Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Guidelines recommend initiation of parenteral biologic or oral target-specific disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who do not adequately respond to conventional DMARDs.

Objectives: To compare the preferred route of administration of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs in RA patients who were previously treated with at least one type.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted of consecutive RA patients previously prescribed bDMARDs or tsDMARDs. We analyzed the factors associated with patients' preferred route of administration.

Results: The cohort included 95 patients, mostly female (72.6%), seropositive (81.05%), mean age 63.4 ± 11.9 years. The oral route was preferred by 39 patients (41%) and 56 (59%) preferred the parenteral route. Most patients (65.9%) preferred to continue with their current route (P < 0.001). Switching from a current route was less common with patients who were currently using the oral route (13.3% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.04). Many patients (53.8%) who preferred the oral route had never experienced it before, while this was rare (3.6%) regarding the parenteral route (P = 0.0001). Employment status was associated with preference of the subcutaneous route over the intravenous route of bDMARDs (P = 0.01). Of the 21 patients who had previously experienced both parenteral and oral treatment, 16 (76.2%) preferred the oral route.

Conclusions: RA patients preferred to continue treatment with an administration route they have already experienced. However, when choosing an unexperienced route, significantly more patients preferred the oral route. Our results strengthen the understanding of patient preferences, which could improve drug adherence, compliance, and disease outcome.

Background: There is currently no standard salvage chemotherapy for the 40–50% of patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who fail first-line treatment.

Objectives: To review the experience of a major tertiary medical center with DVIP (dexamethasone, etoposide, ifosfamide and cisplatin) salvage therapy for primary refractory/relapsing NHL[1].

Methods: We reviewed the records of all patients with NHL who received DVIP salvage therapy during the period 1993 to 2005.

Results: We identified 37 adult patients (mean age 56.3 years): 29 with aggressive lymphoma and 8 with indolent lymphoma. Mean event-free survival was 13.5 months (range 0–82 months), mean time between diagnosis and DVIP treatment 18.5 months (range 2–101), and mean number of DVIP cycles 1.9. Four patients (11%) achieved a complete response and 9 (24%) a partial response (overall response 35%). Consolidation with stem cell transplantation was used in 14 patients with aggressive lymphoma and 4 with indolent lymphoma; 14 patients, all with aggressive lymphoma, responded (12 complete, 2 partial). Of the 10 patients who underwent SCT[2] despite no response to salvage DVIP, 6 achieved a complete response. Five year overall survival from diagnosis for the whole sample was 39.4 ± 8.7%, and 5 year post-DVIP overall survival 37.6 ± 8.0%. On multivariate analysis, SCT was the strongest predictor of survival (relative risk 0.73, P < 0.0001) followed by a high score on the International Prognostic Index (RR[3] 3.71, P = 0.032).

Conclusions: DVIP salvage therapy for NHL was associated with a low response rate of 35% but a 5 year post-DVIP survival rate of 37.6%. Patients who are refractory to salvage treatment with DVIP might still be salvaged with SCT.