ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2014
Results from an international multicenter trial evaluating the ease-of-use of and preference for a newly developed disposable injection pen for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency in treatment-naïve children and adults.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01112865 (A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Two Arm Cross Over Study Assessing Dyad), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Two Arm Cross Over Study Assessing Dyad (Subject and Caregiver) and Adult Subject Perception of Convenience and Preference of the Newly Developed Genotropin Mark VII Pen.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions Designed to Improve Adherence to Growth Hormone Treatment for Pediatric Patients and Their Families: A Narrative Review.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Ease of Use, Preference, and Safety of the Recombinant Human Growth Hormone Disposable Pen Compared with the Reusable Device: A Multicenter, Single-Arm, Open-Label, Switch-Over, Prospective, Phase IV Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has reported that ease of use of and preference for a delivery device are associated with greater patient compliance - an important factor in achieving optimal therapeutic results. The objective of this study was to assess the ease-of-use of a new disposable pen (GoQuick(®), Pfizer, Inc.) versus the current reusable pen (GENOTROPIN Pen(®), Pfizer, Inc.) to inject a daily dose of recombinant DNA origin human growth hormone, Genotropin(®) (somatropin) in standard practice. In this randomized, crossover, multicenter, multinational, open-label study, ease-of-use of and preference for the two pens were assessed in three treatment-naïve populations: 1) parents of very young children; 2) parent-child dyads; and 3) adults via use of a validated self-report Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) after 2 months of at-home-use experience. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who reported the new disposable pen to be no different from or easier to use than the current reusable pen. Safety was also assessed and reported according to local legal requirements. Of the 120 screened patients, 119 were included in the ease-of-use analysis and all were included in the safety analyses. In all, 67.2% found the new somatropin disposable pen to be no different from or easier to use than the reusable pen (95% confidence interval: 58.8-75.7). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. No deaths or device- or treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. These results suggest that improvements made to the reusable somatropin pen are tangible and recognizable to treatment-naïve patients and their caregivers, child-caregiver dyads, and adults, and may positively impact continued compliance with therapy. REGISTRY INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01112865.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.