Patient and nurse evaluation of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone administration methods: comparison of two follitropin injection pens

References

• Eppstein DA, Longenecker JP. Alternative delivery systems for peptides and proteins as drugs. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1988;5:99–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahato RI, Narang AS, Thoma L, et al. Emerging trends in oral delivery of peptide and protein drugs. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 2003;20:153–214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikland M, Borg J, Hamberger L, et al. Simplification of IVF: minimal monitoring and the use of subcutaneous highly purified FSH administration for ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1430–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frydman R, Belaisch-Allart J, Parneix I, et al. Comparison between flare up and down regulation effects of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1988;50:471–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Gunby J, Hughes EG, et al. Randomized controlled trial of follicle stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotrophin in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1392–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westergaard LG, Erb K, Laursen SB, et al. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in normogonadotropic women down-regulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2001;76:543–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Out HJ, Mannaerts BM, Driessen SG, et al. A prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon versus Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995;10:2534–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strehler E, Abt M, El-Danasouri I, et al. Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2001;75:332–6
   Google Scholar
• European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone. Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertil Steril 2002;78: 520–8
   Google Scholar
• Bergh C, Howles CM, Borg K, et al. Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH; Gonal-F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2133–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balasch J, Fabregues F, Penarrubia J, et al. Outcome from consecutive assisted reproduction cycles in patients treated with recombinant follitropin alfa filled-by-bioassay and those treated with recombinant follitropin alfa filled-by-mass. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:408–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markle RL, King PJ, Martin DB, et al. Characteristics of successful human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002;78(Suppl 1):S71–S72
   Google Scholar
• Kadiri A, Chraibi A, Marouan F, et al. Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998;41:15–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106:57–68
   Google Scholar
• Sucic M, Galic E, Cabrijan T, et al. Patient acceptance and reliability of new Humulin/Humalog 3.0 mL prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. Med Sci Monit 2002;8:P121–P126
   Google Scholar
• Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther 1998;20:486–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanestad BR, Albrektsen G. Quality of life, perceived difficulties in adherence to a diabetes regimen, and blood glucose control. Diabetic Med 1991;8:759–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettel LM, Scholl G, Bonaventura L, et al. Evaluation of a pen device for self-administration of recombinant human FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant anovulatory women undergoing ovulation induction. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:373–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang S, Kaplan B, Karande V, et al. Administration of recombinant human FSH (solution in cartridge) with a pen device in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:319–26
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craenmehr E, Bontje PM, Hoomans E, et al. Follitropin-beta administered by pen device has superior local tolerance compared with follitropin-alpha administered by conventional syringe. Reprod Biomed Online 2001;3:185–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Platteau P, Laurent E, Albano C, et al. An open, randomized single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin beta administered by a pen device with follitropin alpha administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1200–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassett RM, Driebergen R. Continued improvements in the quality and consistency of follitropin alfa, recombinant human FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10:169–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar