Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis; which do patients prefer? A randomized cross-over study

Patient values and preferences regarding VTE disease: a systematic review to inform American Society of Hematology guidelines

Values and preferences relate to the importance that patients place on health outcomes (eg, bleeding, having a deep venous thrombosis) and are essential when weighing benefits and harms in guideline recommendations. To inform the American Society of Hematology guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) disease, we conducted a systematic review of patients' values and preferences related to VTE. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to April of 2018 (PROSPERO-CRD42018094003). We included quantitative and qualitative studies. We followed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for rating the certainty and presenting findings for quantitative research about the relative importance of health outcomes and a grounded theory approach for qualitative thematic synthesis. We identified 14 quantitative studies (2465 participants) describing the relative importance of VTE-related health states in a widely diverse population of patients, showing overall small to important impact on patients' lives (certainty of the evidence from low to moderate). Additionally, evidence from 34 quantitative studies (6424 participants) and 15 qualitative studies (570 participants) revealed that patients put higher value on VTE risk reduction than on the potential harms of the treatment (certainty of evidence from low to moderate). Studies also suggested a clear preference for oral medication over subcutaneous medication (moderate certainty). The observed variability in health state values may be a result of differences in the approaches used to elicit them and the diversity of included populations rather than true variability in values. This finding highlights the necessity to explore the variability induced by different approaches to ascertain values.

Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease

BACKGROUND

Dehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess of their oral intake. The peripheral intravenous route is the most commonly used method of parenteral access, but inserting and maintaining an intravenous line can be challenging in the context of EVD. Therefore it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different routes for achieving parenteral access (e.g. intravenous, intraosseous, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the reliability, ease of use and speed of insertion of different parenteral access methods.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search on 17 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing different parenteral routes for the infusion of fluids or medication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of records obtained by searching the electronic databases to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. Outcome measures of interest were success of insertion; time required for insertion; number of insertion attempts; number of dislodgements; time period with functional access; local site reactions; clinicians' perception of ease of administration; needlestick injury to healthcare workers; patients' discomfort; and mortality. For trials involving the administration of fluids we also collected data on the volume of fluid infused, changes in serum electrolytes and markers of renal function. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: success of insertion, time required for insertion, number of dislodgements, volume of fluid infused and needlestick injuries.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials involving 885 participants. Parenteral access was used to infuse fluids in 11 trials and medications in six trials. None of the trials involved patients with EVD. Intravenous and intraosseous access was compared in four trials; intravenous and subcutaneous access in 11; peripheral intravenous and intraperitoneal access in one; saphenous vein cutdown and intraosseous access in one; and intraperitoneal with subcutaneous access in one. All of the trials assessing the intravenous method involved peripheral intravenous access.We judged few trials to be at low risk of bias for any of the assessed domains.Compared to the intraosseous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (risk ratio (RR) 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.39 to 6.33; n = 242; GRADE rating: low). We did not pool data for time to insertion but estimates from the trials suggest that inserting intravenous access takes longer (GRADE rating: moderate). Clinicians judged the intravenous route to be easier to insert (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; n = 182). A larger volume of fluids was infused via the intravenous route (GRADE rating: moderate). There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcomes, including adverse events.Compared to the subcutaneous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (RR 14.79, 95% CI 2.87 to 76.08; n = 238; GRADE rating: moderate) and dislodgement of the device (RR 3.78, 95% CI 1.16 to 12.34; n = 67; GRADE rating: low). Clinicians also judged the intravenous route as being more difficult to insert and patients were more likely to be agitated in the intravenous group. Patients in the intravenous group were more likely to develop a local infection and phlebitis, but were less likely to develop erythema, oedema or swelling than those in the subcutaneous group. A larger volume of fluids was infused into patients via the intravenous route. There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine if the risk of insertion failure differed between the saphenous vein cutdown (SVC) and intraosseous method (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.13; GRADE rating: low). Insertion using SVC took longer than the intraosseous method (MD 219.60 seconds, 95% CI 135.44 to 303.76; GRADE rating: moderate). There were no data and therefore there was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine the relative effects of intraperitoneal or central intravenous access relative to any other parenteral access method.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.A film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

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.

Utilities associated with subcutaneous injections and intravenous infusions for treatment of patients with bone metastases

INTRODUCTION

Although cost-utility models are often used to estimate the value of treatments for metastatic cancer, limited information is available on the utility of common treatment modalities. Bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases is frequently administered via intravenous infusion, while a newer treatment is administered as a subcutaneous injection. This study estimated the impact of these treatment modalities on health state preference.

METHODS

Participants from the UK general population completed time trade-off interviews to assess the utility of health state vignettes. Respondents first rated a health state representing cancer with bone metastases. Subsequent health states added descriptions of treatment modalities (ie, injection or infusion) to this basic health state. The two treatment modalities were presented with and without chemotherapy, and infusion characteristics were varied by duration (30 minutes or 2 hours) and renal monitoring.

RESULTS

A total of 121 participants completed the interviews (52.1% female, 76.9% white). Cancer with bone metastases had a mean utility of 0.40 on a standard utility scale (1 = full health; 0 = dead). The injection, 30-minute infusion, and 2-hour infusion had mean disutilities of -0.004, -0.02, and -0.04, respectively. The mean disutility of the 30-minute infusion was greater with renal monitoring than without. Chemotherapy was associated with substantial disutility (-0.17). When added to health states with chemotherapy, the mean disutilities of injection, 30-minute infusion, and 2-hour infusion were -0.02, -0.03, and -0.04, respectively. The disutility associated with injection was significantly lower than the disutility of the 30-minute and 2-hour infusions (P < 0.05), regardless of chemotherapy status.

CONCLUSION

Respondents perceived an inconvenience with each type of treatment modality, but injections were preferred over infusions. The resulting utilities may be used in cost-utility models examining the value of treatments for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of subcutaneously administered recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa)

BACKGROUND

 Recombinant activated factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is used to treat bleeds in hemophilia patients with inhibitors. A subcutaneous formulation could potentially improve its half-life and make it suitable for prophylactic treatment.

OBJECTIVES

 A study was conducted to determine the safety of subcutaneously administered rFVIIa in patients with hemophilia and the pharmacokinetic profile (including bioavailability).

PATIENTS/METHODS

 This was a multicenter, open-label, cross-over comparison of single doses of intravenous rFVIIa 90μgkg(-1) and a new formulation of rFVIIa for subcutaneous injection at dose levels of 45, 90, 180, 270 and 360μgkg(-1) . Sixty subjects (12 per dose cohort) with hemophilia A or B were enrolled.

RESULTS

 Subcutaneously administered rFVIIa showed lower mean peak plasma concentrations and prolonged FVII activity (C(max) , 0.44-5.16IU mL(-1) [across doses]; t(1/2) , 12.4h; t(max) , 5.6h) compared with intravenously administered rFVIIa (C(max) , 51.7IUmL(-1) ; t(1/2) , 2.7h; t(max) , <10min). The absolute bioavailability of subcutaneous rFVIIa ranged from 21.1 to 30.1% across dose levels. Dose proportionality was observed within a 2-fold dose increase but not across the full dose range. No thromboembolic events, drug-related serious adverse events, severe injection-site reactions or neutralizing antibodies were reported (primary endpoint). Mild and moderate injection-site reactions were more frequent with subcutaneous than with intravenous injections.

CONCLUSION

 This phase I clinical trial did not identify safety concerns of prolonged exposure to rFVIIa administered subcutaneously in single doses to hemophilia patients.