Adda Grimberg1, Chris Feudtner, Catherine M Gordon. 1. Diagnostic and Research Growth Center, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. grimberg@email.chop.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of insurance-mandated brand switches during the course of pediatric recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) treatment on clinical practice. METHODS: We e-mailed a 9-question, anonymous, Internet-based survey to active members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and yes/no answers. Free-text comments were solicited for further explanation of responses. Quantitative answers were tabulated. Each investigator independently coded the free-text responses; themes based on codes identified by all 3 investigators in a minimum of 5 different respondents' comments were compiled and organized. RESULTS: Of the 812 active members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society who were e-mailed the survey, 231 responded. Two hundred eight respondents reported switching a patient's regimen from one rhGH product to another, and of these, 50% experienced repeated switches. Switches occurred for each commercially available rhGH brand. Frequent concerns noted by respondents involved dosing errors and treatment lapses from having to learn a new device and impaired adherence related to patient-family frustration and anxiety. Anti-GH antibodies, measured by only 3 endocrinologists when switching a patient's regimen from one brand to another, were negative before and after the product switch. When a patient switched rhGH brands, the most frequently reported time involvement for endocrine office staff was 2 hours for paperwork, 1 hour for device instruction, and 1 hour for "other" (mostly related to telephone reassurance). CONCLUSION: GH brand switches may adversely affect patient care and burden pediatric endocrinology practices.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of insurance-mandated brand switches during the course of pediatric recombinant humangrowth hormone (rhGH) treatment on clinical practice. METHODS: We e-mailed a 9-question, anonymous, Internet-based survey to active members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and yes/no answers. Free-text comments were solicited for further explanation of responses. Quantitative answers were tabulated. Each investigator independently coded the free-text responses; themes based on codes identified by all 3 investigators in a minimum of 5 different respondents' comments were compiled and organized. RESULTS: Of the 812 active members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society who were e-mailed the survey, 231 responded. Two hundred eight respondents reported switching a patient's regimen from one rhGH product to another, and of these, 50% experienced repeated switches. Switches occurred for each commercially available rhGH brand. Frequent concerns noted by respondents involved dosing errors and treatment lapses from having to learn a new device and impaired adherence related to patient-family frustration and anxiety. Anti-GH antibodies, measured by only 3 endocrinologists when switching a patient's regimen from one brand to another, were negative before and after the product switch. When a patient switched rhGH brands, the most frequently reported time involvement for endocrine office staff was 2 hours for paperwork, 1 hour for device instruction, and 1 hour for "other" (mostly related to telephone reassurance). CONCLUSION: GH brand switches may adversely affect patient care and burden pediatric endocrinology practices.
Authors: Maria Victoria Borrás Pérez; Berit Kriström; Tomasz Romer; Mieczyslaw Walczak; Nadja Höbel; Markus Zabransky Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 4.162
Authors: Carlo L Acerini; David Segal; Sherwin Criseno; Kei Takasawa; Navid Nedjatian; Sebastian Röhrich; Mohamad Maghnie Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 5.555