Skip to content

Patient Perception of Treatment Burden in Weekly Versus Daily Growth Hormone Injections in Children With GHD

A PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, MULTICENTER, OPEN-LABEL, CROSSOVER STUDY ASSESSING SUBJECT PERCEPTION OF TREATMENT BURDEN WITH USE OF WEEKLY GROWTH HORMONE (SOMATROGON) VERSUS DAILY GROWTH HORMONE (GENOTROPIN (REGISTERED)) INJECTIONS IN CHILDREN WITH GROWTH HORMONE DEFICIENCY

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03831880
Enrollment
87
Registered
2019-02-06
Start date
2019-02-07
Completion date
2020-08-28
Last updated
2021-10-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Growth Hormone Deficiency

Brief summary

This is an open label randomized 24 week crossover trial assessing the treatment burden of a weekly growth hormone injection regimen (somatrogon) compared to a daily growth hormone injection regimen (Genotropin). Approximately 90 children with growth hormone deficiency who have been stable on treatment with daily Genotropin will be enrolled.

Detailed description

Subjects will be randomized to one of two sequences, either 12 weeks of continued treatment with daily Genotropin followed by 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon, or 12 weeks of treatment with weekly somatrogon followed by 12 weeks of treatment with daily Genotropin. Subjects will have study visits at Baseline, Weeks 6, 12, 18, and 24. Subjects will also be followed up by phone 8 to 12 days after each treatment period begins (Week 1 and Week 13). Subjects and caregivers (as a Dyad) will complete questionnaires assessing treatment burden at baseline and at the end of each 12 week treatment period. All subjects/caregivers will receive a follow up phone call at Week 28.

Interventions

Genotropin (dose \[mg\] at time of enrollment) given subcutaneously once daily

0.66 mg/kg/week given subcutaneously once weekly

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
3 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Children aged 3 years old and \<18 years with either isolated GHD, or GH insufficiency. 2. Currently on treatment with either Genotropin Pen®, Genotropin GoQuick Pen®, HumatroPen® (United States of America \[USA\] only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only) ≥3 months and have been compliant on a stable dose (±10%) for at least 3 months prior to screening. 3. IGF I SDS \< 2. 4. Subjects on hormonal replacement therapy for other hypothalamic pituitary axis (HPA) hormonal deficiencies and/or diabetes insipidus must be on an optimized and stable treatment regimen, as determined by the Investigator, for at least 3 months prior to screening.

Exclusion criteria

1. History of leukemia, lymphoma, sarcoma or any other cancer. 2. History of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. 3. Children with psychosocial dwarfism. 4. Children born small for gestational age (SGA) - birth weight and/or birth length \< 2 SDS for gestational age. 5. Other causes of short stature such as uncontrolled primary hypothyroidism and rickets. 6. Chromosomal abnormalities including Turner's syndrome, Laron syndrome, Noonan syndrome, Prader Willi syndrome, Russell Silver syndrome, short stature homeobox (SHOX) mutations/deletions or skeletal dysplasias. 7. Treatment with regularly scheduled daily or weekly injectable medications other than Genotropin® Pen, Genotropin GoQuick®, HumatroPen® (USA only), or Omnitrope® Pen (USA only). 8. Diabetes Mellitus. 9. Current treatment with Genotropin MiniQuick. 10. History of any exposure to a long acting hGH preparation. 11. Known or suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive patient, or patient with advanced diseases such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or tuberculosis. 12. Drug, substance, or alcohol abuse. 13. Known hypersensitivity to the components of the medication. 14. Pregnant female subjects; breastfeeding female subjects; fertile male subjects and female subjects of childbearing potential who are unwilling or unable to use a highly effective method of contraception as outlined in this protocol for the duration of the study and for at least 28 days after the last dose of investigational product. 15. Other acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition including recent (within the past year) or active suicidal ideation or behavior or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk associated with study participation or investigational product administration or may interfere with the interpretation of study results and, in the judgment of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this study. 16. Investigator site staff members directly involved in the conduct of the study and their family members, site staff members otherwise supervised by the investigator, or subjects who are Pfizer employees, including their family members, directly involved in the conduct of the study. 17. Participation in other studies involving investigational drug(s) within 30 days prior to study entry and/or during study participation. 18. Patient and/or the parent/legal guardian are likely to be non-compliant with respect to study conduct. 19. Subject and/or the parent/legal guardian are unable to understand written and/or verbal instructions on the proper use of growth hormone injection devices. 20. Children with closed epiphyses (this determination can be based on available existing clinical data).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) QuestionnaireBaselineParticipants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 12Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Caregivers of participants were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference. The caregivers responded for the participants, and in actual they respond to the number of participants only but per caregiver responses.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/ caregiver were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to family life interference and assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question How beneficial was to take injections less often? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool pertaining to benefit relating to the Injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= extremely beneficial, 2= very beneficial, 3= moderately beneficial, 4= slightly beneficial and 5= not at all beneficial. Lower score of benefit relating to injection schedule meant a better outcome.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants/caregiver dyads were asked 4 questions Which schedule would be better able to follow? (Question 1), Which schedule would be more likely to follow for a longer time? (Question 2), Which schedule would be better able to follow for a longer time? (Question 3) and Which schedule would be more likely to follow? (Question 4) from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant intention to comply with treatment. Options for each question were: 1) weekly injection (Somatrogon) 2) daily injection (Genotropin), or 3) no difference.
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Baseline, Week 12, Week 24The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall StudyBaseline up to Week 24The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline, Week 12, Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Total Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline up to Week 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool If you were given the choice between the daily growth hormone injection pen and the weekly growth hormone injection pen, which pen would you choose? Response was: 1) the daily injection pen (Genotropin) or 2) the weekly injection pen (Somatrogon).
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule do you prefer overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) prefer the weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) prefer the daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no preference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule was more convenient overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) weekly injection schedule was more convenient (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule was more convenient (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule was easier to follow overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) easier to follow weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) easier to follow daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question Which pen was easier to use? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool. Question had 4 parts: preparing the injection pen (Part I), setting the dose (Part II), injecting the medicine (Part III) and storing the pen (Part IV). Participants/caregiver expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly pen easier to use (Somatrogon); 2) daily pen easier to use (Genotropin); 3) no difference.
Number of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireWeek 24Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant life interference. Participants were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). The participants expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline, Week 12, Week 24Blood samples were collected for determination of anti-somatrogon antibodies and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.
Number of Participants With Laboratory AbnormalitiesWeek 1 to Week 12, Week 13 to Week 24The laboratory abnormality parameters included Hematology: erythrocyte (Er.) mean corpuscular volume, Er. mean corpuscular hemoglobin:\<0.9\*lower limit normal (LLN), leukocytes:\<0.6\*LLN, lymphocytes:\<0.8\*LLN, neutrophils:\<0.8\*LLN, greater than (\>) 1.2\*upper limit normal (ULN), eosinophils, monocytes:\>1.2\*ULN. Clinical chemistry: bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin:\>1.5\*ULN, gamma glutamyl transferase:\>3.0\*ULN, albumin:\>1.2\*ULN, blood urea nitrogen:\>1.3\*ULN, urate:\>1.2\*ULN, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol:\<0.8\*LLN, potassium, magnesium:\>1.1\*ULN, phosphate:\>1.2\*ULN, bicarbonate:\<0.9\*LLN, creatine kinase:\>2.0\*ULN. Urinalysis: specific gravity:\>1.030, ketones, urine protein, urine hemoglobin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase:\>=1.
Number of Participants With Discontinuation Due to Adverse Events (AEs)Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. The discontinuations due to adverse events was defined for participants and reported in this outcome measure.
Number of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeverityBaseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)AEs were assessed and categorized according to the severity as mild (did not interfered with participant's usual function), moderate (interfered to some extent with participant's usual function) and severe (interfered significantly with participant's usual function).
Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline, Week 12, Week 24Blood samples were collected for determination of rhGH and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsBaseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that: resulted in death, was life threatening (immediate risk of death), required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions), resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as events that occurred between first dose of study drug up to 35 days after last dose of study drug. Related TEAEs were those AEs who had relation to the study treatment and was judged by investigator.

Countries

Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

107 participants were screened for study eligibility. 87 Participants, aged 3 to less than 18 years with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) on stable treatment with somatropin, were deemed eligible for enrollment and randomized to receive treatment.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly Somatrogon
Participants were randomized to receive Genotropin, daily subcutaneously at the same dose which they were receiving at the time of enrollment, for 12 weeks in Period 1. Period 1 was followed by Period 2, where participants received Somatrogon, weekly subcutaneously at a dose of 0.66 milligram per kilogram per week (mg/kg/week) for 12 weeks. There was no treatment wash-out period since these participants had to take growth hormone continually. Participants were followed up maximum for 35 days (5 weeks) after last dose of study drug.
43
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily Genotropin
Participants were randomized to receive Somatrogon, weekly subcutaneously at a dose of 0.66 mg/kg/week, for 12 weeks in Period 1. Period 1 was followed by Period 2, where participants continued to receive Genotropin, daily subcutaneously at the same dose which they were receiving at the time of enrollment, for 12 weeks. There was no treatment wash-out period since these participants had to take growth hormone continually. Participants were followed up maximum for 35 days after last dose of study drug.
44
Total87

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Period 1 (12 Weeks)Adverse event, not serious01
Period 2 (12 Weeks)Protocol Deviation01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicWeekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotalDaily Genotropin Then Weekly Somatrogon
Age, Continuous10.7 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.7
10.7 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.5
10.8 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.4
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants5 Participants3 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
42 Participants81 Participants39 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants4 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
42 Participants81 Participants39 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
6 Participants15 Participants9 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
38 Participants72 Participants34 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 860 / 87
other
Total, other adverse events
38 / 8647 / 87
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 860 / 87

Outcome results

Primary

Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire29.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Using Dyad Clinical Outcomes Assessment 1 (DCOA 1) Questionnaire27.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.8
Primary

Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Time frame: Week 12

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire25.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 12, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire7.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.8
Primary

Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire9.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire23.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.6
Primary

Total Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment burden using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. The participant life interference questionnaire component of the DCOA 1 had 7 questions (life interference \[5 questions\]: a measure of life interference \[daily activities/social activities/leisure/night away from home/travel\]; life interference-changes to life routine \[1 question\]: a measure of how often changes are made to life routine; and life interference-bother of growth hormone \[GH\] injections \[1 question\]: a measure of how often the growth hormone injections cause bother) and all questions used a 5-point scale: 1= never, 2= rarely, 3= sometimes, 4= often, 5= always. The overall life interference total score was sum of all 7 questions, scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant less life interference (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire24.13 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Overall Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire8.63 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19.71, -11.27]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Caregivers of participants were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference. The caregivers responded for the participants, and in actual they respond to the number of participants only but per caregiver responses.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference5 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon35 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon36 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference6 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon35 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon35 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference5 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon36 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference5 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon31 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference11 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon32 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference10 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon34 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon37 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference5 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon37 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Caregiver Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool If you were given the choice between the daily growth hormone injection pen and the weekly growth hormone injection pen, which pen would you choose? Response was: 1) the daily injection pen (Genotropin) or 2) the weekly injection pen (Somatrogon).

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon38 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon36 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Choice of Injection Pen Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin6 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule was more convenient overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) weekly injection schedule was more convenient (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule was more convenient (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon40 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Difference0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon40 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin2 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Difference0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule was easier to follow overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) easier to follow weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) easier to follow daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon38 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Difference0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon34 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Ease of Following Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Difference4 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/ caregiver were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to family life interference and assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). Preference was expressed by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference9 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon31 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference9 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon32 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference10 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon32 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon31 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference9 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference10 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon32 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference6 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon29 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference13 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon30 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference12 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon32 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference10 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon34 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon36 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Family Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants/caregiver dyads were asked 4 questions Which schedule would be better able to follow? (Question 1), Which schedule would be more likely to follow for a longer time? (Question 2), Which schedule would be better able to follow for a longer time? (Question 3) and Which schedule would be more likely to follow? (Question 4) from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant intention to comply with treatment. Options for each question were: 1) weekly injection (Somatrogon) 2) daily injection (Genotropin), or 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: Genotropin3 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: Somatrogon34 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: No Difference13 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: No Difference12 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: Somatrogon33 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: No Difference7 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: No Difference7 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: Somatrogon29 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: Somatrogon26 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: Genotropin1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: Genotropin1 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: No Difference9 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: Somatrogon32 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: No Difference8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: Somatrogon35 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: Genotropin1 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 3: No Difference6 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: Somatrogon31 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 4: Genotropin2 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: Somatrogon31 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: No Difference9 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 2: Genotropin2 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Intention to Comply Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireQuestion 1: Genotropin2 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question Which injection schedule interfered less? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant life interference. Participants were assessed for 5 activities: daily activities (Activity 1), social activities (Activity 2), recreation/leisure activities (Activity 3), spending night away from home (Activity 4) and travel (Activity 5). The participants expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly injection schedule interfered less (Somatrogon); 2) daily injection schedule interfered less (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference6 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon36 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference6 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon34 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon34 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon33 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference5 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin3 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference6 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon35 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: No Difference5 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Somatrogon31 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: Genotropin1 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 1: No Difference10 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Somatrogon34 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: Genotropin0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 2: No Difference8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Somatrogon33 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: Genotropin1 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 3: No Difference8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Somatrogon37 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: Genotropin1 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 4: No Difference4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Somatrogon37 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Participant Life Interference Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireActivity 5: Genotropin0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question Which pen was easier to use? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool. Question had 4 parts: preparing the injection pen (Part I), setting the dose (Part II), injecting the medicine (Part III) and storing the pen (Part IV). Participants/caregiver expressed their preference by choosing from any 1 option for each activity from: 1) weekly pen easier to use (Somatrogon); 2) daily pen easier to use (Genotropin); 3) no difference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: Genotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: No Difference28 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: Somatrogon29 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: Genotropin3 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: No difference10 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: Somatrogon21 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: Genotropin6 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: No Difference15 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: Somatrogon13 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: Genotropin16 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: No Difference13 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: Somatrogon12 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: No Difference12 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: Genotropin2 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: Genotropin8 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: No Difference26 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: Genotropin12 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: Somatrogon25 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: No Difference17 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: Genotropin4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart IV: Somatrogon14 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart I: No difference13 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart III: Somatrogon18 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnairePart II: Somatrogon17 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregivers responded to question from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool Which growth hormone injection schedule do you prefer overall? by choosing from any 1 option from: 1) prefer the weekly injection schedule (Somatrogon); 2) prefer the daily injection schedule (Genotropin); 3) no preference.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon40 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Preference0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSomatrogon37 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireGenotropin4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Responses to Preferred Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNo Preference1 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 2 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants/caregiver were asked a question How beneficial was to take injections less often? from Section II of the IPAQ PRO tool pertaining to benefit relating to the Injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= extremely beneficial, 2= very beneficial, 3= moderately beneficial, 4= slightly beneficial and 5= not at all beneficial. Lower score of benefit relating to injection schedule meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireExtremely Beneficial28 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireModerately Beneficial1 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNot At All Beneficial2 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireVery Beneficial11 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSlightly Beneficial0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireNot At All Beneficial2 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireExtremely Beneficial20 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireVery Beneficial14 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireModerately Beneficial3 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants as Per Response to Benefit Relating to the Injection Schedule Assessed at Week 24, Using DCOA 2 QuestionnaireSlightly Beneficial3 Participants
Secondary

Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24

The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Baseline15.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.8
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Week 1219.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.4
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Week 247.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.8
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Baseline16.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.2
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Week 124.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24Week 2422.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.4
Secondary

Patient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study

The PGIS-IDA rated the severity of the impact on daily activities due to the treatment administration during the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale (1= not present to 7= extremely severe). Scores were transformed from raw scores to a 0 to 100 scale. Lower scores meant less impact on daily activities (better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study20.64 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinPatient Global Impression Severity-Impact on Daily Activities (PGIS-IDA) Score by Treatment in Overall Study6.06 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-18.72, -10.44]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline34.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1235.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.9
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2411.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.4
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline32.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 127.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.7
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2433.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.1
Secondary

Total Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 7-point scale: 1=extremely convenient to 7=extremely inconvenient. The total score related to convenience of injection schedule ranged from 1 to 7; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire34.30 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Convenience of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire9.96 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-30.1, -18.57]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline18.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1223.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.2
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 249.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline16.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.5
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 124.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.2
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2417.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.3
Secondary

Total Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to ease of injection schedule and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to ease of the injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire20.56 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Ease of the Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire6.96 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19.74, -7.45]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the Injection Pen Assessment Questionnaire (IPAQ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline10.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.3
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1212.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.8
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 245.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline11.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.8
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 125.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.6
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 249.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13
Secondary

Total Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked 5 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to pen ease of use and used a 5-point scale: 1= very easy, 2= somewhat easy, 3= neither easy nor difficult, 4= somewhat difficult, 5= very difficult. The total score related to pen ease of use was sum of all 5 questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire10.71 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Pen Ease of Use by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire5.32 units on a scale
p-value: 0.001795% CI: [-8.69, -2.09]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline28.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.5
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1227.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.2
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2422.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline29.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1220.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.1
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2430.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.9
Secondary

Total Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant satisfaction with treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied. The total score related to satisfaction with overall treatment ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire28.95 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Score Related to Satisfaction With Overall Treatment Experience by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire21.13 units on a scale
p-value: 0.073995% CI: [-16.42, 0.77]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants aged 8 years or below and evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline14.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.6
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 129.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.6
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 245.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.8
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline13.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1213.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.8
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 249.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.8
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver for children under 8 years. Participants were asked 2 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's assessment of signs and used a 11-point scale: 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for assessment of signs meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants aged 8 years or below and evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire8.75 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Assessment of Signs, Completed by Caregiver for Children Aged <8 Years by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire9.31 units on a scale
p-value: 0.840495% CI: [-5.29, 6.41]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline17.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.5
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1215.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 243.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline20.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.1
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 123.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.5
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2418.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.4
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by caregiver. Participants were asked 13 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to caregiver life interference and used a 5-point scale: 1= never to 5= always. The total score ranged was sum of scores from all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for caregiver and family life interference meant less life interference (a better outcome).

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire17.01 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Caregiver Life Interference, Including Family Life Interference by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire3.54 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-17.59, -9.35]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants aged 8 years or above and evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline15.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.4
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1216.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.2
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2413.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.2
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline13.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.9
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1213.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.3
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2410.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.6
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participants (8-17 years old). Participants were asked 4 questions from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant's injection signs and symptoms and used a 11-point scale: 0=no pain to 10=worst possible pain; 0=no stinging to 10=worst possible stinging; 0=no bruising to 10=worst possible bruising; and 0=no bleeding to 10=worst possible bleeding, respectively. The total score was sum of all questions; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for injection signs and symptoms meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants aged 8 years or above and evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire13.56 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Injection Signs and Symptoms for Participants Aged 8 Years and Above by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire14.27 units on a scale
p-value: 0.613795% CI: [-2.09, 3.51]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline7.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.1
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 124.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.2
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 241.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.4
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline7.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.1
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 120.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 243.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.8
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to number of missed injections (daily or weekly administration) during past 4 weeks. The total scores ranged from 0 to 31 for daily administration (Genotropin) and from 0 to 5 for weekly administration (Somatrogon). All scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score for missed injections meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire3.71 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Missed Injections by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire0.95 units on a scale
p-value: 0.024595% CI: [-5.16, -0.36]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline18.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1228.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.6
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2413.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.8
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireBaseline22.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.9
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 1210.6 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.1
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule Assessed at Baseline, Week 12 and Week 24, Using DCOA 1 QuestionnaireWeek 2430.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 29
Secondary

Total Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire

Participants were assessed for their treatment experience using DCOA 1 questionnaire completed by participant/caregiver dyads. Participants were asked a question from Section I of the IPAQ PRO tool related to participant willingness to continue treatment and used a 5-point scale: 1=extremely willing to 5=not at all willing. The total score related to willingness to continue injection schedule ranged from 1 to 5; scores were transformed from raw scores and converted to a 0 to 100 scale; a lower score meant a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The full analysis set included all participants who were randomly assigned to study intervention and who took at least 1 dose of study intervention. Here Overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire29.54 units on a scale
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinTotal Scores Related to Willingness to Continue Injection Schedule by Treatment in Overall Study, Using DCOA 1 Questionnaire11.93 units on a scale
p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-25.15, -10.06]Mixed Models Analysis
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Adverse Events According to Severity

AEs were assessed and categorized according to the severity as mild (did not interfered with participant's usual function), moderate (interfered to some extent with participant's usual function) and severe (interfered significantly with participant's usual function).

Time frame: Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeverityMild34 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeverityModerate4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeveritySevere0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeverityMild41 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeverityModerate6 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Adverse Events According to SeveritySevere0 Participants
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Discontinuation Due to Adverse Events (AEs)

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. The discontinuations due to adverse events was defined for participants and reported in this outcome measure.

Time frame: Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Discontinuation Due to Adverse Events (AEs)0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Discontinuation Due to Adverse Events (AEs)1 Participants
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities

The laboratory abnormality parameters included Hematology: erythrocyte (Er.) mean corpuscular volume, Er. mean corpuscular hemoglobin:\<0.9\*lower limit normal (LLN), leukocytes:\<0.6\*LLN, lymphocytes:\<0.8\*LLN, neutrophils:\<0.8\*LLN, greater than (\>) 1.2\*upper limit normal (ULN), eosinophils, monocytes:\>1.2\*ULN. Clinical chemistry: bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin:\>1.5\*ULN, gamma glutamyl transferase:\>3.0\*ULN, albumin:\>1.2\*ULN, blood urea nitrogen:\>1.3\*ULN, urate:\>1.2\*ULN, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol:\<0.8\*LLN, potassium, magnesium:\>1.1\*ULN, phosphate:\>1.2\*ULN, bicarbonate:\<0.9\*LLN, creatine kinase:\>2.0\*ULN. Urinalysis: specific gravity:\>1.030, ketones, urine protein, urine hemoglobin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase:\>=1.

Time frame: Week 1 to Week 12, Week 13 to Week 24

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received. Here 'number analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for each specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Laboratory AbnormalitiesWeek 1 to Week 1219 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Laboratory AbnormalitiesWeek 13 to Week 2424 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Laboratory AbnormalitiesWeek 1 to Week 1219 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Laboratory AbnormalitiesWeek 13 to Week 2421 Participants
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)

Blood samples were collected for determination of rhGH and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Anti-rhGH5 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Neutralizing0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Anti-rhGH3 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Neutralizing0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Anti-rhGH4 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Anti-rhGH6 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Anti-rhGH0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (rhGH) Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Anti-rhGH3 Participants
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)

Blood samples were collected for determination of anti-somatrogon antibodies and NAb. The participants who tested positive for antibodies were reported.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12, Week 24

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received. 0 in number analyzed field denotes that participants who followed the 'Genotropin then Somatrogon' sequence were not tested for anti-somatrogon ADA at Week 12 and participants who followed the 'Somatrogon then Genotropin' sequence were not tested for anti-somatrogon ADA at Week 24.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Neutralizing0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 24: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies4 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Week 12: Neutralizing0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Positive Anti-Somatrogon Antibodies and Neutralizing Antibodies (NAb)Baseline: Neutralizing0 Participants
Other Pre-specified

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEs

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that: resulted in death, was life threatening (immediate risk of death), required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions), resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were defined as events that occurred between first dose of study drug up to 35 days after last dose of study drug. Related TEAEs were those AEs who had relation to the study treatment and was judged by investigator.

Time frame: Baseline up to 35 days after last dose of study drug (up to 29 Weeks)

Population: The safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention. The participants were analyzed according to the intervention they actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent SAEs0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent Related SAEs0 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent Related AEs14 Participants
Daily Genotropin Then Weekly SomatrogonNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent AEs38 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent Related AEs21 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent SAEs0 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent AEs47 Participants
Weekly Somatrogon Then Daily GenotropinNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs), Treatment-Emergent Treatment Related AEs and SAEsTreatment-Emergent Related SAEs0 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026