Patient preference and ease of use for different coagulation factor VIII reconstitution device scenarios: a cross-sectional survey in five European countries

Figures & data

Figure 1 The five treatment scenarios with different methods of preparation and injection delivery systems.

Notes: Scenario 1 represents: Advate^® (Baxter AG, Vienna, Austria); scenario 2 represents: Fahndi^® (Instituto Grifols, Barcelona, Spain), Kogenate^® (Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany), ReFacto AF^® (R2-kit; Pfizer Limited, Sandwich, United Kingdom); scenario 3 represents: Haemoctin^® (Biotest Pharma GmbH, Dreieich, Germany), Helixate^® (Bayer Pharma AG); scenario 4 represents: Aafact^® (Sanquin, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Octanate^® (Octapharma Ltd, Manchester, United Kingdom); scenario 5 represents: ReFacto AF^® FuseNGo^® (Pfizer Ltd.).

Table 1 Demographic data and clinical data for the sample

Age	n (%)
<40 years	169 (56.5%)
40 –44 years	30 (10%)
45–59 years	70 (23.4%)
≥60 years	18 (6%)
Not stated	12 (4%)
Educational level	n (%)
College or university degree	108 (36.1%)
Postgraduate degree	39 (13.0%)
High school	97 (32.4%)
Not stated	55 (18.4%)
Employment	n (%)
Employed full-time	115 (38.5%)
Employed part-time	21 (7.0%)
Worked at home	9 (3.0%)
Student	26 (8.7%)
Retired	48 (16.1%)
Unemployed	34 (11.4%)
Not stated	46 (15.4%)
Clinical data
Median time since diagnosis	30.75 years (interquartile range: 20; min–max: 1–56 years)
Prophylactic use	65%
On demand use	35%

Figure 2 Median preference scores (with interquartile range) for five different treatment scenarios based on method of preparation and injection delivery system.

Notes: 0= least desirable; 100= most desirable. Scenario 5 represents the dual-chamber syringe. *P<0.001 versus scenario 5.

Figure 3 Median (with interquartile range) likelihood scores for prophylactic use of treatment for each of the treatment device scenarios.

Notes: 0= least likely to use prophylactically; 10= most likely to use prophylactically. *P<0.001 versus scenario 5.

Figure 4 Median likelihood scores (with interquartile range) for increasing frequency of use for each of the treatment device scenarios.

Notes: 0= least likely to increase frequency; 10= most likely to increase frequency; *P<0.001 versus scenario 5.

Table 2 Rating scores for current treatment and the dual-chamber syringe

	Median (min–max)		Mean (SD)		P-value for difference
	DCS (n=98)	Current treatment (n=98)	DCS (n=98)	Current treatment (n=98)	between DCS and current treatment
How easy was it to prepare clotting factor treatment for injection using this device?	9 (3–10)	7 (2–10)	8.44 (1.64)	6.53 (2.11)	P<0.001
How easy was it to hold?	9 (3–10)	8 (0–10)	7.84 (1.78)	7.21 (2.12)	P=0.007
How easy was it to push down the plunger of the syringe?	8 (0–10)	8 (1–10)	7.48 (2.10)	8.01 (1.98)	NS
How easy do you think it will be to store clotting factor treatments using this device?	8 (0–10)	8 (0–10)	7.38 (2.40)	6.73 (2.50)	P=0.034
How easy do you think it will be to get rid of the containers, syringes, needles and so on from this clotting factor treatment device once you have used them?	8 (2–10)	7 (0–10)	7.68 (2.03)	6.56 (2.61)	P<0.001

Notes: 0= not at all; 10= extremely.

Abbreviations: DCS, dual-chamber syringe; NS, not statistically significant; SD, standard deviation.