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

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.