| Literature DB >> 31612358 |
Daphne T Adelman1, Dirk Van Genechten2,3, Clémentine M Megret4, Xuan-Mai T Truong Thanh5, Philippa Hand6, Wendy A Martin7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the previous lanreotide autogel/depot syringe had been well received, feedback indicated that improvements could be made to make it more user-friendly. Additionally, the view that patients should have greater involvement in the research and development process is echoed by the International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance. A series of studies aimed to develop and validate a new syringe that works better for patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) by involving these groups at key stages in the development and testing process.Entities:
Keywords: Acromegaly; Autogel; Caregivers; Depot; Lanreotide; Neuroendocrine tumours; Nurses; Patients; Syringe
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31612358 PMCID: PMC6860467 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01112-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Ther ISSN: 0741-238X Impact factor: 3.845
Fig. 1Study design.
Human factor validation study participant demographics
| HCPs | GEP-NET groupa ( | Acromegaly groupb ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Untrained HCPs ( | Trained HCPs ( | All ( | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Female | 15 | 15 | 30 | 11 | 8 |
| Age | |||||
| 18–34 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 4 |
| 35–60 | 13 | 11 | 24 | 6 | 7 |
| 60+ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Professional title | |||||
| RN | 12 | 10 | 22 | – | – |
| Physician | 5 | 4 | 9 | – | – |
| NP | 2 | 2 | 4 | – | – |
| Injection experience | |||||
| Experienced | 19 | 16 | 35 | 12 | 10 |
| Inexperienced | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 |
| Experience with lanreotide autogel/depotc | |||||
| Yes | 4 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 0 |
| No | 15 | 11 | 26 | 12 | 15 |
| Hand sized | |||||
| Small | 7 | 8 | 15 | 7 | 3 |
| Medium | 7 | 7 | 14 | 7 | 7 |
| Large | 5 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Handedness | |||||
| Right | 18 | 13 | 31 | 15 | 12 |
| Left/ambidextrous | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
HCP healthcare professional, GEP-NET gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumour, RN registered nurse, NP nurse practitioner
aIncludes patients with GEP-NETs (n = 7) and caregivers/representatives (n = 11)
bRepresentatives with acromegaly had carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 7), diabetic neuropathy (n = 4) and osteoarthritis (n = 6)
cParticipants were asked: have you ever used a product called Somatuline® autogel/depot (lanreotide)? Have you ever used any other types of somatostatin therapies? If so, which one?
dParticipants subjectively provided hand size
Summary of design changes following the formative studies
| Formative study | Comments during user study | Impact on design |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Small and simple needle cap with grids | Development of grey cap with a rubber grid material |
| No needle shroud | No needle shroud will be added owing to development of needle cap | |
| Curved finger flanges with heavy texture/rubber grips | Two prototypes created (mono-material and biomaterial for cover and overcap) | |
| Plunger protector | Plunger protector is retained | |
| Clear and relatively thin body | Body of the device will remain clear | |
| Visual completion indicator on the middle of the device | Visual indicator to show dose delivery is not necessary. Retain transparent body so participant can see if dose has been delivered | |
| Audible completion indicator | Audible sound was not added (implementation could be difficult and could increase the risk of misuse) | |
| 2 | Clear, useful and easy to find drug label | No impact on the design |
| Font label on device label was too small | No design change. Font label updated and evaluated in formative study 4 | |
| Clear device cover allows for visual inspection of drug integrity | Syringe body will stay transparent | |
| Larger design of device cover was sturdier than currently marketed version | No impact on the design | |
| Concave, ribbed thumb pad on plunger provides more stability | No impact on the design | |
| Needle was easy to remove after injection | No impact on the design | |
| Plunger protector with arrows is intuitive to use and remove | Plunger protector is kept with arrows | |
| Plunger was too long and may be difficult for smaller hands to use | Nurses were able to inject correctly but expressed concerns about the device size; further investigation in formative study 4 | |
| Rubber coating on finger flanges is not necessary | Rubber on the flanges removed | |
| Would prefer to have a needle retraction mechanism | No needle shroud. Needle retraction safety system is kept | |
| Overcap was difficult to remove; would prefer a “twist-and-pull” method of removal | Verify ergonomics of the overcaps in formative study 3 | |
| Would prefer an audible click to signal injection is complete | Audible sound not added to the device owing to technical evaluation ruling it could increase the risk of misuse (and would be difficult to implement) | |
| 3 | The rubber coating would increase the perception of the quality of the device | Rubber grip is nice to have but is not a must-have |
| Raise user’s attention to the importance of pressing plunger until total administration of the dose. Provide clear instructions to avoid misuse | The sentence ‘give plunger a final push to make sure you cannot depress the plunger further’ is in the current IFU and will be in the IFU of the new injection system | |
| The coloured arrow would help user to remove the plunger protector | Arrows on the plunger protector are nice to have but not a must-have. No misuse was reported linked to non-coloured arrow. The user study 4 will be done without the coloured arrows to assess the necessity | |
| The IFU is already clear but still fine-tuning to be made | No impact on the device design | |
| The coloured device will optimise visibility and usage. Yellow is the preferred colour | Colour of the device is nice to have but is not a must-have. Following evaluation, there is a recommendation not to change the colour of the plunger | |
| New device is better suited for self-injection compared to current devices | No impact on the design | |
| 4 | All participants succeeded in engaging the needle safety mechanism | No impact on the design |
| All participants succeeded in pushing the plunger to the bottom of the syringe without breaking the plunger | No impact on the design | |
| All participants succeeded in delivering a full dose | No impact on the design | |
| One participant initially tried to inject without removing the plunger protector and overcap, considering the device as auto-injector | Plunger protector is replaced by a tray following a risk evaluation | |
| Most participants did not initially remove the IFU from the box and indicated they would not normally refer to the IFU prior to delivering the injection | The risk is identical to the current marketed product. Modification of the drawings of the IFU | |
| Some participants did not visually check that a full dose had been administered, but rather considered the tactile feedback of the plunger reaching the bottom of the syringe to be sufficient confirmation | Different ways permit confirmation that the plunger is pushed completely: transparent body and cover; tactile feedback of the plunger reaching the bottom of the syringe; indication on IFU to give a final push All participants were able to inject a full dose because the safety mechanism was activated. No impact on the device | |
| Some participants initially tried to twist the overcap rather than pull | No safety issue because participants were able to remove the overcap at the end. No change on the overcap design | |
| A few participants pinched the skin rather than flattening the injection site | The risk is identical to the current marketed product. Modification of the illustrations and instructions of the IFU | |
| Participants did not wash hands either before or after the injection | The risk is identical to the current marketed product. Modification of the illustrations of the IFU | |
| One EU participant accidentally pulled out the plunger support whilst trying to remove the needle cap | Syringe body: improvement of the interface between the proximal end of the syringe body and the tip of the plunger rod to prevent tear off |
IFU instructions for use
Fig. 2Comparison of the A currently marketed and the B updated lanreotide autogel/depot syringe