| Title |
Patient adherence to subcutaneous IFN beta-1a injections using the RebiSmart® injection device: a retrospective real-world study among Dutch and German patients with multiple sclerosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s130985 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marieke Krol, Gert de Voer, Ulrike Osowski |
| Abstract |
Long-term treatment adherence among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is a general concern, with an established correlation with clinical efficacy. Closely monitoring patients' treatment behavior may have a beneficial effect on adherence. This study assessed adherence, in daily life, to subcutaneous (sc) IFN beta-1a, self-administered using the RebiSmart(®) electronic injection device (the IFN beta-Ia autoinjector device), in patients with MS. This was a retrospective observational study analyzing treatment adherence based on injection data, eg, injection date and dose, extracted from the IFN beta-Ia autoinjector devices collected from patients in Germany and the Netherlands. Data recorded in the period from 2007 to 2012 by the IFN beta-Ia autoinjector devices from 1,682 (79.7% from Germany, 20.3% from the Netherlands) patients were analyzed. A mean of 94.8% of the multi-dose cartridges (containing sc IFN beta-1a for three injections) were used completely, indicating a low incidence of application errors and drug wastage. The mean adherence rate was 90.7% and 82.9% over the entire observation period (mean treatment duration: 150.1 weeks). Median adherence rates were similar between German and Dutch patients (97.9% vs 99.0%). In daily clinical practice, patients using the IFN beta-Ia autoinjector device were highly adherent to sc IFN beta-1a. The injection data stored electronically in the device may help patients to adhere to treatment regimens and, if viewed by physicians, promote discussion of adherence issues with patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,294
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,315
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#31
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.