MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399359525 · doi:10.2147/ppa.s455791

Patient Experience with the SensoReady® Autoinjector Pen versus a Comparator Device: Results from a Canadian Patient Survey in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Crohn´s Disease

2024· article· en· W4399359525 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shrihari Jathanakodi, Charlotte Both, Ines Brueckmann, Laura J. Rose, Nahal Nasseri, J.-P. Raynauld, Neeraj Narula

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Preference and Adherence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdalimumabRheumatoid arthritisActivities of daily livingPhysical therapyVisual analogue scaleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Medication delivery device design impacts treatment satisfaction, adherence, and compliance in patients receiving biologics. This survey assessed autoinjector attributes that are important to patients, and assessed patient perceptions and preferences between an adalimumab biosimilar autoinjector (Hyrimoz ® SensoReady ® Pen [SDZ-ADL pen]) and the reference adalimumab autoinjector (Humira ® Pen [ref-ADL pen]) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or Crohn’s disease (CD) in Canada. Patients and Methods: In this survey, adult patients were recruited for web-assisted telephone interviews. Patients had ≥ 3 months’ experience with the ref-ADL pen and 1– 12 months’ experience with the SDZ-ADL pen. Results: The survey included 120 patients with RA (n = 32) or CD (n = 88). Mean experience with the ref-ADL pen was 7 years for RA or 5 years for CD vs 9 months with the SDZ-ADL pen. The most important autoinjector attributes were the ability to use the pen independently and the ease and simplicity of self-injection. When comparing the two autoinjectors, patients significantly preferred the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen for nearly every attribute evaluated, with the greatest differences reported for visual and audible feedback mechanisms, ease of self-injection, and ability to use the device independently. Overall, 82% of patients preferred the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen, with buttonless activation and less injection pain being the main drivers for this preference. Conclusion: Patients with RA or CD indicated a preference for the SDZ-ADL pen over the ref-ADL pen, independent of the duration of use of the pen. The preference for a biosimilar device within 1 year of switching provides reassurance of rapid patient acceptance of biosimilars and may simplify the switching process. These results confirm the importance of ensuring autoinjector design supports independent self-administration of medication and align with previous data showing high patient satisfaction with the SDZ-ADL pen. Keywords: adalimumab, adherence, autoinjector, biosimilar, patient preference

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Preference and AdherenceSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207