+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use and preference among three prefilled, disposable growth hormone injection pens



Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use and preference among three prefilled, disposable growth hormone injection pens



Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 10(12): 1603-1612



Growth hormone (GH) therapy is an effective treatment for growth failure in children. Adherence rates are often low, resulting in poor linear growth. Intuitive and easy-to-use injection devices may improve adherence. To determine injection time, ease of use, intuitiveness and subjects' preference for Norditropin FlexPro (FP) pen (Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark) versus Genotropin GoQuick (GQ; Pfizer Inc., USA) and Norditropin NordiFlex (NF; Novo Nordisk) pens. Subjects aged ≥ 10 to < 18 years, with GH deficiency, Turner syndrome or short stature following small-for-gestational-age birth were randomized to intuitiveness (no instruction) or instruction groups. Time taken to perform an injection, dose accuracy and errors were recorded. Intuitiveness, ease-of-learning and overall preference were assessed using questionnaires. Sixty-four subjects, randomized to intuitiveness (n = 32; mean [SD] age, 13.1 [2.1] years) and instruction (n = 32; 13.4 [2.0] years) groups, required less time to perform the injection with FP than with GQ (mean [SD], intuitiveness 39.8 s [17.0] vs. 65.6 s [42.9], p < 0.01; instruction 40.7 s [19.7] vs. 48.1 s [25.8], p < 0.05), and a similar amount of time with NF. NF and FP were more accurate than GQ (intuitiveness group only). Fewer errors were recorded with NF followed by FP and GQ. FP and NF were considered easier to learn than GQ in both groups. In the intuitiveness group, the majority of subjects (31/32) felt confident using FP without instruction. FP was the device of overall preference in both groups. FP was the device that was most intuitive, easiest to use and the device of overall preference.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052236713

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24073645

DOI: 10.1517/17425247.2013.829451


Related references

Intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference of a prefilled growth hormone injection pen: a noninterventional, randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative usability study of three delivery devices in growth hormone-treated pediatric patients. Clinical Therapeutics 32(11): 1918-1934, 2010

Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference in two insulin pens. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 3(2): 312-319, 2009

Ease of use and patient preference injection simulation study comparing two prefilled insulin pens. Current Medical Research and Opinion 26(7): 1745-1753, 2010

Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience. Patient Preference and Adherence 8: 1061-1071, 2014

Psychometric assessment of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ): measuring ease of use and preference with injection pens for human growth hormone. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 10: 126, 2012

Ease of use and preference for a new disposable self-injection pen compared with a reusable pen for administering recombinant human growth hormone: A multicenter, 2-month, single-arm, open-label clinical trial in patient-caregiver dyads. Clinical Therapeutics 32(12): 2036-2047, 2010

Results from an international multicenter trial evaluating the ease-of-use of and preference for a newly developed disposable injection pen for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency in treatment-naïve children and adults. Medical Devices 7: 61-71, 2014

Healthcare professional and patient assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus two widely available prefilled insulin pens for ease of use, teaching and learning. Current Medical Research and Opinion 28(1): 3, 2012

A prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism and a lower injection force than other prefilled insulin pens. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 13(12): 1207-1211, 2011

United States patient preference and usability for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus other disposable pens. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2(6): 1157-1160, 2008

Engineering study comparing injection force and dose accuracy between two prefilled insulin injection pens. Current Medical Research and Opinion 25(12): 2829-2833, 2009

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative,two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clinical Therapeutics 25(11): 2836-2848, 2003

Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 8(10): 1259-1269, 2011

Panel discussion: prefilled disposable syringes. I Development aspects of prefilled disposable syringes. Bulletin of the Parenteral Drug Association 23(1): 6-8, 1969

Panel discussion: Prefilled disposable syringes. 2 Development aspects of prefilled disposable syringes. Bulletin of the Parenteral Drug Association 23(1): 8, 1969