Treatment Burden of Weekly Somatrogon vs Daily Somatropin in Children With Growth Hormone Deficiency: A Randomized Study

Context: Somatrogon is a long-acting recombinant human growth hormone treatment developed as a once-weekly treatment for pediatric patients with growth hormone deficiency (GHD). / Objective: Evaluate patient and caregiver perceptions of the treatment burden associated with the once-weekly somatrogon injection regimen vs a once-daily Somatropin injection regimen. / Methods: Pediatric patients (≥3 to <18 years) with GHD receiving once-daily somatropin at enrollment were randomized 1:1 to Sequence 1 (12 weeks of once-daily Somatropin, then 12 weeks of once-weekly somatrogon) or Sequence 2 (12 weeks of once-weekly somatrogon, then 12 weeks of once-daily Somatropin). Treatment burden was assessed using validated questionnaires completed by patients and caregivers. The primary endpoint was the difference in mean overall life interference (LI) total scores after each 12-week treatment period (somatrogon vs Somatropin), as assessed by questionnaires. / Results: Of 87 patients randomized to Sequence 1 (n = 43) or 2 (n = 44), 85 completed the study. Once-weekly somatrogon had a significantly lower treatment burden than once-daily Somatropin, based on mean overall LI total scores after somatrogon (8.63) vs Somatropin (24.13) treatment (mean difference -15.49; 2-sided 95% CI -19.71, -11.27; P < .0001). Once-weekly somatrogon was associated with greater convenience, higher satisfaction with treatment experience, and less LI. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for Somatropin and somatrogon was 44.2% and 54.0%, respectively. No severe or serious AEs were reported. / Conclusion: In pediatric patients with GHD, once-weekly somatrogon had a lower treatment burden and was associated with a more favorable treatment experience than once-daily Somatropin

Electronically Verified Use of Internet-Based, Multimedia Decision Aids by Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers

Decision aids (DAs) are central to shared decision making (SDM) interventions, yet little is known about patients’ actual DA use. Adequate utilization of DAs could optimize SDM effectiveness. Electronic DAs enable more objective tracking and analysis of actual DA utilization than do paper DAs. This report is part of an ongoing randomized controlled SDM trial enrolling adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers ( n = 153) who were considering use of an insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor. Extensive stakeholder engagement guided creation of two online DAs. After completing baseline measures, 133 dyads were randomized to SDM (access to the pertinent DA) or Usual Care (clinic routines for preparing candidates for adopting these devices). Utilization data showed that 80% of caregivers and 66% of youths logged into a DA at least once; youths and caregivers, respectively, dedicated a mean of 44.7 and 55.0 minutes to website use and viewed 72.2% and 77.4% of the DA content. Median total duration from enrollment to last DA logout was 48.2 days for adolescents and 45.6 days for caregivers. Bivariate comparisons showed that non-Hispanic, Caucasian females from households with higher socioeconomic status were significantly more likely to login to the assigned DA at least once. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that adolescent males with lower levels of health literacy demonstrated fewer DA logins ( F = 2.59; P < 0.009), but identified no significant predictors of adolescents’ or caregiver’ duration of DA use or proportion of DA content viewed. Future SDM trials should seek to promote DA use, especially by non-White adolescents, perhaps with direct assistance with the initial DA login. Trials employing electronic DAs should routinely report and analyze utilization data

Plain language summary for the manuscript: Understanding the burden of weekly somatrogon injections compared with daily somatropin injections in children with growth hormone deficiency

This is a plain language summary (PLS) of an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This PLS is not peer-reviewed. The publisher of the original manuscript was not involved in the preparation of this PLS and has neither reviewed nor approved its content.</p