Díez López I1, Sarasua Miranda A2, Lorente Blázquez I2, Mínguez AC3, Martínez Martínez C3
1 Unidad de Endocrino Infantil. Servicio de Pediatría. Hospital Universitario Araba. Vitoria. UPV-EHU. Facultad de Medicina. Vitoria (España)
2 Unidad de Endocrino Infantil. Servicio de Pediatría. Hospital Universitario Araba. Vitoria (España)
3 Servicio de Farmacia. Hospital Universitario Araba. Vitoria (España)
Fecha de recepción: 17/04/2018 – Fecha de aceptación: 16/06/2018
Correspondencia: Ignacio Díez López w Hospital Universitario Araba (Servicio de Pediatría) w C/Jose Atxotegi, s/n w 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava (España)
ignacio.diezlopez@osakidetza.eus
____
Summary
Objetive: Determine the actual use of the growth hormone (GH) in the paediatric population from a reference center on pediatric endocrinology (Álava/Spain): the doses of drug used and their associated costs for the approved GH pharmaceutical forms. This would allow establishing strategic improvements to optimize the treatment (adherence/ effectiveness).
Methods: Retrospective, observational study in the paediatric population treated with GH from a IIb center during 2012. The annual difference between doses (mg; dispensed vs. prescribed) was calculated per patient. The difference in cost, overall and for each pharmaceutical form (mono-dose [JM], multi-dose vials [MV] and electronic devices [ED]), was also calculated. In addition, an estimation of the administered mg and the cost in case of using only one of the pharmaceutical forms was made.
Results: Fifty-seven percent of patients collected less mg of GH than prescribed (12% of non compliant patients); it was dispensed 1.3% GH less than the prescribed. JM were the most frequently used devices. The highest difference between doses (dispensed vs. prescribed) was observed with MV, the only device that showed GH wastage. On the estimation based on each pharmaceutical form, it was determinate that JM and ED would allow the closest use to the prescribed, with a cost not much more expensive than the majority of the MV.
Conclusions: The main use of JM avoids the GH wastage. JM and ED devices were the ones which shown less deviation to the GH prescribed treatment (greater adherence). It use would involve better health outcomes, with costs not much higher than the VM.
Key words: Growth hormone, drug administration device, adherence, cost analysis.
____