Force requirements and insulin delivery profiles of four injection devices

Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 629-635

  Toraishi, Kenichi ^a   Yuizono, Yoichi ^a   Nakamura, Noriko ^a   Kato, Shino ^a   Aoki, Tsuyoshi ^a   Ashida, Kenji ^a   Sako, Yasuhiro ^a  

^a SAISEIKAI FUKUOKA GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INSULIN;

ARTICLE; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; FORCE; INJECTION; INSULIN TREATMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEASUREMENT; MOTOR COORDINATION; MUSCLE WEAKNESS; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; PATIENT SELECTION; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

DIABETES MELLITUS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; INSULIN; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 23944432922     PISSN: 15209156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2005.7.629     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. International Diabetes Federation: Diabetes Atlas, 2nd ed. Paris: International Diabetes Federation, 2003.
2. Atsumi Y, Sasaki T, Abe R, Hosokawa K, Seino H, Ikeda M, Kodama M, Jinnouchi H, Takesako M: Findings on use of "HumaPen" insulin Pen, focusing on patients' feedback following switching from NovoPen 1.5 [in Japanese]. J Pract Diabetes 1998;15:331-339.
3. Bashoff EC, Beaser RC: Insulin therapy and the reluctant patient. Overcoming obstacles to success. Postgrad Med 1995;97:86-90, 93-96.
4. Hunt LM, Valenzuela MA, Pugh JA: NIDDM patients' fears and hopes about insulin therapy. The basis of patient reluctance. Diabetes Care 1997;20: 292-298.
5. Sakamoto Y: Wider use of insulin pens and QOL improvement. Med Pract 1994;11:2127-2129.
6. Suzuki K, Goto Y: Study of insulin therapy using NovoPen 1.5 [in Japanese]. J Pract Diabetes 1995; 12:299-303.
7. Yatago T, Tanaka E: Benefits of NovoPen1.5 introduction in outpatient treatment, from a QOL perspective [in Japanese]. J Pract Diabetes 1995;12: 196-200.
8. Bohannon NJV, Ohannesian JP, Burdan AL, Holcombe JH, Zagar A: Patient and physician satisfaction with the Humulin/Humalog Pen, a new 3.0-mL prefilled pen device for insulin delivery. Clin Ther 2000;22:1049-1058.
9. Bohannon NJ: Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106:57-58, 61-64, 68.
10. Chen HS, Hwu CM, Kwok CF, Yang HJ, Shih KC, Lun BJ, Ho LT: Clinical response and patient acceptance of a prefilled, disposable insulin pen injector for insulin-treated diabetes. Chin Med J 1999;62:455-460.
11. Coscelli C, Lostia S, Lunetta M, Nosari I, Coronel GA: Safety, efficacy, acceptability of a pre-filled insulin pen in diabetic patients over 60 years old. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995;28:173-177.
12. Costa SD, Brackenridge B, Hicks D: A comparison of insulin pens in the United States and the United Kingdom. Diabetes Educ 2002;28:52-56, 59-60.
13. Graff MR, McClanahan MA: Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther 1998;20:486-495.
14. Hornquist JO, Wikby A, Andersson PO, Dufva AM: Insulin-pen treatment, quality of life and metabolic control: Retrospective intra-group evaluations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1990;10:221-230.
15. Kadiri A, Chraibi A, Marouan F, Ababou MR, el Guermai N, Wadjinny A, Kerfati A, Douiri M, Bensouda JD, Belkhadir J, Arvanitis Y: Comparison of NovoPen 3 and syringes/vials in the acceptance of insulin therapy in NIDDM patients with secondary failure to oral hypoglycaemic agents. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998; 41:15-23.
16. Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2003;25:2836-2848.
17. Ristic S, Bates PC, Martin JM, Llewelyn JA: Acceptability of areusable insulin pen, HumaPenErgo, by patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 2002;18:68-71.
18. Fox C, McKinnon C, Wall A, Simon AL: Ability to handle, and patient preference for, insulin delivery devices in visually impaired patients with type 2 diabetes. Pract Diabetes Int 2002;19:104-107.
19. Shelmut J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Shelmet K, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L, Nicklasson L, Liang J, Lyness W: Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004; 63:27-35.
20. Sugiyama K, Oizumi T, Abe T: Insulin flow difference by the needles of insulin pens [in Japanese]. J Pract Diabetes 1999;16:437-439.
21. Shintani M, Maeda K, Okuda J, Nishimura H: Introduction of new "InnoLet" insulin pen; choice of insulin pen [in Japanese]. J Pract Diabetes 2002;19: 320-324.
22. Asakura T, Nozaki S, Seino H, Abe R: Discussion on adequacy of insulin pens for elderly patients. Survey of patients' feedback on InnoLet use. Jpn Med J 2001;2177:9-16.
23. Muto T, Toshinari A, Reiko N, Toraishi K: A comparative study of the efficacy of the new insulin delivery device 'InnoLet' versus insulin pens [abstract]. Diabetes 2003;52(Suppl 1):1902-PO.
24. Skovlund SE, Lyness WH, Nicklasson L: A cross-over, randomised, controlled trial to compare psychological barriers to insulin self-injection with InnoLet and vial/syringe. Value Health 2002;5:549.