ESPE Abstracts (2014) 82 P-D-2-3-447

Growth Hormone (2)

Efficacy, Adherence, and Cost Study According to Pathology and Treatment Devices in Children Treated with GHRH

Ignacio Diez-Lopeza, Ainhoa Sarasua-Mirandaa, Miriam Miriam Elizaldea, Isabel Lorente-Blazqueza, Cristina Minguezb & Carlos Martínez-Martínezb


aChildren’s Endocrinology Section, Pediatric Service, Vitoria/Basque Country, Spain; bPharmacy Service, University Hospital of Alava, Vitoria/Basque Country, Spain

Background: Currently there are three distinct groups of GH devices: single dose (JM), preloaded pen/vial (VM) systems and electronic devices (DE) autoinjector systems. The choice could determine a greater or lesser adherence and thus influence the final treatment efficacy.

Objective: Comparison of the therapeutic efficacy as measured by growth rate (VC), IGF1 as a function of various clinical variables, indicating GH and device used.

Method: Observational study retroprospective from comparative clinical registry, analytical control, and pharmaceutical data base regarding prescribed dispensed mg: single dose (JM) vs multidose vials (VM) vs electronic devices (DE). One year study 2012 (full 12 months).

Results: 86 patients enrolled, of which 86 (100%) were valid. 46/86 (50%) girls. Mean age 9.97 years (4–16). Pubescent 56/86 (65%). Deficit partial/total 50/86 (58%), PEG 17/86 (19%) Turner 4/86 (5%), dysfunction/inactive GH 13/86 (15%) and other 2/65 (3%) (JM Global distribution: 38/86 (44%), VM: 22/86 (26%) OF: 26/86 (30%) of 12 patients collected less medication (14%) and of these three were noncompliant (3.5%). Although the final expenditure is lower in mg JM, the distribution of collecting less medication and defaulting is similar in each device group, slightly higher in the group of partial/total deficit (16 vs 5%) and pubertal (15 vs 4%), and equal in both sexes. The VC and IGF1 was significantly lower in the non-adherent. The number of patients collected less medication is distributed evenly across each of the subgroups.

Conclusion: The use of different devices does not seem to influence compliance, time with treatment (pubescent and deficit), and patient autonomy (puberty).

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.

My recently viewed abstracts

No recent abstracts.