs 5.2 (P = 0.0001), caregivers 7.0 vs 4.6 (P = 0.0093), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0020); summative study: patients 6.5 vs 5.9 (P = 0.0404), caregivers 6.8 vs 5.8 (P = 0.0047), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0002). The abatacept autoinjector was preferred to competitor devices: patients 85.7% vs 14.3% (P = 0.00002), caregivers 84.2% vs 15.8% (P = 0.00443), HCPs 95.0% vs 5.0% (P = 0.00004). Positive experiences with the abatacept autoinjector were attributed to the rubberized grip, device size, visualization of dose progression, button ergonomics, and ease of use.
conclusionThe abatacept autoinjector demonstrated usability without patterns of preventable use errors, and with high acceptability ratings across all key attributes assessed. Preference over competitor autoinjectors was due to device ergonomics, visualization of dose progression, confidence of dose delivery, and overall ease of use.
fundingBristol-Myers Squibb.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.