Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39493440›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Patients with Growth-Related Disorders and Caregivers Prefer the Somapacitan Device to the Somatrogon Device: Results from a Randomized Crossover Study Assessing Device Preference and Ease of Use Following Simulated Injections.

Shahid Akhtar, Birgitte Berg, Johan Medina, Maya Nicole Gonczi, Sophie Hamilton, Emily Hildebrand, Nicky Kelepouris, Jesper Skov Neergaard, Claus Sværke, Gitte Ter-Borch and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. New directions in growth hormone treatment in children.Pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Shahid AkhtarDevices & Digital Health, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0326-5445
Birgitte BergClinical Operations, Obesity, Liver Diseases & Devices, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.
Johan MedinaMedical & Science, Devices & Digital Health, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.
Maya Nicole GoncziHuman Factors, Research Collective, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Sophie HamiltonRare Endocrine Rare Renal Diseases, Novo Nordisk Inc, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.
Emily HildebrandHuman Factors, Research Collective, Tempe, AZ, USA.
Nicky KelepourisRare Endocrine Disorders, Novo Nordisk Inc, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.
Jesper Skov NeergaardSafety Surveillance, Cardiovascular Disease, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.
Claus SværkeGlobal Development, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0003-8149-841X
Gitte Ter-BorchClinical Operations, Obesity, Liver Diseases & Devices, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.
Niklas Kahr RasmussenMedical & Science, Devices & Digital Health, Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Adherence to growth hormone treatment is known to affect growth outcomes. Both device preference and ease of use have been shown to affect treatment adherence. In this study, we assessed device preference and ease of use with two long-acting growth hormones, somapacitan (Sogroya Patients and Methods: In a randomized, crossover study conducted between September 20 and November 2, 2023, we recruited 33 adolescents with a growth-related disorder, and 37 caregivers, at six locations in the United States. Each participant was trained in the use of both devices and asked to perform a simulated injection. Device training time, preparation and injection time, and injection completeness were recorded. Participants also completed the Device Handling and Preference Questionnaire (DHPAQ) to indicate their device preference and ease of use opinions. Following conclusion of the "standard" visit, 10 adolescents and 10 caregivers were randomly selected to participate in a sub-study to validate the relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehension of the DHPAQ. Results: The majority of participants (84.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 74;92) preferred the somapacitan device to the somatrogon device (p < 0.0001). Almost all (98.6%; 95% CI: 92;100) participants answered that the somapacitan device was easy or very easy to use, while three-quarters (74.3%; 95% CI: 62;84) answered the same for the somatrogon device. Average training and injection times were lower for the somapacitan device than for the somatrogon device. Also, more patients successfully completed the injection with the somapacitan device than with the somatrogon device (97.1% vs 92.9%). Cognitive debriefing interviews indicated the DHPAQ was relevant, comprehensive, and fully comprehended. Conclusion: The somapacitan device was preferred to the somatrogon device by a majority of participants. More participants considered the somapacitan device to be easy or very easy to use than the somatrogon device.

Indexed as

device preferenceease of usegrowth hormone deficiencylong-acting growth hormonesomapacitansomatrogon

Identifiers

PMID39493440
PMCPMC11531717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.