Subcutaneous injection: learning from experience in other specialties

1Richards M, Williams M, Chalmers E, et al. A United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organization guideline approved by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology: guideline on the use of prophylactic factor VIII concentrate in children and adults with severe haemophilia A. Br J Haematol 2010; 149: 498-507.RichardsMWilliamsMChalmersEet alA United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors’ Organization guideline approved by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology: guideline on the use of prophylactic factor VIII concentrate in children and adults with severe haemophilia ABr J Haematol201014949850710.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08139.xSearch in Google Scholar

2Berntorp E, Dolan G, Hay C, et al. European retrospective study of real-life haemophilia treatment. Haemophilia 2017; 23: 105-14.BerntorpEDolanGHayCet alEuropean retrospective study of real-life haemophilia treatmentHaemophilia2017231051410.1111/hae.13111Search in Google Scholar

3Collins P, Chalmers E, Chowdary P, et al. The use of enhanced half-life coagulation factor concentrates in routine clinical practice: guidance from UKHCDO. Haemophilia 2016; 22: 487-98.CollinsPChalmersEChowdaryPet alThe use of enhanced half-life coagulation factor concentrates in routine clinical practice: guidance from UKHCDOHaemophilia2016224879810.1111/hae.13013Search in Google Scholar

4Oldenburg J, Mahlangu JN, Kim B, et al. Emicizumab prophylaxis in hemophilia A with inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 809-18.OldenburgJMahlanguJNKimBet alEmicizumab prophylaxis in hemophilia A with inhibitorsN Engl J Med20173778091810.1056/NEJMoa1703068Search in Google Scholar

5Pasi KJ, Rangarajan S, Georgiev P, et al. Targeting of antithrombin in hemophilia A or B with RNAi therapy. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 819-28.PasiKJRangarajanSGeorgievPet alTargeting of antithrombin in hemophilia A or B with RNAi therapyN Engl J Med20173778192810.1056/NEJMoa1616569Search in Google Scholar

6Hacker MR, Geraghty S, Manco-Johnson M. Barriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophilia. Haemophilia 2001; 7: 392-6.HackerMRGeraghtySManco-JohnsonMBarriers to compliance with prophylaxis therapy in haemophiliaHaemophilia200173926Search in Google Scholar

7Shaw D, Riley GA. The impact on parents of developments in the care of children with bleeding disorders. Haemophilia 2008; 14: 65-7.ShawDRileyGAThe impact on parents of developments in the care of children with bleeding disordersHaemophilia20081465710.1111/j.1365-2516.2007.01598.xSearch in Google Scholar

8Furmedge J, Lima S, Monagle P, et al. 'I don't want to hurt him.' Parents' experiences of learning to administer clotting factor to their child. Haemophilia 2013; 19: 206-11.FurmedgeJLimaSMonaglePet al'I don't want to hurt him.' Parents' experiences of learning to administer clotting factor to their childHaemophilia2013192061110.1111/hae.12030Search in Google Scholar

9World Health Organisation. WHO best practices for injections and related procedures toolkit. 2010. Available from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138491 (accessed 16 April 2018).World Health Organisation. WHO best practices for injections and related procedures toolkit2010Available fromwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK138491accessed 16 April 2018Search in Google Scholar

10Frid AH, Kreugel G, Grassi G, et al. New insulin delivery recommendations. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91: 1231-55.FridAHKreugelGGrassiGet alNew insulin delivery recommendationsMayo Clin Proc20169112315510.1016/j.mayocp.2016.06.010Search in Google Scholar

11FIT UK Forum for Injection Technique UK. The UK Injection and Infusion Technique Recommendations 4th edn. October 2016. Available from http://www.fit4diabetes.com/files/4514/7946/3482/FIT_UK_Recommendations_4th_Edition.pdf (accessed 16 April 2018).FIT UK Forum for Injection Technique UKThe UK Injection and Infusion Technique Recommendations4th edn. October2016Available fromhttp://www.fit4diabetes.com/files/4514/7946/3482/FIT_UK_Recommendations_4th_Edition.pdfaccessed 16 April 2018Search in Google Scholar

12The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures 9th edn, 2015. Available from http://www.rmmonline.co.uk/ (accessed 16 April 2018).The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustThe Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures9th edn2015Available fromhttp://www.rmmonline.co.uk/accessed 16 April 2018Search in Google Scholar

13FIT4Safety. Injection Safety in UK and Ireland; Safety of Sharps in Diabetes Recommendations 1st edn. 2012. Available from http://www.fit4diabetes.com/files/1413/4727/6994/BD4224_FIT_Safety_STG07_AW2_PP.pdf (accessed 16 April 2018).FIT4SafetyInjection Safety in UK and Ireland; Safety of Sharps in Diabetes Recommendations1st edn2012Available fromhttp://www.fit4diabetes.com/files/1413/4727/6994/BD4224_FIT_Safety_STG07_AW2_PP.pdfaccessed 16 April 2018Search in Google Scholar

14Costigliola V, Frid A, Letondeur, C et al. Needlestick injuries in European nurses in diabetes. Diabetes Metab 2012; 38 Suppl 1: S9-14.CostigliolaVFridALetondeurCet alNeedlestick injuries in European nurses in diabetesDiabetes Metab201238 Suppl1S91410.1016/S1262-3636(12)70976-XSearch in Google Scholar

15Tandon N, Kalra S, Balhara YPS, et al. Forum for injection technique and therapy expert recommendations, India: the Indian recommendations for best practice in insulin injection technique, 2017. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2017; 21: 600-17.TandonNKalraSBalharaYPSet alForum for injection technique and therapy expert recommendations, India: the Indian recommendations for best practice in insulin injection technique, 2017Indian J Endocrinol Metab2017216001710.4103/ijem.IJEM_97_17547745128670547Search in Google Scholar

16Ogston-Tuck S. Subcutaneous injection technique: an evidence-based approach. Nurs Stand 2014; 29: 53-8.Ogston-TuckS.Subcutaneous injection technique: an evidence-based approachNurs Stand20142953810.7748/ns.29.3.53.e9183Search in Google Scholar

17Desplats M, Pascart T, Jelin G, et al. Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study. Clin Rheumatol 2017; 36: 1395-1400.DesplatsMPascartTJelinGet alAre abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based studyClin Rheumatol2017361395140010.1007/s10067-017-3587-8Search in Google Scholar

18Chilton F, Collett RA. Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskelet Care 2008; 6: 1-14.ChiltonFCollettRATreatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritisMusculoskelet Care2008611410.1002/msc.110Search in Google Scholar

19Huynh TK, Ostergaard A, Egsmose C, et al. Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014; 8: 93-9.HuynhTKOstergaardAEgsmoseCet alPreferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritisPatient Prefer Adherence2014893910.2147/PPA.S55156Search in Google Scholar

20Bolge SC, Eldridge HM, Lofland JH, et al. Patient experience with intravenous biologic therapies for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. Patient Prefer Adherence 2017; 11: 661-9.BolgeSCEldridgeHMLoflandJHet alPatient experience with intravenous biologic therapies for ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitisPatient Prefer Adherence201711661910.2147/PPA.S121032Search in Google Scholar

21Sylwestrzak G, Liu J, Stephenson JJ, et al. Considering patient preferences when selecting anti-tumor necrosis factor therapeutic options. Am Health Drug Benefits 2014; 7: 71-81.SylwestrzakGLiuJStephensonJJet alConsidering patient preferences when selecting anti-tumor necrosis factor therapeutic optionsAm Health Drug Benefits201477181Search in Google Scholar

22Allen PB, Lindsay H, Tham TC. How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered? BMC Gastroenterol 2010; 10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-1.AllenPBLindsayHThamTCHow do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered?BMC Gastroenterol201010110.1186/1471-230X-10-1Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23Pivot X, Gligorov J, Müller V, et al. Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 962-70.PivotXGligorovJMüllerVet alPreference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised studyLancet Oncol2013149627010.1016/S1470-2045(13)70383-8Search in Google Scholar

24Jackisch C, Müller V, Dall P, et al. Subcutaneous trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer - evidence and practical experience in 7 German centers. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75: 566-73.JackischCMüllerVDallPet alSubcutaneous trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer - evidence and practical experience in 7 German centersGeburtshilfe Frauenheilkd2015755667310.1055/s-0035-1546172449092326166837Search in Google Scholar

25Beer K, Müller M, Hew-Winzeler AM, et al. The prevalence of injection-site reactions with disease-modifying therapies and their effect on adherence in patients with multiple sclerosis: an observational study. BMC Neurol 2011; 11: 144.BeerKMüllerMHew-WinzelerAMet alThe prevalence of injection-site reactions with disease-modifying therapies and their effect on adherence in patients with multiple sclerosis: an observational studyBMC Neurol20111114410.1186/1471-2377-11-144322761022074056Search in Google Scholar

26Stoner KL, Harder H, Fallowfield LJ, et al. Intravenous versus subcutaneous drug administration. Which do patients prefer? A systematic review. Patient 2015; 8: 145-53.StonerKLHarderHFallowfieldLJet alIntravenous versus subcutaneous drug administration. Which do patients prefer? A systematic reviewPatient201581455310.1007/s40271-014-0075-y25015302Search in Google Scholar

27Jin JF, Zhu LL, Chen M, et al. The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015; 9: 923-42.JinJFZhuLLChenMet alThe optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injectionPatient Prefer Adherence201599234210.2147/PPA.S87271449462126170642Search in Google Scholar

28Ponzetti C, Canciani M, Farina M, et al. Administrative risk quantification of subcutaneous and intravenous therapies in Italian centers utilizing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis approach. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2016; 8: 353-9.PonzettiCCancianiMFarinaMet alAdministrative risk quantification of subcutaneous and intravenous therapies in Italian centers utilizing the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis approachClinicoecon Outcomes Res20168353910.2147/CEOR.S97323497680627536148Search in Google Scholar

29Carlson J, Cox K, Bedwell K, et al. Rituximab for subcutaneous delivery: clinical management principles from a nursing perspective. Int J Nurs Pract 2015; 21 Suppl 3: 1-13.CarlsonJCoxKBedwellKet alRituximab for subcutaneous delivery: clinical management principles from a nursing perspectiveInt J Nurs Pract201521 Suppl311310.1111/ijn.1241326681664Search in Google Scholar

30Rule S, Collins GP, Samanta K. Subcutaneous vs intravenous rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a time and motion study in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ 2014; 17: 459-68.RuleSCollinsGPSamantaKSubcutaneous vs intravenous rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a time and motion study in the United KingdomJ Med Econ2014174596810.3111/13696998.2014.91403324720836Search in Google Scholar

31Barbee MS, Harvey RD, Lonial S, et al. Subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: efficiency practice variables and patient preferences. Ann Pharmacother 2013; 47: 1136-42.BarbeeMSHarveyRDLonialSet alSubcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: efficiency practice variables and patient preferencesAnn Pharmacother20134711364210.1177/106002801350312224259728Search in Google Scholar