HumaPen® Memoir™: A novel insulin-injecting pen with a dose-memory feature

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 793-802

  lgnaut, Debra A ^a   Venekamp, Willem J R R ^b  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b Zuyderland Medical Centre   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Diabetes mellitus; Injectors; Insulin; Insulin injection devices; Pen devices

Indexed keywords

HUMAN INSULIN; INSULIN; INSULIN GLARGINE; INSULIN LISPRO; MIX25; MIX50; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG SELF ADMINISTRATION; ELECTRONICS; HUMAN; INJECTION PAIN; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SAFETY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COST; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INSULIN INFUSION; MIDDLE AGED; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; INSULIN; INSULIN INFUSION SYSTEMS; MIDDLE AGED; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING;

EID: 37649014336     PISSN: 17434440     EISSN: 17452422     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/17434440.4.6.793     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Goldberg RB, Mellies MJ. Sacks FM et al. Cardiovascular events and their reduction with pravastatin in diabetic and glucose-intolerant myocardial infarction survivors with average cholesterol levels: subgroup analyses in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Circulation 98, 2513-2519 (1998).
2. Gerstein HC. Glycosylated hemoglobin: finally ready for prime time as a cardiovascular risk factor. Ann. Intern. Med. 141, 475-476 (2004).
3. Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenblit G et al. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Arch. Intern. Med. 141, 421-431 (2004).
4. Coutinho M. Gerstein HC, Wang Y, Yusuf S. The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events: a metaregression analysis of published data from 20 studies of 95,783 individuals followed for 12.4 years. Diabetes Care 22, 233-240 (1999).
5. Khaw K-T, Wareham N, Bingham S, Luben R, Welch A, Day N. Association of hemoglobin A1C with cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults: the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer in Norfolk. Ann. Intern Med. 141, 413-420 (2004).
6. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HAW et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of Type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. Br. Med. J. 321, 405-412 (2000).
7. Cramer JA. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care 27, 1218-1224 (2004).
8. Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA 291, 335-342 (2004).
9. Walker EA, Molitch M, Kramer MK et al. Adherence to preventive medications: predictors and outcomes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care 29, 1997-2002 (2006).
10. Lee WC, Balu S, Cobden D. Joshi AV, Pashos CL. Medication adherence and the associated health-economic impact among patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus converting to insulin pen therapy: an analysis of third-party managed care claims data. Clin. Ther. 28, 1712-1725 (2006).
11. Stewart KM, Wilson MF, Rider JM. Insulin delivery devices. J. Pharm. Pract. 17. 20-28 (2004).
12. Venekamp WJRR, Kerr L, Dowsett SA et al. Functionality and acceptability of a new electronic insulin injection pen with a memory feature. Curr Med. Res. Opin. 22, 315-325 (2006).
13. Summers KH, Szeinback SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin. Ther. 26. 1498-1505 (2004).
14. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference associated with use of a pen device delivering a premixed 70/30 insulin aspart suspension (aspart protamine suspension/ soluble aspart) versus alternative treatment strategies. Diabetes Care 27, 2495-2497 (2004).
15. 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 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin. Ther. 25, 2836-2848 (2003).
16. Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin. Ther. 20, 486-496 (1998).
17. Kadiri A. Chraibi A, Marouan F et al. 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. 41, 15-23 (1998).
18. Stockl K, Ory C, Vanderplas A et al. An evaluation of patient preference for an alternative insulin delivery system compared to standard vial and syringe. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 23, 133-146 (2007).
19. Lteif AN, Schwenk WF. Accuracy of pen injectors versus insulin syringes in children with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 22, 137-140 (1999).
20. Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J et al. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 63, 27-35 (2004).
21. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, Summers KH, Lenox SM. Development of an instrument to assess expectations of and preference for an insulin injection pen compared with the vial and syringe. Clin. Ther. 26, 590-597 (2004).
22. Clarke A, Dain MP. Dose accuracy of a reusable insulin pen using a cartridge system with an integrated plunger mechanism. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 3, 677-683 (2006).
23. Asakura T, Seino H. Assessment of dose selection attributes with audible notification in insulin pen devices. Diabetes Tech. Ther. 7, 620-626 (2005).