ArticlePatient related outcome measures2025
Utilities Associated with the Treatment of Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD): A Time Trade-off (TTO) Study in the UK and Canada.
Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Lonapegsomatropin in Adults With Growth Hormone Deficiency: foresiGHt Trial Results.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Growth hormone deficiency (GHD) causes decreased growth rate in children, resulting in short stature in childhood and adulthood. Daily subcutaneous injections with growth hormone (GH) have been standard treatment. Newer weekly GH formulations now exist. This study estimates utilities associated with GHD treatment for both people with the disease and caregivers by employing time trade-off (TTO) methodology. Methods: Three online surveys were conducted amongst the general population in the UK and Canada. Based on a pilot, data collection was conducted in two surveys only (Survey A and Survey B). In Survey A, adults aged ≥18 years evaluated health states as if they were receiving injections themselves. In Survey B, adults with a child <15 years evaluated health states as if they were administering injections to a child. The surveys assessed device complexity, injection frequency, injection pain, needle visibility and storage possibilities. Results: 2026 and 2028 respondents completed Survey A and Survey B, respectively. Of these, 1782 respondents and 1678 respondents were valid for inclusion. Avoiding weekly injection pain was associated with a significant utility gain of 0.030 (95% CI 0.026-0.035, p<0.001) in Survey A and 0.044 (95% CI 0.038-0.051, p<0.001) in Survey B. Additionally, less complex injection devices and lower injection frequencies had a significant impact in both Survey A (0.020, 95% CI 0.016-0.025, p<0.001; 0.009, 95% CI 0.005-0.014, p<0.001) and Survey B (0.008, 95% CI 0.002-0.014, p=0.006; 0.009, 95% CI 0.003-0.014, p=0.003). Conclusion: Several aspects are associated with a significant impact on utilities for people with GHD and potential caregivers. Treatment options without injection pain, a time-consuming and complex injection process and daily injections are expected to result in higher health-related quality of life. These results may inform future economic evaluations and treatment choices.
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.