ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
Usability and Preference Evaluation of the Somapacitan Pen-Injector and Lonapegsomatropin Autoinjector: Results of a US-Based Simulated-Use Study with Adolescent Patients and Caregivers.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can long-acting growth hormone improve adherence in pediatric growth hormone deficiency?Endocrine · 2026Review
- New directions in growth hormone treatment in children.Pediatric endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the preference and ease of use/learning how to use, of the somapacitan (Sogroya Patients and Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter, usability-based preference and handling study with a crossover design. Participants recruited were adolescents aged 10-17 years with a GRD, able to self-administer growth hormone (GH) or perform some of substeps required; and caregivers aged ≥18 years and regular care providers for individuals with GRDs. Participants completed a series of simulated injections using both devices and completed a Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire (DHPAQ). Training time and time to prepare and inject with each device were also evaluated. Results: Seventy participants were recruited overall; 35 in each of the adolescent and caregiver groups. Most (78.6%) participants preferred the somapacitan device to the lonapegsomatropin device (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.1-87.5). The lonapegsomatropin device was preferred by 14.3% of participants, and 7.1% indicated no preference. Most participants indicated that somapacitan device was easy to use (97.1% [95% CI 90.1-99.7]) and learn how to use (95.7% [95% CI 88.0-99.1]). The same was reported for the lonapegsomatropin device by 57.1% (95% CI 44.8-68.9) and 54.3% (95% CI 41.9-66.3%) of participants, respectively. Average time taken to complete training for the somapacitan device and to prepare and inject was shorter than that for the lonapegsomatropin device (5.9 min vs 24.0 min, and 0.9 vs 10.6 min, respectively). Conclusion: The somapacitan device was preferred over the lonapegsomatropin device among adolescents with GRDs and caregivers of individuals with GRDs. Individuals receiving GH treatment via the somapacitan device may be more likely to have higher treatment adherence than those using the lonapegsomatropin device.
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.