Prescribing and using self-injectable antiretrovirals: how concordant are physician and patient perspectives?

Beliefs in Antiretroviral Treatment and Self-Efficacy in HIV Management are Associated with Distinctive HIV Treatment Trajectories

An online survey was conducted among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Australia to discern key factors associated with distinctive ART use patterns. The sample (N = 358), was further divided into three groups: those on ART continuously since initiation (n = 208, 58.1%); those on ART intermittently (n = 117, 32.7%); and those not on ART at the time of survey (n = 33, 9.2%). ART non-users were the most likely to hold serious concerns about ART that outweighed perceived necessities (benefits) from ART (AOR = 0.13; 95% CI 0.06-0.29; p < 0.001). They were also the least self-efficacious in HIV disease management (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.09-0.87; p = 0.028). Intermittent ART users were more likely to receive their HIV diagnosis prior to 2003 (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.28-0.53; p < 0.001) and perceive lower HIV management self-efficacy (AOR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.87; p = 0.015) than continuous users. ART-related beliefs and perceived self-efficacy in HIV self-management play an important role in achieving universal treatment uptake and sustained high levels of adherence.

Patient-reported side effects, concerns and adherence to corticosteroid treatment for asthma, and comparison with physician estimates of side-effect prevalence: a UK-wide, cross-sectional study

Background:

Non-adherence to corticosteroid treatment has been shown to reduce treatment efficacy, thus compromising asthma control.

Aims:

To examine the experiences of treatment side effects, treatment concerns and adherence to inhaled (ICS) and oral corticosteroids (OCS) among people with asthma and to identify the degree of concordance between clinician estimates of side effects and the prevalence reported by patients.

Methods:

Asthma UK members were sent validated questionnaires assessing treatment concerns, experiences of side effects and adherence. Questionnaires measuring clinicians’ estimates of the prevalence of corticosteroid side effects were completed online.

Results:

Completed questionnaires were returned by 1,524 people taking ICS, 233 taking OCS and 244 clinicians (67% of clinicians were primary care nurses). Among people with asthma, 64% of those taking ICS and 88% of those taking OCS reported ⩾1 side effect. People reporting high adherence to ICS (t=−3.09, P<0.005) and those reporting low adherence to OCS (t=1.86, P<0.05; one-tailed test) reported more side effects. There was a disparity between clinicians’ estimates of the frequency of side effects and the frequency reported by people with asthma: e.g., although 46% of people taking ICS reported sore throat, clinicians estimated that this figure would be 10%. Patients who reported side effects had stronger concerns about both ICS (r=0.46, P<0.0001) and OCS (r=0.50, P<0.0001). Concerns about corticosteroids were associated with low adherence to ICS (t=6.90, P<0.0001) and OCS (t=1.71; P<0.05; one-tailed test).

Conclusions:

An unexpectedly large proportion of people with asthma experienced side effects and had strong concerns about their treatment, which compromised adherence. These findings have implications for the design of interventions to optimise asthma control through improved adherence.

Post-discharge compliance to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk orthopaedic surgery: results from the ETHOS registry

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk persists for several weeks following high-risk orthopaedic surgery (HROS). The ETHOS registry evaluated post-operative VTE prophylaxis prescribed, and actual VTE prophylaxis received, compared with the 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines in HROS patients. We performed a subanalysis of ETHOS to assess patient compliance with ACCP-adherent prophylaxis after discharge and the factors predicting poor compliance. Consecutive patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, total hip arthroplasty, or knee arthroplasty were enrolled at discharge from 161 centres in 17 European countries if they had received adequate in-hospital VTE prophylaxis. Data on prescribed and actual prophylaxis received were obtained from hospital charts and patient post-discharge diaries. Good compliance was defined as percentage treatment intake ≥80% with no more than two consecutive days without treatment. A total of 3,484 patients (79.4%) received ACCP-adherent anticoagulant prescription at discharge and 2,999 (86.0%) had an evaluable patient diary. In total, 87.7% of evaluable patients were compliant with prescribed treatment after discharge. The most common reason for non-compliance (33.4%) was "drug was not bought". Injection of treatment was not a barrier to good compliance. Main factors affecting compliance related to purchase of and access to treatment, patient education, the person responsible for administering injections, country, and type of hospital ward at discharge. Within our study population, patient compliance with ACCP-adherent thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge was good. Improvements in patient education and prescribing practices at discharge may be important in further raising compliance levels in high-risk orthopaedic surgery patients.

Physician and patient perceptions of the route of administration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: results from an international survey

INTRODUCTION

Acceptability of a prescribed treatment regimen is crucial to its clinical success, and the route of drug administration can play an important role in determining acceptability. This international survey explored physician and patient perceptions of injectable and oral treatments, and how these perceptions affect acceptability of treatments. Findings are discussed in the context of patient acceptance of treatments for venous thromboembolism (VTE) management.

METHODS

Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis and a randomly selected patient population were recruited to take part in a questionnaire. Patients had to answer 23 questions and physicians gave their predictions of patients' responses.

RESULTS

In total, 568 physicians and 825 patients from 5 countries took part in the survey. More patients considered injectable treatments effective than considered oral treatments effective (87% versus 76%, respectively). This trend was well predicted by the physicians (98% and 61%, respectively). Additionally, 46% of patients would accept an injectable treatment program lasting >2months (rising to 67% for life-threatening diseases), a figure underestimated by physicians (11% and 46%, respectively). Overall, 73% of patients stated they would never miss an injection, where as 54% of physicians expected patients to miss one injection in a month of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis underestimate patients' ability to accept injectable treatments as an alternative to oral therapy. This survey suggests that injectable treatments may be an acceptable, and often preferred, option over oral administration of therapeutic and preventive medicines.

Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass

The Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. Patients preferred and were more satisfied with a treatment that was administered less frequently, suggesting the acceptability of the 6-month injection for treatment of bone loss.

INTRODUCTION

The PSQ compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and a weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss.

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with low bone mass who enrolled in two separate randomized phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy studies received a 6-month subcutaneous denosumab injection (60 mg) plus a weekly oral placebo or a weekly alendronate tablet (70 mg) plus a 6-month subcutaneous placebo injection. After 12 months, patients completed the PSQ to rate their preference, satisfaction, and degree of bother with each regimen.

RESULTS

Most enrolled patients (1,583 out of 1,693; 93.5%) answered >or=1 item of the PSQ. Significantly more patients preferred and were more satisfied with the 6-month injection versus the weekly tablet (P < 0.001). More patients reported no bother with the 6-month injection (90%) than the weekly tablet (62%).

CONCLUSION

Patients preferred, were more satisfied, and less bothered with a 6-month injection regimen for osteoporosis.