This is an open label randomized 24 week crossover trial assessing the treatment burden of a weekly growth hormone injection regimen (somatrogon) compared to a daily growth hormone injection regimen (Genotropin). Approximately 90 children with growth hormone deficiency who have been stable on treatment with daily Genotropin will be enrolled.
Subjects will be randomized to one of two sequences, either 12 weeks of continued treatment with daily Genotropin followed by 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon, or 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon followed by 12 weeks of treatment with daily Genotropin. Subjects will have study visits at Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. Subjects will also be followed up by phone 8 to 12 days after each treatment period begins (Week 1 and Week 13). Subjects and caregivers (as a Dyad) will complete questionnaires assessing treatment burden at baseline and at the end of each 12 week treatment period. All subjects/caregivers will receive a follow up phone call at Week 28.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
87
Genotropin (dose \[mg\] at time of enrollment) given subcutaneously once daily
0.66 mg/kg/week given subcutaneously once weekly
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time frame: Week 12
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Center of Excellence in Diabetes and Endocrinology
Sacramento, California, United States
Children's Hospital Colorado
Aurora, Colorado, United States
Rocky Mountain Pediatric Endocrinology
Centennial, Colorado, United States
Pediatric Endocrine Associates, PC
Greenwood Village, Colorado, United States
Nemours Children's Health System
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Nemours Children's Specialty Care
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Nemours Biomedical Research
Orlando, Florida, United States
Nemours Children's Hospital
Orlando, Florida, United States
Nemours Children's Clinic
Pensacola, Florida, United States
Shriners Hospitals for Children
Tampa, Florida, United States
...and 22 more locations
Time frame: Week 24
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "If you were given the choice between the daily growth hormone injection pen and the weekly growth hormone injection pen, which pen would you choose?" Response was: 1) the daily injection pen (Genotropin) or 2) the weekly injection pen (Somatrogon).
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule do you prefer overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) prefer the weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) prefer the daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no preference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was more convenient overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) weekly injection schedule was more convenient (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule was more convenient (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool "Which growth hormone injection schedule was easier to follow overall?" by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) easier to follow weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) easier to follow daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which pen was easier to use?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool. Question had 4 parts: preparing the injection pen (Part I), setting the dose (Part II), injecting the medicine (Part III) and storing the pen (Part IV). Participants/caregiver expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly pen easier to use (Somatrogon); 2) daily pen easier to use (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant life interference. Participants were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). The participants expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Caregivers of participants were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference. The caregivers responded for the participants, and in actual they respond to the number of participants only but per caregiver responses.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/ caregiver were asked a question "Which injection schedule interfered less?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to family life interference and assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question "How beneficial was to take injections less often?" from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool pertaining to benefit relating to the Injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= extremely beneficial, 2= very beneficial, 3= moderately beneficial, 4= slightly beneficial and 5= not at all beneficial. Lower score of benefit relating to injection schedule meant a better outcome.
Time frame: Week 24
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire
Participants/caregiver dyads were asked 4 questions "Which schedule would be better able to follow?" (Question 1), "Which schedule would be more likely to follow for a longer time?" (Question 2), "Which schedule would be better able to follow for a longer time?" (Question 3) and "Which schedule would be more likely to follow?" (Question 4) from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant intention to comply with treatment. Options for each question were: 1) weekly injection (Somatrogon) 2) daily injection (Genotropin), or 3) no difference.
Time frame: Week 24
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study
The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24