Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The PEPSIN project: design and validation of a self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of equivalence between pens and prefilled syringes in patients on subcutaneous biological drugs
  1. Lisa Pivato,
  2. C Battistutta,
  3. Federica Torni,
  4. Daniele Mengato,
  5. Francesca Temporin,
  6. Francesca Venturini
  1. Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lisa Pivato, Pharmacy, Azienda Ospedale Università Padova, Padova, Padua, Italy; lisapivato{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Biological therapies such as tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) blockers are widely used in clinical practice to treat many diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis.1 The administration of biological drugs is usually via subcutaneous self-injection, which has many advantages over intravenous infusions.2 Its advantages include improved flexibility in administration, reduced infusion time and, above all, the possibility of self-administration by the patient or her/his caregivers. The problems that can occur with self-administration concern patient compliance; patients must be adequately educated in self-administration to ensure optimal adherence to therapy and to overcome any resistance related to needle phobia.2 A range of devices, including prefilled syringes (PFS) and prefilled pens (PFP), has been developed to meet the needs of patient compliance.2 These devices have their own special features …

View Full Text


  • Contributors FV takes responsibility for the manuscript as a whole. LP and CB conceived and designed the study. LP, FT and FT enrolled patients and collected and compiled data. DM performed the statistical analysis. LP, CB, FT, DM, FT and FV analysed and interpreted the data. LP and DM wrote the manuscript. FV commented and revised the report. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.