Suppr超能文献

预充式生长激素注射笔的直观性、易用性和偏好:三种给药装置在生长激素治疗的儿科患者中比较使用性的一项非干预、随机、开放标签、交叉、比较研究。

Intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference of a prefilled growth hormone injection pen: a noninterventional, randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative usability study of three delivery devices in growth hormone-treated pediatric patients.

机构信息

Institute for Clinical Research and Development (ikfe GmbH), Mainz, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Ther. 2010 Oct;32(11):1918-34. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.10.010.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Growth hormone (GH) is used to treat pediatric and adult GH deficiency (GHD) and growth failure in, among others, patients with Turner syndrome or children born small for gestational age. To improve treatment adherence, self-injection devices should be easy to learn, easy to use, and well accepted, especially in pediatric patients. Several GH pen devices are available, each with distinct features designed for specific patient needs.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared injection time and intuitiveness of a prefilled test injection device (Norditropin FlexPro, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) with those of 2 commercially available durable injection devices (easypod, Merck Serono SA, Geneva, Switzerland; and Genotropin, Pfizer Inc, New York, New York) in GH-treated pediatric patients. Dose accuracy, application errors, intuitiveness, usability, device features, ease of learning, ease of use, and overall preference were also assessed.

METHODS

This noninterventional, randomized, open-label, crossover study enrolled patients aged ≥10 to <18 years who were diagnosed with GHD or Turner syndrome or were born small for gestational age. Patients were allocated to an intuitiveness group (without instruction) or an instruction group and assigned to 1 of 3 sequences of device testing. For each device, time taken to deliver a mock injection of test medium (FlexPro) or GH (easypod and Genotropin) into an Eppendorf tube and the delivered dose were measured. Dose accuracy and application errors were assessed by a health care professional. Patients assessed the intuitiveness (intuitiveness group only), device features, ease of learning, ease of use, and overall preference of the devices using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Included in the study were 56 patients (mean [SD] age, 13.6 [2.1] years; 63% male; GHD, 44 patients; Turner syndrome, 3; born small for gestational age, 9): 30 in the intuitiveness group and 26 in the instruction group. In the intuitiveness group, the mean (SD) mock injection time was significantly shorter with FlexPro (47.0 [49.0] seconds) than with the easypod (219.2 [72.6] seconds; P < 0.001) or the Genotropin pen (95.1 [78.4] seconds; P < 0.01). In the instruction group, injection time was also shortest with FlexPro (30.7 [10.8] seconds vs 59.6 [13.1] with easypod and 40.7 [18.6] with the Genotropin pen; both, P < 0.001). Most patients (70%) ranked FlexPro as the most intuitive device (easypod, 0%; Genotropin, 30%). In both the intuitiveness and instruction groups, a significantly greater proportion of patients considered FlexPro easiest to learn compared with the easypod and Genotropin devices (both, P < 0.001), although more patients preferred the easypod or Genotropin devices than FlexPro with regard to appearance (intuitiveness group: FlexPro, 8 patients; easypod, 9; and Genotropin, 13; instruction group: FlexPro, 4; easypod, 10; and Genotropin, 12) and quality (intuitiveness group: FlexPro, 6 patients; easypod, 10; and Genotropin, 14; instruction group: FlexPro, 8; easypod, 12; and Genotropin, 6), and easy- pod's delivery feedback feature was preferred by more patients (intuitiveness group: FlexPro, 8 patients; easypod, 14; Genotropin, 8; instruction group: FlexPro, 8; easypod, 14; and Genotropin, 4). Dose accuracies (as assessed by weighing the delivered dose and calculating variation in the delivered dose by device) were 4.6% with FlexPro, 14.6% with easypod, and 20.6% with the Genotropin pen in the intuitiveness group, and 2.7% with FlexPro, 5.8% with easypod, and 24.4% with the Genotropin pen in the instruction group.

CONCLUSION

In this study, Norditropin FlexPro was associated with shorter injection times, higher dose accuracy, and greater intuitiveness, and was rated as easier to learn compared with the easypod and Genotropin devices.

摘要

背景

生长激素(GH)用于治疗儿科和成人 GH 缺乏症(GHD)和生长障碍,包括特纳综合征或胎龄小的儿童。为了提高治疗依从性,自我注射装置应该易于学习、易于使用并且被广泛接受,尤其是在儿科患者中。有几种 GH 笔式装置,每种装置都具有独特的设计,以满足特定患者的需求。

目的

本研究比较了预填充测试注射装置(诺和诺德公司的 Norditropin FlexPro)与 2 种市售耐用注射装置(Merck Serono SA 的 easypod 和辉瑞公司的 Genotropin)在接受 GH 治疗的儿科患者中的注射时间和直观性。还评估了剂量准确性、应用错误、直观性、可用性、设备特性、易学性、易用性和总体偏好。

方法

这是一项非干预性、随机、开放标签、交叉研究,纳入了年龄在 10 至<18 岁之间、诊断为 GHD 或特纳综合征或胎龄小的患者。患者被分配到直观性组(无指导)或指导组,并被分配到 3 种设备测试序列中的 1 种。对于每种设备,测量将测试介质(FlexPro)或 GH(easypod 和 Genotropin)注入 Eppendorf 管的模拟注射时间和输送的剂量。由医疗保健专业人员评估剂量准确性和应用错误。患者使用问卷评估设备的直观性(仅直观性组)、设备特性、易学性、易用性和总体偏好。

结果

共纳入 56 例患者(平均[标准差]年龄,13.6[2.1]岁;63%为男性;GHD 患者 44 例;特纳综合征患者 3 例;胎龄小患者 9 例):30 例在直观性组,26 例在指导组。在直观性组中,FlexPro 的模拟注射时间(47.0[49.0]秒)明显短于 easypod(219.2[72.6]秒;P<0.001)或 Genotropin 笔(95.1[78.4]秒;P<0.01)。在指导组中,注射时间也最短的是 FlexPro(30.7[10.8]秒,与 easypod 的 59.6[13.1]秒和 Genotropin 笔的 40.7[18.6]秒相比;均,P<0.001)。大多数患者(70%)认为 FlexPro 是最直观的设备(easypod,0%;Genotropin,30%)。在直观性和指导组中,与 easypod 和 Genotropin 设备相比,更多的患者认为 FlexPro 更容易学习(均,P<0.001),尽管更多的患者更喜欢 easypod 或 Genotropin 设备的外观(直观性组:FlexPro,8 例;easypod,9 例;Genotropin,13 例;指导组:FlexPro,4 例;easypod,10 例;Genotropin,12 例)和质量(直观性组:FlexPro,6 例;easypod,10 例;Genotropin,14 例;指导组:FlexPro,4 例;easypod,12 例;Genotropin,6 例),并且更多的患者更喜欢 easypod 的输送反馈功能(直观性组:FlexPro,8 例;easypod,14 例;Genotropin,8 例;指导组:FlexPro,8 例;easypod,14 例;Genotropin,4 例)。剂量准确性(通过称重输送的剂量并计算设备输送的剂量变化来评估)在直观性组中为 FlexPro 4.6%,easypod 14.6%,Genotropin 笔 20.6%,在指导组中为 FlexPro 2.7%,easypod 5.8%,Genotropin 笔 24.4%。

结论

在这项研究中,诺和诺德的 Norditropin FlexPro 与较短的注射时间、更高的剂量准确性和更高的直观性相关,并且与 easypod 和 Genotropin 设备相比,它被认为更容易学习。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验