Analysis of patient and nurse preferences for self-administered FSH injection devices in select European markets.
infertility
preference
prefilled pen device
recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone
urinary follicle-stimulating hormone
Journal
International journal of women's health
ISSN: 1179-1411
Titre abrégé: Int J Womens Health
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101531698
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
entrez:
22
1
2019
pubmed:
22
1
2019
medline:
22
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to assess product-specific features for a variety of self-administered injection devices and identify key factors that patients and nurses in select European markets find most important when selecting injection devices for self-administration of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone and urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone for fertility/reproductive therapy. Patients (N=402) in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium, as well as reproductive/fertility nurses (N=40) in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and the Czech Republic were surveyed. All patients were previously prescribed a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) treatment for either in vitro fertilization or ovulation induction. Patient and nurse preferences for attributes across all injection devices in the market were obtained via an online questionnaire and evaluated using the maximum differential scaling (MaxDiff) and conjoint analyses, which captured the relative importance of the selected FSH injection device attributes to determine specific qualities in overall product preference. Both the MaxDiff and conjoint analyses indicated that, for patients and nurses, the ideal FSH injection device would be a highly accurate, multi-use reusable pen injector with a dial-back function that would be easy for both use and education/instruction. Patients and nurses each selected attributes pertinent to their own experiences with the FSH injection device. Categorically, patients valued factors that resulted in minimal impact on daily life, including reduced injection volume to minimize injection-site pain, as well as a reusable device that would be easy to use; nurses placed greater value on a device that would be easy to teach in order to instruct the greatest number of patients while minimizing risk. Patient and nurse preferences were aligned on certain selected attributes of the FSH products. Although this study was an unbranded examination of attributes across all injection devices currently in the market, results demonstrated that the preferred product attributes were all characteristics of the Ovaleap
Identifiants
pubmed: 30662286
doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S175775
pii: ijwh-11-011
pmc: PMC6327888
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
11-21Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure This study was supported by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Teva provided a full review of the manuscript. P Zitoun received honoraria from Ferring and Teva. P Zitoun worked at the Clinique Pierre Cherest during the study and now works at American Hospital of Paris. J Parikh is a fertility consultant at Lister Fertility Clinic, London, UK. M Nijs is a lecturer at Origio, a Cooper Surgical Company. W Zhang is an employee of WG Consulting, whose work on this project was funded by Teva Global Health Economics & Outcomes Research. R Levy-Toledano was a consultant for Teva Europe Medical Affairs during the study and currently a consultant as Fertility Medical Director for Theramex HQ UK Limited. B Tang was Teva employee during the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Reprod Biomed Online. 2006 Mar;12(3):298-303
pubmed: 16569316
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Jul;15(1):31-7
pubmed: 17623531
Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1043-8
pubmed: 18053995
Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Mar;24(3):727-35
pubmed: 18230195
Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Apr;18(4):502-8
pubmed: 19400991
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):590-602
pubmed: 20603286
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010 Sep 15;8:111
pubmed: 20843323
Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1790-8
pubmed: 21558333
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:315-31
pubmed: 21792303
Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011 Sep;8(9):1111-20
pubmed: 21843107
Hum Reprod. 2012 Mar;27(3):760-9
pubmed: 22240210
Hum Reprod. 2012 Apr;27(4):941-50
pubmed: 22258661
Hum Reprod. 2012 Apr;27(4):1073-9
pubmed: 22313869
Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012 Aug;9(8):893-900
pubmed: 22703331
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012 Nov 20;10:93
pubmed: 23167906
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014 Jun 05;8:813-26
pubmed: 24940048
Hum Reprod. 2015 Feb;30(2):331-7
pubmed: 25432926
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2014 Oct-Dec;7(4):236-48
pubmed: 25624659
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015 Jun 29;11:995-1001
pubmed: 26170678