Patient Experience with the SensoReady® Autoinjector Pen versus a Comparator Device: Results from a Canadian Patient Survey in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Crohn´s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shrihari Jathanakodi,1 Charlotte Both,1 Ines Brueckmann,1 Laura Rose,2 Nahal Nasseri,3 Jean-Pierre Raynauld,4 Neeraj Narula5 1Sandoz Group AG, Holzkirchen, Germany; 2Sandoz Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA; 3Sandoz Canada Inc., Boucherville, QC, Canada; 4Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Montreal Institute of Rheumatology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 5Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, and Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Neeraj Narula, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada, Tel +1 905 521 2100, Email neeraj.narula@medportal.caPurpose: 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 Crohnâs disease (CD) in Canada.Patients and Methods: In this survey, adult patients were recruited for web-assisted telephone interviews. Patients had ⥠3 monthsâ experience with the ref-ADL pen and 1â 12 monthsâ 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".