Injection systems for two luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists: A comparative assessment of administration times and nurses’ perceptions

Morgan, Gwyneth; Cooley, Candy

doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2005.02.001

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data accord with those of other studies with SSAs,12 and other injected therapies such as luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists,6 finding that significantly less time was needed to reconstitute and inject the therapeutic agent when using a ready-to-use depot system than syringe and vial. A European cost–consequence study based on administration time and clogging data from the present study suggests these factors may contribute to cost savings with prefilled devices such as lanreotide-ND 13…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Preference studies in other therapeutic areas show that nurses prefer prefilled systems that avoid the need for reconstitution over vial systems; device attributes such as reliability and safety precautions are also important 6,7. The procedure for administering octreotide LAR requires reconstitution that can involve up to seven steps before injection,8 and must be carried out by a trained health professional, using vial and syringe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of long-acting somatostatin analog injection devices by nurses: a quantitative study

Adelman¹,

Burgess²,

Davies³

2012

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The somatostatin analogs (SSAs) lanreotide Autogel/Depot and octreotide long-acting release are used to treat acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumors. The present study evaluated opinions on SSA injection devices, including a recently approved lanreotide new device (lanreotide-ND), among nurses in Europe and the USA. Nurses injecting SSAs for at least three patients per year (n = 77) were interviewed regarding SSA devices. Device attributes were rated via questionnaire; nurses were then timed administering test injections with lanreotide-ND and octreotide long-acting release. The most important delivery system attributes were easy/convenient preparation and injection (ranked in the top five by 70% of nurses), low clogging risk (58%), and high product efficacy (55%). Compared with the octreotide long-acting release device, lanreotide-ND scored higher on 15/16 attributes, had shorter mean preparation and administration time (329 versus 66 seconds, respectively; P ≤ 0.01) and a higher overall preference score (70 versus 114, respectively; P ≤ 0.01). The five most important lanreotide-ND attributes were: prefilled device, confidence a full dose was delivered, low clogging risk, easy/convenient preparation and injection, and fast administration. These device features could lead to improvements in clinical practice and benefit patients/caregivers who administer SSAs at home.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of long-acting somatostatin analog injection devices by nurses: a quantitative study

Adelman¹,

Burgess²,

Davies³

2012

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). From these, 16 direct comparison studies met the inclusion criteria; 12 reported efficacy outcomes (Table 3) [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42], four reported safety and tolerability data (Table 4) [35,36,40,43], and five reported on the convenience of administration/user perceptions of GnRH agonists (Table 5) [35,[43][44][45][46].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The perceptions of users (patients and/or nurses) of GnRH agonists were evaluated in five studies (Table ). In a comparative study of the administration processes, nurses preferred the goserelin to the leuprorelin injection system . The injection of leuprorelin is performed with a 23‐G needle under the supervision of a physician .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are all gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonists equivalent for the treatment of prostate cancer? A systematic review

Bolton

Lynch

2018

BJU International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To review direct comparative studies of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprorelin for the treatment of prostate cancer, and identify whether there are meaningful clinical differences between these agents. In June 2017, the following searches were performed independently by two reviewers in PubMed: (i) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'leuprorelin', (ii) 'prostate cancer' and 'triptorelin' and 'goserelin', and (iii) 'prostate cancer' and 'goserelin' and 'leuprorelin', without time restriction. Duplicates were deleted. Relevant conference abstracts were also screened. A total of 16 direct comparative trials were identified: 12 reported on efficacy outcomes, four on safety/tolerability, and five on the convenience of administration/user perceptions. These studies are restricted in terms of patient numbers, formulations assessed, and endpoints measured; none were adequately powered for survival outcome measures. Studies reporting on efficacy endpoints did not show major differences in the ability of these GnRH agonists to reduce levels of testosterone or prostate-specific antigen. Some studies suggest differences in short- or long-term testosterone control, the rate of injection site adverse events, and patient/healthcare professional perceptions, but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing evidence. Few direct comparative trials of GnRH agonists have been conducted. Whilst GnRH agonists provide a similar castration effect, there is not enough evidence to show that GnRH agonists are equivalent.

show abstract

“…49 The leuprorelin acetate and goserelin acetate implants have the advantage of being ready to use compared with the other formulations, which may need reconstitution with vigorous mixing and administration immediately or within 0.5−2 h. [9][10][11][12][13]16,17 Leuprorelin acetate powder for reconstitution also requires time to reach room temperature following storage at 2-8 o C. 10 In a study investigating nurses' perceptions of LHRH agonist therapies, more nurses preferred an implant formulation and perceived it as being easy to use and having a good safety profile versus a formulation requiring reconstitution. 38 Administration time, comprising preparation and delivery, has been shown to be significantly shorter with implants versus reconstituted formulations. 16,38 There is a lack of data comparing the ease of use of the different LHRH implants but, in clinical practice, the technique for injecting has been found to be easier with the leuprorelin acetate implant than the buserelin acetate implant.…”

Section: A Nurse's Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

Meani

Solarić

Visapää

et al. 2017

Therapeutic Advances in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Injection systems for two luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists: A comparative assessment of administration times and nurses’ perceptions

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluation of long-acting somatostatin analog injection devices by nurses: a quantitative study

Evaluation of long-acting somatostatin analog injection devices by nurses: a quantitative study

Are all gonadotrophin‐releasing hormone agonists equivalent for the treatment of prostate cancer? A systematic review

Practical differences between luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in prostate cancer: perspectives across the spectrum of care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About