Patients', physicians', nurses', and pharmacists' preferences on the characteristics of biologic agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases

Physical function and severe side effects matter most to patients with RA (< 5 years): a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for personalized RA treatment

AIM

Early assessment of patient preferences has the potential to support shared decisions in personalized precision medicine for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment preferences of patients with RA (< 5 years) with previous experience of inadequate response to first-line monotherapy.

METHOD

Patients were recruited (March-June 2021) via four clinics in Sweden. Potential respondents (N = 933) received an invitation to answer a digital survey. The survey included an introductory part, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and demographic questions. Each respondent answered 11 hypothetical choice questions as part of the DCE. Patient preferences and preference heterogeneity were estimated using random parameter logit models and latent class analysis models.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 182) assessed the most important treatment attributes out of physical functional capacity, psychosocial functional capacity, frequency of mild side effects and likelihood of severe side effects. In general, patients preferred a greater increase in functional capacity and decreased side effects. However, a substantial preference heterogeneity was identified with two underlying preference patterns. The most important attribute in the first pattern was the 'likelihood of getting a severe side effect'. Physical functional capacity was the most important attribute in the second pattern.

CONCLUSION

Respondents focused their decision-making mainly on increasing their physical functional capacity or decreasing the likelihood of getting a severe side effect. These results are highly relevant from a clinical perspective to strengthen communication in shared decision making by assessing patients' individual preferences for benefits and risks in treatment discussions.

Patient Preference for Self-Injection Devices in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment in China

Objective

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is increasingly treated with biologics, which is commonly administered by injection devices. The aim of this study is to evaluate patients' preferences for self-injection devices in RA, and to elicit their willingness to pay (WTP) for injector devices in China.

Methods

RA patients were recruited from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan and Xi'an in China. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was employed to elicit patient preferences. Patients were presented with 15 choice sets that consisted of seven attributes, which were developed based on literature review and further validated by physicians. The seven attributes were as follows: operation steps, injection pain, feedback indication, needle visibility, needle protection, size and out-of-pocket costs. A mixed logit model was used to analyze the relative importance of seven attributes and to calculate the WTP for a changed attribute level.

Results

Analyses included 114 adults with RA (mean age of 44.6 years old). When choosing the injection device, all attributes had significant influence. Among nonmonetary attributes, very slight injection pain was the most preferred for patients, followed by auto-injection method, thicker size, hidden needle, with needle protection and multiple feedback indication. Patients had a negative preference for increasing out-of-pocket costs. Patients were willing to pay CNY 45.26 for improving slight injection pain to very slight injection pain, CNY 13.26 for the auto-injection method, CNY 12.22 for the thicker size, CNY 10.06 for the hidden needle, CNY 9.82 for needle protection, and CNY 9.70 for multiple feedback indicators.

Conclusion

The results suggested that injection pain was the most important attribute for RA patients. Meanwhile, all other enhanced attributes of self-injection devices also significantly influence patients' selection on injection devices. Findings suggested that there is significant potential value in developing self-injection devices that could further help improve treatment adherence and promote patient-centered care in autoimmune diseases.

Reliability, Satisfaction and Effectiveness of Benralizumab Home Self-Administration in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Real-World Practice: The Auto-Benra Study

Introduction

The increase in drugs available for severe uncontrolled asthma and the lifestyle of these patients make it necessary to implement self-administration programs of these therapies at home. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL5R, was authorized in Spain for poorly controlled severe eosinophilic asthma. The possibility of administration at home was approved in March 2020 in Spain. The aim of the Auto-Benra study was to evaluate the usability and satisfaction of the benralizumab prefilled syringe and autoinjector and assessing the effectivity of these devices in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) in home-self administration.

Methods

This is a retrospective, observational multicenter study uncontrolled SEA patients treated with benralizumab at least with 3 doses self-administered at home before April 30, 2021. Reliability and satisfaction with benralizumab at home were evaluated with subcutaneous administration assessment questionnaire (SQAAQ) and visual analogic scales (VAS). Effectiveness was evaluated in all patients with asthma control test (ACT), Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ), annual exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid treatment (OCS) and asthma-related hospitalizations and emergency visits.

Results

Fifty-four patients across 9 hospitals in Spain were included. The mean SQAAQ score was 6.89 (±0.16) points. Patients and their caregivers and doctors report excellent satisfaction by VAS, with no differences between benralizumab devices used (prefilled syringe and autoinjector). Severe exacerbation rate decreased by 65% (p = 0.0007) after benralizumab treatment. ACT score improved on average 6.27 ± 5.35 points (p < 0.0001) and the mean MiniAQLQ increased up to 1.58 ± 1.47 points (p < 0.0001). Twenty-four patients were OCS-dependent and at the end of study 14 patients get complete OCS withdrawal.

Conclusion

AUTO-BENRA study supports the use of benralizumab at home given the excellent results of satisfaction and usability by patients and their caregivers.

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Functional capacity vs side effects: treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Introduction

Individualisation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment needs to take account of individual patients’ preferences to increase patient-centeredness in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to identify patient-relevant treatment attributes to consider when individualising treatment for patients with RA.

Method

Patients with RA in Sweden were invited to rank the most important treatment attributes in an online survey (April to May 2020). Semi-structured interviews were conducted (October to November 2020) to further identify and frame potential attributes for shared decision-making. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic framework analysis. Patient research partners and rheumatologists supported the selection and framing of the treatment attributes across the assessment.

Results

The highest ranked attributes (N = 184) were improved functional capacity, reduced inflammation, reduced pain and fatigue and the risk of getting a severe side effect. The framework analysis revealed two overarching themes for further exploration: treatment goals and side effects. ‘Treatment goals’ emerged from functional capacity, revealing two dimensions: physical functional capacity and psychosocial functional capacity. ‘Side effects’ revealed that mild and severe side effects were the most important to discuss in shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Functional capacity (physical and psychosocial) and potential side effects (mild and severe) are important treatment attributes to consider when individualising RA treatment. Future research should assess how patients with RA weigh benefits and risks against each other, in order to increase patient-centeredness early on the treatment trajectory.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiment Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Biological Medicines

Objective:

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic disease with various clinical characteristics. The introduction of biological drugs has enhanced the efficacy and increased diversity of treatment options. Considering the patients’ preferences in decision-making about treatment can improve their adherence. A discrete choice experiment is a type of conjoint method that can elicit preferences in more realistic scenarios. This article reviewed discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies to extract which attributes and levels were included in surveys. In addition, we focused on the process of designing surveys and the method that they used. Method: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid (Medline) and ProQuest were systematically searched in order to find studies that evaluated rheumatoid arthritis patients’ preferences about biological medicines. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 1/1/1990 and 12/31/2019 were included. The included studies were analyzed using a narrative synthesis method and descriptive statistics.

Results:

A total of 7124 studies were initially found. After deleting irrelevant and duplicate studies, 15 studies were included. The most common attributes that were used in surveys were efficacy, adverse effect, route of administration, frequency of administration, and cost. Most studies used a literature review for developing attributes and levels. The median number of included attributes and levels were seven and three, respectively. Eight studies explained their experimental design while seven studies did not. Conditional logit and mixed logit were the most common methods for modeling reciprocally.

Conclusion:

Several aspects of DCE studies investigating biological drugs in RA were assessed. Explaining the sample size, experimental design, and qualitative work for developing attributes can improve this type of study.

Patient perspectives on biological treatments for inflammatory arthritis: A multi-center study in Korea

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient’s perception of the use of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and provide a basis for physicians to understand the patient’s perspective.

Patients and methods: Between December 2018 and June 2019, a total of 307 patients (162 males, 145 females; mean age: 48 years; range, 18 to 81 years) were included in this investigator-initiated, multi-center, observational, and cross-sectional study in six rheumatology centers. We asked patients using bDMARDs to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to complete a questionnaire regarding major considerations and satisfaction with bDMARDs, preferred administration route, knowledge about bDMARDs, experiences of adverse events, non-adherence, and expectations of their healthcare provider. The satisfaction of physician and clinical information on the patient's disease and treatment were also collected.

Results: Of the patients, 139 had RA and 168 had AS. Median disease duration was six years in RA and five years in AS. A total of 80.1% of the patients and 77.1% of the physicians indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the therapeutic effect of the current bDMARD. Most patients were open to intravenous or subcutaneous injection, with the most preferred route of administration being subcutaneous (41.3%), followed by intravenous (32.0%), and oral (26.7%). The patients considered therapeutic effect to be more important than cost or convenience while choosing a bDMARD (69.3%), and most were willing to be educated about therapeutic effects (46.1%). Only 35.2% of the patients reported well and/or very well knowledge about the therapeutic effects, side effects, and administration methods of their current bDMARD, and 86.6% cited their physician as the primary source of information about biological treatment.

Conclusion: Patients value therapeutic effect more than cost or convenience while selecting a bDMARD, and consider their physicians to be the primary information source. Therefore, it is important for physicians to provide appropriate education and encourage patients to cooperate actively with treatment.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of subcutaneous anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, active skin disease, and high type I interferon gene signature: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

300 mg of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks added to standard-of-care treatment for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) reduced disease activity and glucocorticoid requirement in a previous phase 3 trial. Because patients might find subcutaneous administration more convenient than intravenous delivery, we aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of subcutaneous anifrolumab in patients with SLE, active skin disease, and a high type I interferon gene signature.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study was done at 12 hospitals and outpatient clinics in Hungary, South Korea, Poland, and the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years, and had SLE with high type I interferon gene signature and an activity score on the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI) of at least 10. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (3:1:3:1) by use of a voice-web response system to receive either 150 mg of subcutaneous anifrolumab or corresponding placebo, or 300 mg of subcutaneous anifrolumab or corresponding placebo in addition to stable standard-of-care treatment. The study was double-blinded with respect to intervention but not dose, until 12 weeks. Doses of oral glucocorticoids were tapered after week 12. The primary pharmacokinetic endpoint was the serum concentration of anifrolumab based on the maximum concentration after the first dose and the minimum (trough) concentration before subsequent doses and was measured in all patients who received anifrolumab and had at least one quantifiable serum pharmacokinetics observation following the first dose. The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was neutralisation of the type I interferon pharmacodynamic signature at week 12 and was assessed in all patients with a high type I interferon pharmacodynamics signature at baseline based on a 21-gene test. Safety was evaluated in the full analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of anifrolumab. This trial is completed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02962960.

FINDINGS

Between March 14, 2017, and Oct 26, 2017, 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg of anifrolumab (n=14), 300 mg of anifrolumab (n=13), or placebo (n=9). Two patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group were excluded from the pharmacodynamic analysis set (n=34). Ten (71%) of 14 patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group, ten (77%) of 13 patients in the anifrolumab 300 mg group, and nine (100%) of the nine patients in the placebo group completed 52 weeks of treatment. At week 12, pre-dose mean trough serum concentrations of anifrolumab were more than dose proportional between the anifrolumab 150 mg group (19·82 μg/mL [SD 15·01]) and the anifrolumab 300 mg group (60·28 μg/mL [43·66]), and the pharmacokinetics were non-linear. At week 12, the median percentage neutralisation of the type I interferon gene signature was higher with 150 mg (88·0% [median absolute deviation 7·4]) and 300 mg (90·7% [3·3]) of anifrolumab than with placebo (18·5% [8·1]), and more patients in the anifrolumab 150 mg group and the anifrolumab 300 mg group than in the placebo group had neutralisation of 75% or more (eight [67%] of 12 vs ten [77%] of 13 vs one [11%] of nine). At least one adverse event was reported by 23 (85%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups and by seven (78%) of nine patients in the placebo group; most adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity. Serious adverse events were reported in six (22%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups (four patients in the 150 mg group and two in the 300 mg group). No serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group. Herpes zoster infection was reported by three (11%) of 27 patients in the anifrolumab groups and by one (11%) of nine patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Anifrolumab, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks to patients with SLE and moderate-to-severe skin manifestations, had non-linear pharmacokinetics that were more than dose proportional, and neutralised the type I interferon gene signature in a dose-dependent manner. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies of intravenous anifrolumab, supporting the continued development of anifrolumab as a subcutaneously administered therapy for patients with SLE.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Patient preferences on rheumatoid arthritis second-line treatment: a discrete choice experiment of Swedish patients

Background

Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.

Methods

Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients’ choices.

Conclusion

Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

Examining Treatment Decision-Making Among Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis: Insights From a Conjoint Analysis Survey

Objective

The number of therapies for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is increasing. Thus, it has become more challenging for patients and physicians to navigate the risk‐benefit profiles of the various treatment options. In this study, we used conjoint analysis—a form of trade‐off analysis that elucidates how people make complex decisions by balancing competing factors—to examine patient decision‐making surrounding medication options for axSpA.

Methods

We conducted an adaptive choice‐based conjoint analysis survey for patients with axSpA to assess the relative importance of medication attributes (eg, chance of symptom improvement, risk of side effects, route of administration, etc) in their decision‐making. We also performed logistic regression to explore whether patient demographics and disease characteristics predicted decision‐making.

Results

Overall, 397 patients with axSpA completed the conjoint analysis survey. Patients prioritized medication efficacy (importance score 26.8%), cost (26.3%), and route of administration (13.9%) as most important in their decision‐making. These were followed by risk of lymphoma (9.5%), dosing frequency (7.2%), risk of serious infection (6.0%), tolerability of side effects (5.3%), and clinic visit and laboratory test frequency (4.8%). In regression analyses, there were few significant associations between patients’ treatment preferences and sociodemographic and axSpA characteristics.

Conclusions

Treatment decision‐making in axSpA is highly individualized, and demographics and baseline disease characteristics are poor predictors of individual preferences. This calls for the development of online shared decision‐making tools for patients and providers, with the goal of selecting a treatment that is consistent with patients’ preferences.

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire.

RESULTS

Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all.

CONCLUSION

Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

What do Australian patients with inflammatory arthritis value in treatment? A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of treatment preferences in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) [rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)] focussing on treatment attributes that patients' value, their relative importance, and the risk-benefit trade-offs that characterise patients' choices around treatment.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was used. Attributes of interest were clinical efficacy; slowing of disease progression; risk of mild-moderate side effects; risk of severe side effects; frequency of administration; real-world product evidence; management of related conditions; and availability of a patient support programme. Using data from the DCE component, a restricted latent class model (LCM) was estimated to determine discrete 'classes' of treatment preferences.

RESULTS

In this analysis, 206 participants were included (AS n = 59; PsA n = 62; RA n = 85). Two classes were identified. For 'class 1' (59.9%), the most important attributes (across all treatment modalities) were preventing disease progression, clinical efficacy and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects. For 'class 2' (40.1%), clinical and non-clinical attributes were important, and attribute importance depended on treatment modality. Patient demographic and treatment characteristics did not predict class membership.

CONCLUSION

For most patients with IA, clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and risks of mild-to-moderate side effects are important treatment attributes. Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience had greater preference for injection treatments. For a subset of patients, patient support programmes and the frequency of administration were important. Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.Key Points• Most patients consider clinical efficacy, stopping disease progression and the risk of mild-to-moderate side effects as important treatment attributes• Patients with prior biologic DMARD experience have greater preference for injection treatments.• For a subset of patients, patient support programmes, and the frequency of administration were important.• Clinicians should be mindful of preferences when prescribing treatment to patients with IA.

Single-Use Autoinjector Functionality And Reliability For At-Home Administration Of Benralizumab For Patients With Severe Asthma: GRECO Trial Results

Purpose

Accessorized prefilled syringes (APFS) have demonstrated functionality and reliability for subcutaneous (SC) delivery, including self-administration, of benralizumab 30 mg in the clinic or at home. The multicenter, open-label GRECO study (NCT02918071) assessed functionality and reliability of a single-use autoinjector (AI) for at-home benralizumab administration by patients or their caregivers.

Patients and methods

Adults with severe asthma received benralizumab SC injections at the study site at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. The first dose was administered by health care providers. Patients/caregivers had the option of administering the second dose and were required to administer the third dose under supervision. At Weeks 12 and 16, patients/caregivers administered benralizumab via AI at home. After each administration, patients/caregivers completed questionnaires concerning administration and device functioning. All AI devices used were returned for evaluation.

Results

A total of 595 AIs were used for 121 patients (mean age 48.5 years; 64% female) in the clinic and at home. Of 116 participants, 113 (97.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.63–99.46) and 112 (96.6%; 95% CI: 91.41–99.05) successfully administered benralizumab at home at Weeks 12 and 16, respectively; 108 (93.1%; 95% CI: 86.86–96.98) were successful on both occasions. Throughout the study, 10 (1.7%) AI administrations were unsuccessful: 8 (1.3%) because of user error, 1 (0.2%) with undetermined cause, and 1 (0.2%) because of a manufacturing defect. Benralizumab efficacy (assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 score) and pharmacokinetics for patients using the AI were comparable to published results for patients receiving benralizumab via syringe in a clinical setting. No new or unexpected safety findings were observed.

Conclusion

AIs were functional, reliable, and performed well in the clinic and at home. Nearly all patients and caregivers successfully administered SC benralizumab via AI. Benralizumab availability in AI and APFS could provide patients with choices for self-administration.

Comparison of autoinjector with accessorized prefilled syringe for benralizumab pharmacokinetic exposure: AMES trial results

OBJECTIVE

We compared the pharmacokinetic exposure following a single subcutaneous dose of benralizumab 30 mg using either autoinjectors (AI) or accessorized prefilled syringes (APFS). APFS and AI functionality and reliability for at-home benralizumab delivery have been demonstrated in the GREGALE and GRECO studies, respectively.

METHODS

In the open-label AMES study (NCT02968914), 180 healthy adult men and women were randomized to one of two device (AI or APFS) and three injection site (upper arm, abdomen, or thigh) combinations. Randomization was stratified by weight (<70 kg, 70-84.9 kg, and ≥85 kg). Blood eosinophil counts were measured on Days 1, 8, 29, and 57.

RESULTS

Benralizumab pharmacokinetic exposure was similar between AI and APFS. Geometric mean ratios (AI/APFS) (90% CI) were 92.8% (87.4-98.6) and 94.5% (88.2-101.2) for two area under the concentration‒time curve measurements (AUC_last and AUC_inf). Benralizumab exposure was approximately 15-30% greater for thigh vs. abdomen or upper arm administration. Exposure was slightly greater for APFS vs. AI regardless of injection site or weight class. These differences were unlikely to be clinically relevant, as eosinophil depletion was achieved consistently with both devices at all injection sites. No device malfunctions were reported. No new or unexpected safety findings were observed.

CONCLUSION

Benralizumab pharmacokinetic exposure was similar between AI and APFS, with consistent blood eosinophil count depletion observed with both devices. These results support benralizumab administration with either AI or APFS, providing patients and physicians increased choice, flexibility, and convenience for potential at-home delivery.