Evaluation of a Novel Prefilled Syringe Concept for Ophthalmic Applications: A Formative Human Factors Study.

Intravitreal injection (IVI) is the most commonly performed intraocular procedure worldwide. Several manufacturers have developed glass prefilled syringe (PFS) devices to increase the ease of performing IVIs and reduce the complications associated with medication preparation. This formative human factors study assessed a novel, polymer PFS alternative to glass syringes to support development of a usable, silicone-free delivery platform for IVI. Thirteen retina specialists (RSs) with experience preparing a minimum of ≥10 IVIs per week completed the study. RSs were presented with the concept device and prototype instructions for use and completed hands-on tasks to simulate IVI. They then evaluated the concept device for ease of use, comfort, safety, and overall preference versus the IVI devices they are accustomed to using. The primary objectives were to assess the ease of use and acceptability of the proposed syringe design, evaluate the corresponding instructions for use (IFU), and identify any potential usability issues. The secondary objectives were to evaluate a new tamper-evident cap design and compare several externally printed dose marking designs. There were 130 total opportunities for use errors that deviated from the IFU. Of these 130 steps, 110 were a Success, 17 were Incomplete or Incorrect, 2 were Resolved, and 1 was the result of a Study Artifact. All 13 participants completed 3 Essential Tasks successfully and at least 10 participants completed each of the 4 Safety-Critical Tasks successfully. A total of 20 errors were made throughout the test simulation, most of which were rooted in unfamiliar use steps or transference behaviors. Overall, the concept device was found to be usable, acceptable, and safe for IVI by experienced RSs. RSs preferred the concept device to IVI products supplied in vials, but there was no notable preference for the concept device design compared to current glass PFSs used for IVI. The unique features of the concept device, including absence of silicone oil and break-resistance, were mostly recognized by participants and may offer an improvement to currently available systems for IVI.

The current paradigm for biologic initiation: a confirmatory quantitative analysis of self-injection training practices.

BACKGROUND: Self-injected biologic therapies have gained significant prevalence across numerous therapeutic areas. A lack of specific guidance on best practices may lead to inadequate biologic initiation and training. We previously conducted a small-sample, qualitative analysis designed to identify gaps in self-injection training. METHODS: A total of 277 HCPs performing routine biologic initiation and 264 patients currently self-injecting biologics completed this quantitative study remotely using an online survey. The primary objective was to validate previous qualitative findings and firmly characterize the current paradigm. As an exploratory objective, the study examined associations that may exist between training experiences and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Most patients (91.7%) reported receiving formal self-injection training, commonly conducted over one or two sessions. The mean overall training time reported was 37.8 and 30.4 minutes by patients and HCPs, respectively. Over one-third of patients reported lacking confidence that they could correctly self-inject during the first 6 months of treatment. CONCLUSION: Current training practices may not be adequate to prepare patients to start their therapies. Considerable attention must be paid to providing patients with multiple opportunities for training sessions, training devices, and medical information for home access. Further studies should prospectively examine the impact of training techniques on patient-reported outcomes.

The current paradigm for biologic initiation: a mixed-methods exploration of practices, unmet needs, and innovation opportunities in self-injection training.

BACKGROUND: Self-injection, particularly of biologics, has become a mainstay of chronic disease management. Despite labeling requirement for healthcare provider (HCP) training, current injection initiation experiences have been shown to be suboptimal. This study characterizes gaps in training and support during initiation and identifies rationales to inform solutions. METHODS: We enrolled HCPs (n = 18) performing routine biologic initiation and patients (n = 24) currently self-injecting biologics. Participants completed activities through an online, remote ethnography tool. We conducted two focus groups with biologic-naïve patients (n = 5). Data was analyzed using thematic frameworks, Q methodology, and quantitative assessments. RESULTS: Our results suggest considerable gaps exist. Analysis revealed five common themes that could explain these gaps: 1) minimal biologic-specific professional instruction is provided to HCPs; 2) nuanced injection use-steps are not universally understood; 3) no one stakeholder currently 'owns' training; 4) support offered by HCPs and manufacturers is perceived as biased; and 5) emotional burden is not accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests optimizing several elements to facilitate successful initiations, including structured sessions, improved HCP injection device knowledge, demo-device practice, and focus on both emotional and mechanical aspects. Aligning these factors has potential to increase patient confidence, reduce burden on HCPs, and improve probability of success on therapy.