12481 Evaluating The Device Handling And Preference Assessment Questionnaire For Growth Hormone Deficiency: Results From Content Validation Interviews

Abstract

Abstract Disclosure: J. Neergaard: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. S. Akhtar: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. B. Berg: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. S. Hamilton: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. E. Hildebrand: Consulting Fee; Self; Novo Nordisk. J. Medina: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. G. Ter-Borch: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. N. Rasmussen: Employee; Self; Novo Nordisk. Stock Owner; Self; Novo Nordisk. Background: Patient experiences with injection devices may affect treatment adherence, and hence it is important to ensure patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments used to assess experience are supported by evidence of validity. As part of a study that compared patient preference and ease of use between the devices used to administer Somapacitan (Sogroya®, Novo Nordisk A/S) and Somatrogon (Ngenla®, Pfizer), we assessed relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehension of a PRO instrument, the Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire (DHPAQ), in adolescent patients with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and their caregivers. Methods: We recruited 33 adolescent patients with GHD and 37 caregivers across five sites in the US for an open label, randomized, crossover study in which participants simulated an injection with each device using an injection pad or mannequin. The DHPAQ was used to assess patients’ device preference. Two-sided statistical tests with 5% significance levels were performed using DHPAQ responses. After completing the DHPAQ, a random subgroup of 10 adolescents and 10 caregivers were offered additional compensation to participate in a cognitive interview (CI). The CIs were conducted in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration 2022 Principles for PRO Instruments and 2009 PRO Guidance for Industry. Trained interviewers used a structured guide to evaluate questions, statements, tasks and response options in the DHPAQ. Participants’ interview responses for each question were coded and added to summary tables. These summary tables were evaluated by the study team to determine the relevance, comprehensiveness and participant comprehension of instructions, item stems and response options. Results: When asked if any questions in the DHPAQ did not seem relevant to their device experience, all 20 CI participants answered “no”. Questions on “learning how to use the device”, “selecting the correct dose” and “injecting the dose” were ranked as most relevant. Participants responses from the CIs supported perceived comprehensiveness of all DHPAQ items. All CI participants reported comprehension of all test items in the DHPAQ, and only three items did not receive a “no difficulty” response from all 20 participants. In the main study, the number of participants who preferred the somapacitan device was significantly greater than those who preferred the somatrogon device (84.3% vs 12.9%, p<0.0001). More participants found the somapacitan device easy or very easy to use compared with the somatrogon device (98.6% vs 74.3%). Conclusions: The results from the CIs indicated that the instructions, item stems and response options of the DHPAQ were relevant, comprehensive and fully comprehended by all participants. In the main study, patients with GHD and their caregivers were found to prefer the somapacitan device to the somatrogon device. Presentation: 6/2/2024