Objective: To investigate the acceptability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SC injection of TU.
Design: Randomized sequence, crossover clinical study of SC vs IM TU injections.
Setting: Ambulatory clinic of an academic andrology center.
Participants: Twenty men (11 hypogonadal, 9 transgender men) who were long-term users of TU. injections. Intervention: Injection of 1000 mg TU (in 4 mL castor oil vehicle) by SC or IM route. Main Outcome Measures: Patient-reported pain, acceptability, and preference scales. PK by measurement of serum testosterone, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), and estradiol (E2) concentrations with application of population PK methods and dried blood spot (DBS) sampling.
Results: Pain was greater after SC compared with IM injection 24 hours (but not immediately) after injection but both routes were equally acceptable. Ultimately 11 preferred IM, 6 preferred SC, and 3 had no preference. The DBS-based PK analysis of serum testosterone revealed a later time of peak testosterone concentration after SC vs IM injection (8.0 vs 3.3 days) but no significant route differences in model-predicted peak testosterone concentration (8.4 vs 9.6 ng/mL) or mean resident time (183 vs 110 days). The PK of venous serum testosterone, DHT, and E2 did not differ according to route of injection.
Conclusions: We conclude that SC TU injection is acceptable but produces greater pain 24 hours after injection that may contribute to the overall majority preference for the IM injection. The PK of testosterone, DHT, or E2 did not differ substantially between SC and IM routes. Hence whereas further studies are required, the SC route represents an alternative to IM injections without a need to change dose for men for whom IM injection is not desired or recommended.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the degree to which using data-driven methods to simultaneously select an optimal Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) cutoff score and estimate accuracy yields (1) optimal cutoff scores that differ from the population-level optimal cutoff score and (2) biased accuracy estimates.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used cross-sectional data from an existing individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) database on PHQ-9 screening accuracy to represent a hypothetical population. Studies in the IPDMA database compared participant PHQ-9 scores with a major depression classification. From the IPDMA population, 1000 studies of 100, 200, 500, and 1000 participants each were resampled.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For the full IPDMA population and each simulated study, an optimal cutoff score was selected by maximizing the Youden index. Accuracy estimates for optimal cutoff scores in simulated studies were compared with accuracy in the full population.
RESULTS: The IPDMA database included 100 primary studies with 44 503 participants (4541 [10%] cases of major depression). The population-level optimal cutoff score was 8 or higher. Optimal cutoff scores in simulated studies ranged from 2 or higher to 21 or higher in samples of 100 participants and 5 or higher to 11 or higher in samples of 1000 participants. The percentage of simulated studies that identified the true optimal cutoff score of 8 or higher was 17% for samples of 100 participants and 33% for samples of 1000 participants. Compared with estimates for a cutoff score of 8 or higher in the population, sensitivity was overestimated by 6.4 (95% CI, 5.7-7.1) percentage points in samples of 100 participants, 4.9 (95% CI, 4.3-5.5) percentage points in samples of 200 participants, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.8-2.6) percentage points in samples of 500 participants, and 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.1) percentage points in samples of 1000 participants. Specificity was within 1 percentage point across sample sizes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study of cross-sectional data found that optimal cutoff scores and accuracy estimates differed substantially from population values when data-driven methods were used to simultaneously identify an optimal cutoff score and estimate accuracy. Users of diagnostic accuracy evidence should evaluate studies of accuracy with caution and ensure that cutoff score recommendations are based on adequately powered research or well-conducted meta-analyses.