Inflammatory intestinal diseases · 2025
Real-World Adherence and Relapse Risk in Mesalamine Treatment for Ulcerative Colitis: Insights from a Large Japanese Medical Claims Database.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wada Takafumi, Hosomi Shuhei, Kobayashi Yumie, Nakata Rieko, Nishida Yu, Maruyama Hirotsugu, Ominami Masaki, Nadatani Yuji, Fukunaga Shusei, Otani Koji, Tanaka Fumio, Fujiwara Yasuhiro
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Natalizumab (NTZ, Tysabri, Biogen) is an established treatment for highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), administered either intravenously (IV) in hospital settings or subcutaneously (SC), the latter of which can be administered in primary care. This study investigated self-reported preferences, satisfaction, and time allocation of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
METHODS: A total of 83 patients with RRMS and 14 HCPs participated and completed questionnaires across five Swedish hospitals. Participants had experience with both NTZ IV and SC administration, and data collection focused on time efficiency, impact on daily activities, satisfaction, and the ease of transitioning to SC.
RESULTS: SC administration was reported as more time-efficient, with 72% of patients spending ≤30 min at the hospital vs 83% reporting 1-2 h for IV. In primary care, 75% of patients reported that SC treatments required less than 15 minutes. The setting of the SC administration had an effect on work disruption according to patients; 60% of patients in primary care reported no impact on work, compared to 35% for SC treatments in hospitals. Regarding preference, 80% of patients favoured SC over IV. Among patients offered SC in primary care, 75% preferred it over hospital treatment. HCPs reported shorter preparation times and improved workflow efficiency with SC, with 93% completing SC treatments within 30 minutes. Both patients and HCPs found the transition from IV to SC manageable, and 86% of HCPs expressed confidence in their ability to inform patients about SC administration.
DISCUSSION: The results align with previous studies, showing SC NTZ provides time savings, less disruption to daily life, and high satisfaction for patients and HCPs. Its feasibility in primary care supports broader adoption, with implications for improving healthcare resource allocation and patient adherence. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and global implementation.
METHODS: A total of 83 patients with RRMS and 14 HCPs participated and completed questionnaires across five Swedish hospitals. Participants had experience with both NTZ IV and SC administration, and data collection focused on time efficiency, impact on daily activities, satisfaction, and the ease of transitioning to SC.
RESULTS: SC administration was reported as more time-efficient, with 72% of patients spending ≤30 min at the hospital vs 83% reporting 1-2 h for IV. In primary care, 75% of patients reported that SC treatments required less than 15 minutes. The setting of the SC administration had an effect on work disruption according to patients; 60% of patients in primary care reported no impact on work, compared to 35% for SC treatments in hospitals. Regarding preference, 80% of patients favoured SC over IV. Among patients offered SC in primary care, 75% preferred it over hospital treatment. HCPs reported shorter preparation times and improved workflow efficiency with SC, with 93% completing SC treatments within 30 minutes. Both patients and HCPs found the transition from IV to SC manageable, and 86% of HCPs expressed confidence in their ability to inform patients about SC administration.
DISCUSSION: The results align with previous studies, showing SC NTZ provides time savings, less disruption to daily life, and high satisfaction for patients and HCPs. Its feasibility in primary care supports broader adoption, with implications for improving healthcare resource allocation and patient adherence. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and global implementation.