Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT01747928

Users Study Of The Caverject Delivery System

Usability testing of the dual-chambered syringe in conjunction with the proposed patient instructions for use.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Age range

40 year–70 year

Sex eligibility

Male

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Early Phase 1

Primary location

Vince and Associates Clinical Research

Overland Park, Kansas, 66212, United States

About this study

Usability testing of the dual-chambered syringe in conjunction with the proposed patient instructions for use

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy males

Exclusion criteria

  • Inability to read English;
  • physical limitations preventing participant from operating the syringe

Treatment and study plan

dual-chamber syringe

Other

dual-chamber syringe for mock injection

Primary outcomes

  1. Delivery System Success Rate (DSSR)

    Time frame: Day 1

    DSSR was defined as percentage of participants who were able to successfully expel the selected dose from the Caverject Impulse Dual Chamber Delivery System when relying on the modified Instructions for Use (IFU). The process was considered successful if the attempt was observed and documented by study personnel AND the participant didn't receive any operational/"hands on" demonstration on how to operate the plunger from study personnel AND after performing all preparatory steps, the participant was able to expel the dose to the selected plunger stop-point without any unexpected interruption.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With Categorical Responses to the Participant Assessment Tool (PAT): Instructions Provided Were Useful?

    Time frame: Day 1

    Participant responses were reported as follows: Very Useful, Somewhat Useful, Not Very Useful, Not Useful At All.

  2. Number of Participants With Categorical Responses to the PAT: Instructions Provided Were Clear?

    Time frame: Day 1

    Participant responses were reported as follows: Very clear, Somewhat clear, Not very clear, Not clear at all.

  3. Number of Participants With Categorical Responses to the PAT: Most Difficult Step?

    Time frame: Day 1

    Participant responses were reported as follows: No steps really difficult, Attaching needle, Mixing the solution, Getting the air out of syringe, Setting the dose, Pushing plunger, Other.

  4. Number of Participants With Categorical Responses to the PAT: Syringe Easy to Use?

    Time frame: Day 1

    Participant responses were reported as follows: Very easy, Somewhat easy, Somewhat difficult, Very difficult.

  5. Number of Participants Providing Responses to Any Question on the PAT

    Time frame: Day 1

    Number of participants providing responses on questions in the PAT. Questions were as follows: What step did you stop? Why?; Instructions provided were useful?; Instructions provided were clear?; Most difficult step?; Syringe easy to use?

  6. Time Required to Perform Segments 1 to 5

    Time frame: Day 1

    Steps involved while using the Caverject Impulse Delivery System were categorized into segments: Segment 1 (Assembly While Using the Caverject Impulse Delivery System), Segment 2 (Mixing the Solution), Segment 3 (De-aerating the Syring While Using the Caverject Impulse Delivery System), Segment 4 (Setting the Dose) and Segment 5 (Performing the Injection While Using the Caverject Impulse Delivery System).

  7. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q1

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q1: Participant assembled the components correctly. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" answer indicated failure according to the OAT. Q1 and Q2 made up Segment 1: Assembly of Components.

  8. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q2

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q2: Evidence of mechanical malfunction or defect for Segment 1. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q1 and Q2 made up Segment 1: Assembly of Components.

  9. Number of Participants Whom the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q3

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q3: Participant performed mixing step correctly. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the OAT. Q3 to Q5 made up Segment 2: Mixing the Solution.

  10. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q4

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q4: Participant positioned piston correctly. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the SAP. Q3 to Q5 made up Segment 2: Mixing the Solution.

  11. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q5

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q5: Evidence of mechanical malfunction/defect for Segment 2. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q3 to Q5 made up Segment 2: Mixing the Solution.

  12. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q6

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q6: De-aeration step performed successfully. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the OAT. Q6 to Q8 made up Segment 3: De-aeration of the Syringe.

  13. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q7

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q7: Participant depressed the plunger correctly to de-aerate the syringe. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the SAP. Q6 to Q8 made up Segment 3: De-aeration of the Syringe.

  14. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q8

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q8: Evidence of mechanical malfunction/defect for Segment 3. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q6 to Q8 made up Segment 3: De-aeration of the Syringe.

  15. Number of Participants Whom the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q9

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q9: Participant was able to set a dose (any dose) for delivery. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the OAT. Q9 and Q10 made up Segment 4: Setting the Dose.

  16. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q10

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q10: Evidence of mechanical malfunction/defect for Segment 4. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q9 and Q10 made up Segment 4: Setting the Dose.

  17. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q11

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q11: Participant successfully set the correct dose (as assigned). Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the OAT. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

  18. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q12

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q12: Participant successfully expelled the dose into the target. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "No" response indicated failure according to the OAT. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

  19. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q13

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q13: Was there any difficulty/obstruction encountered in expelling dose? Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. A "Yes" response indicated failure according to the SAP. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

  20. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q14b

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q14b: Participant successfully expelled/injected the assigned dose (per Dose Card). Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

  21. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q16

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q16: Evidence of mechanical malfunction/defect. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

  22. Number of Participants Which the Observer Had Categorical Responses to in the OAT: Q17

    Time frame: Day 1

    OAT, Q17: Participant understood reason excess liquid was present after a partial-dose injection. Observer responses were reported as follows: Yes, No. Q11 to Q17 made up Segment 5: Performing the Simulated Injection.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Pfizer

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

A Representative Users Study Of The Operating Characteristics Of The Caverject Delivery System

Important dates

Study start
2013
Primary completion
2013
Study completion
2013
First posted
Dec 12, 2012
Registry last updated
May 2, 2014

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.