Dataset Information

Patient preferences for growth hormone treatment in Japanese children.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are not clear evidence to date evaluating patients' and caregivers' preferences for the recombinant-human growth hormone (r-hGH) injection in children in Japan. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluated the factors driving preferences for daily r-hGH injections among Japanese children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) or their caregivers and to determine the relative importance of treatment delivery factors.

Methods

This study was performed among Japanese children with GHD or their caregivers who visited a specialized clinic in Japan as part of their routine care. The participants were asked to complete a web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire.

Results

Choice-based conjoint analysis was used to evaluate the relative importance of the attributes of the choice predictors and determine utility scores for each attribute. Of the 47 respondents who participated in this study, 41 were caregivers who responded on behalf of the patients, the remaining six were patients who completed the DCE themselves. The injection schedule was found to be the most important factor for both patients and caregivers; a once-weekly injection schedule was preferred over a daily injection schedule. Storage and preparation was deemed more important to patients than it was to caregivers, with patients preferring storage at room temperature even if it required additional mixing (reconstitution). Both patients and caregivers showed a clear preference for devices that offered a dose-setting memory.

Conclusions

A less frequent injection schedule may enhance adherence to r-hGH treatment and expected improve quality of life for GHD patients over the long term.

SUBMITTER: Tanaka T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8596999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe patent expiry of a number of biological medicines and the advent of biosimilars raised the expectations of healthcare commissioners that biosimilars would reduce the high cost of these medicines and produce potential savings to the NHS. We aimed to examine the prescribing pattern of different growth hormone preparations (ready to use and reconstitution requiring) in primary and secondary care in England to determine relative rates of decrease or increase and identify the possible factors influencing prescribing following the introduction of biosimilar growth hormone in 2008.DesignLongitudinal observational study.Setting and data sourcesPrimary care prescribing cost and volume data was derived from the NHS business services authority website, and for secondary care from the DEFINE database, between April 2011 and December 2015.OutcomesQuarterly prescribing analysis to examine trends and measure the relationship between usage and price.ResultsExpenditure and usage of growth hormone in primary care decreased by 17.91% and 7.29%, respectively, whereas expenditure and usage in secondary care increased by 68.41% and 100%, respectively, between April 2011 and December 2015. The usage of reconstitution requiring products significantly declined in primary care (R²=0.9292) and slightly increased in use in secondary care (R²=0.139). In contrast, the usage of ready-to-use products significantly increased in use in primary (R²=0.7526) and secondary care (R²=0.9633), respectively. Weak or no correlation existed between the usage and price of growth hormone preparations in primary and secondary care.ConclusionsThe price of growth hormone products was not the key factor influencing the prescribing of the biological medicines. The main driver for specific product selection was the ease of use and the number of steps in dose preparation. Prescribers appear to be taking into account patient preferences rather than cost in their prescribing decisions.

Project description:BackgroundQuantifying the association between adherence and the growth response to growth hormone (GH) treatment is hampered by suboptimal methods of measuring adherence, confounders associated with the growth response, and restriction of the outcome parameters to yearly growth velocities.AimTo investigate the effect of adherence on the two-year growth response to GH treatment in prepubertal children with idiopathic isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD) participating in the easypod connect observational study (ECOS), a 5-year, Phase IV open-label study to continuously assess real-world adherence via the easypod electronic drug-delivery device.Patients and methodsOutcome measures were change in height standard deviation score (?HSDS), index of responsiveness (IoR), and parameters of two catch-up growth (CUG) curve functions (monomolecular growth curve and second degree polynomial) with adj-HSDS (HSDS minus Target height (TH) SDS) as dependent variable. Inclusion criteria were GHD, naïve to GH treatment, known TH, age <10y in girls and <12y in boys, ?3 measurements, HSDS <-2 at start, complete data on growth and adherence in the first and second year. Linear regression analyses were performed to test the association between adherence (continuous and high vs. low) and the outcome measures, also adjusted for potential clinical confounders (age at start, adj-HSDS at start, birth weight SDS, gestational age (<37 weeks vs ?37 weeks), GH dose, GH max (n = 58)). The formula of IoR already adjusts for confounders.ResultsIn total, 95 patients complied with the inclusion criteria. The strongest associations were found between high adherence in the second year (?91% as cut-off value) and IoR 2y (+0.62), and average adherence and high adherence (?78%) in the first two years and ?HSDS 0-2y (+0.11 SD per 1 injection/week, and +0.34 SD for high vs. low adherence).ConclusionSuboptimal adherence negatively affected the growth response in the first two years of GH treatment.

Project description:Background: The standard of care in management of hypothyroidism is treatment with levothyroxine (L-T4). Sometimes patients are dissatisfied with L-T4 and the combination of levo-triiodothyronine (L-T3) with L-T4 is considered. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reporting how often hypothyroid patients prefer combination L-T3/L-T4 treatment to L-T4 alone. We also explored for explanatory factors for combination therapy preference in sensitivity analyses examining trial, patient, and disease characteristics. Potential dose-response relationships were explored using meta-regression analyses. We searched 9 electronic databases (from inception until February, 2019), supplemented with a hand-search. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and citations and reviewed full-text papers, with consensus achieved on the included studies. Two reviewers independently critically appraised the quality of included studies and abstracted the data. Random effects meta-analyses were reported for the percentage of patients preferring combination L-T3/T-T4 therapy over L-T4 alone. A binomial distribution of choices (i.e., preference of combination therapy or no preference for combination therapy) was assumed. Results: We included 7 blinded RCTs including 348 hypothyroid individuals in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence rate for preference of combination therapy over L-T4 was 46.2% (95% confidence interval 40.2%, 52.4%) (p = 0.231 for the difference from chance). There was no significant statistical heterogeneity among study results (Q = 7.32, degrees of freedom = 6, p = 0.293, I 2 = 18.0%). In sensitivity analyses, combination treatment preference was explained in part by treatment effects on TSH concentration, mood and symptoms, but not quality of life nor body weight. In a secondary dose-response meta-regression analyses, a statistically significant association of treatment preference was identified for total daily L-T3 dose, but not L-T3:L-T4 dose ratio. Conclusions: In conclusion, in RCTs in which patients and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation, approximately half of participants reported preferring combination L-T3 and L-T4 therapy compared to L-T4 alone; this finding was not distinguishable from chance. An observed potential positive L-T3 dose effect on treatment preference deserves further study, with careful consideration of thyroid biochemical indices and patient reported outcomes.