Skip to content

Study · Not a test of the peptide alone · 2012

2 results

Randomized crossover study in patients with neuroendocrine tumors to assess patient preference for lanreotide Autogel(®) given by either self/partner or a health care professional.

Johanson V, Wilson B, Abrahamsson A, Jianu C, Calissendorff J, Wall N, Grønbæk H, Florholmen J, Ohberg A, Granberg D

Patient preference and adherence17 Oct 2012Cited by 19 (Europe PMC)

PMID23118529 (opens in a new tab)PMCIDPMC3484527 (opens in a new tab)DOI10.2147/ppa.s34337 (opens in a new tab)PepBankPUB-23118529
Read at sourcePubMedAsk about this study
Jump to 2 results

Summary

The text of this summary is not shown here, because the article license does not allow reuse. Read it at the source (opens in a new tab)

Text rights: CC BY-NC. Results still quote short attributed sentences.

Results from this study2

No result from this study comes from a test of the peptide.

Studies that did not test the peptide alone2

In this study, Lanreotide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. These results are not evidence about taking Lanreotide.

  1. 01HumanNot a test of Lanreotide aloneRandomized controlled trialEfficacy outcome

    In patients with neuroendocrine tumors on stable lanreotide Autogel, efficacy did not differ between the self/partner injection block and the health care professional injection block.

    In plain wordsIn tumor patients on lanreotide, treatment effect was similar whether injected by themselves or a partner or by a health care professional.

    Peptide
    Lanreotide
    Outcome
    No significant changeEfficacy by administration method
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Health care professional administration
    Outcome group
    Overall treatment effect · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    There was no difference in efficacy or safety between the two administration blocks.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Of 62 eligible patients, 26 (42%) patients with neuroendocrine tumors treated with a stable dose of lanreotide Autogel 90 mg or 120 mg every 4 weeks agreed to participate in this Phase IV, international, open-label, crossover study, conducted at hospitals in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
    Summary · context
    Patients were randomized to two blocks, starting with administration of lanreotide Autogel by either self/partner or a health care professional.

    In this study, Lanreotide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Lanreotide.

  2. 02HumanNot a test of Lanreotide aloneRandomized controlled trialSafety outcome

    In patients with neuroendocrine tumors on stable lanreotide Autogel, safety did not differ between the self/partner injection block and the health care professional injection block.

    In plain wordsIn tumor patients on lanreotide, safety was similar whether injected by themselves or a partner or by a health care professional.

    Peptide
    Lanreotide
    Outcome
    No significant changeSafety by administration method
    Study

    n: not reported in source

    Comparator
    Health care professional administration
    Outcome group
    Adverse events · Whole body

    Source sentences

    Summary
    There was no difference in efficacy or safety between the two administration blocks.
    2 context sentences
    Summary · context
    Of 62 eligible patients, 26 (42%) patients with neuroendocrine tumors treated with a stable dose of lanreotide Autogel 90 mg or 120 mg every 4 weeks agreed to participate in this Phase IV, international, open-label, crossover study, conducted at hospitals in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
    Summary · context
    Patients were randomized to two blocks, starting with administration of lanreotide Autogel by either self/partner or a health care professional.

    In this study, Lanreotide was a lab tool or a carrier, part of a mix, or the subject of a lab method. This result is not evidence about taking Lanreotide.

AI wrote and checked these results. AI can make mistakes, so check important results against the source.

Version history

PepBank keeps every version of the data on this study. Status changes from Retraction Watch, Europe PMC and Crossref are listed with their source.

  1. Version 2Current

    28 Oct 2026, 02:03 UTC

    Study results updated

  2. Version 1

    27 Oct 2026, 16:36 UTC

    First added · source update from Europe PMC

Subjects

Terms as the source lists them.

PepBank is a research reference. Talk to a doctor before you use any peptide.