Intravenous versus subcutaneous drug administration. Which do patients prefer? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures

Implications of subcutaneous or intravenous delivery of trastuzumab: further insight from patient interviews in the PrefHer study

BACKGROUND: The 2 Cohort randomised PrefHer trial examined the preferences of HER2+ve primary breast cancer patients for intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) delivery of trastuzumab via a Single Injectable Device (SID) or hand-held syringe (HHS). The novel approach and design of the study permitted an in-depth exploration of patients' experiences, the impact that different modes of delivery had on patients' well-being and implications for future management. METHODS: The preferences, experiences and general comments of patients in the PrefHer study were collected via specific semi-structured interview schedules. Exploratory analyses of data were conducted using standard methodology. The final question invited patients to make further comments, which were divided into 9 thematic categories - future delivery, compliments, time/convenience, practical considerations, pain/discomfort, study design, side-effects, psychological impact, and perceived efficacy. RESULTS: 267/467 (57%) patients made 396 additional comments, 7 were neutral, 305 positive and 86 negative. The three top categories generating the largest number of comments were compliments and gratitude about staff and being part of PrefHer (75/396; 19%), the potential future delivery of SC trastuzumab (73/396; 18%), and practical considerations about SC administration (60/396; 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting patient preferences about routes of administration of drugs via comprehensive interviews within a randomised cross-over trial yielded rich and important information. The few negative comments made demonstrated a need for proper staff training in SC administration Patients were grateful to have been part of the trial, and would have liked to continue with SC delivery. The possibility of home administration in the future also seemed acceptable. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-024099-25

Communication skills training in oncology: a position paper based on a consensus meeting among European experts in 2009

Background: Communication in cancer care has become a major topic of interest. Since there is evidence that ineffective communication affects both patients and oncology clinicians (physicians and nurses), so-called communication skills trainings (CSTs) have been developed over the last decade. While these trainings have been demonstrated to be effective, there is an important heterogeneity with regard to implementation and with regard to evidence of different aspects of CST. Methods: In order to review and discuss the scientific literature on CST in oncology and to formulate recommendations, the Swiss Cancer League has organised a consensus meeting with European opinion leaders and experts in the field of CST, as well as oncology clinicians, representatives of oncology societies and patient organisations. On the basis of a systematic review and a meta-analysis, recommendations have been developed and agreed upon. Results: Recommendations address (i) the setting, objectives and participants of CST, (ii) its content and pedagogic tools, (iii) organisational aspects, (iv) outcome and (v) future directions and research. Conclusion: This consensus meeting, on the basis of European expert opinions and a systematic review and meta-analysis, defines key elements for the current provision and future development and evaluation of CST in oncolog