Evaluation of the efficacy，safety and cost-effectiveness of different formulations of short-acting rhGH in the treatment of patients with short stature
- VernacularTitle:不同剂型短效rhGH治疗矮小症患者的有效性、安全性及经济性评价
- Author:
Zhuoting ZHENG
1
,
2
;
Yilong LIU
2
;
Xiaomao QIN
2
;
Zhen ZENG
2
;
Run YAN
2
;
Enwu LONG
1
Author Information
1. School of Pharmacy，Southwest Medical University，Sichuan Luzhou 646000，China
2. Dept. of Pharmacy，Leshan People’s Hospital，Sichuan Leshan 614000，China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
recombinant human growth hormone;
formulation;
efficacy;
safety;
cost-effectiveness;
short stature;
growth
- From:
China Pharmacy
2025;36(9):1111-1116
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy， safety， and cost-effectiveness of two different formulations of short-acting recombinant human growth hormone （rhGH） in the treatment of patients with short stature. METHODS Data from patients with short stature treated with short-acting rhGH at the Leshan People’s Hospital from August 2016 to June 2023 were collected. Patients were divided into powder formulation group and aqueous formulation group based on the rhGH formulation used. The changes in growth-related efficacy indicators and the occurrence of adverse drug reactions were compared between two groups after 12 months of treatment； cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were used to compare the cost per unit of effect achieved； subgroup analysis was performed by dividing the patients into growth hormone deficiency （GHD） subgroup and idiopathic short stature （ISS） subgroup based on clinical diagnosis. RESULTS After 12 months of treatment， the height and the levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 in serum in aqueous formulation group and powder formulation group were significantly increased compared to before treatment （P＜0.001）， but there was no statistically significant difference in the changes of the above indicators between the two groups（P＞0.05）. The analysis results of GHD and ISS subgroups were consistent with the overall population. In the overall population， the cost-effectiveness ratio of powder formulation group （2 582 yuan/cm） was significantly better than that of aqueous formulation group （6 729 yuan/cm）， with a statistically significant difference （P＜0.001）， and the result was consistent in the GHD and ISS subgroups as well as in the sensitivity analysis. No serious adverse drug reactions occurred in either powder formulation or aqueous formulation group， and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of various adverse reactions between two groups （P＞0.05）. CONCLUSIONS Short-acting rhGH powder and aqueous formulations have equivalent efficacy and safety， but the powder formulation has greater economic advantages.
