Patient satisfaction and costs associated with insulin administered by pen device or syringe during hospitalization

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Volumn 65, Issue 14, 2008, Pages 1347-1357

  Davis, Estella M ^a,b   Christensen, Carla M ^c,d   Nystrom, Kelly K ^c,d   Foral, Pamela A ^c,d   Destache, Chris ^d  

^a Alegent Heallth Bergan Mercy Medical Center   (United States)

^b CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c AHBMMC

^d CU

Author keywords

Data collection; Devices; Diabetes mellitus; Drug administration; Hospitals; Injections; Insulin; Insulins; Patients; Pharmacoeconomics; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; HEMOGLOBIN A1C; HUMAN INSULIN; INSULIN; INSULIN ASPART; INSULIN ASPART PROTAMINE PLUS INSULIN ASPART; INSULIN GLARGINE; INSULIN LISPRO; INSULIN LISPRO PROTAMINE PLUS INSULIN LISPRO; ISOPHANE INSULIN; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; DEVICE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG COST; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MIXTURE; DRUG SAFETY; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; HEALTH CARE COST; HOME CARE; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HYPERGLYCEMIA; HYPOGLYCEMIA; INSULIN PEN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF INJECTION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYRINGE; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INSULIN INFUSION; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNITED STATES;

AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INSULIN; INSULIN INFUSION SYSTEMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEBRASKA; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SYRINGES;

EID: 47749130436     PISSN: 10792082     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2146/ajhp070636     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:977-86.
2. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998; 352:837-53. [Erratum, Lancet. 1999; 354:602.]
3. Da Costa S, Brackenridge B, Hicks D. A comparison of insulin pen use in the United States and the United Kingdom. Diabetes Educ. 2002; 28(1):52-6,59-60.
4. International Healthcare Worker Safety Center. List of safety-engineered sharp devices. www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/epinet/safetydevice.cfm (accessed 2007 May 4).
5. 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. 1998; 41:15-23.
6. Dunbar JM, Madden PM, Gleeson DT et al. Premixed insulin preparations in pen syringes maintain glycemic control and are preferred by patients. Diabetes Care. 1994; 17:874-8.
7. Plevin S, Sadur C. Use of a prefilled insulin syringe (Novolin Prefilled) by patients with diabetes. Clin Ther. 1993; 15:423-31.
8. Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 1998; 20:486-96.
9. Bohannon NJ, Ohannesian JP, Burdan AL et al. Patient and physician satisfaction with the Humulin/Humalog pen, a new 3.0-mL prefilled pen device for insulin delivery. Clin Ther. 2000; 22:1049-67.
10. Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C et al. 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 injections in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003; 25:2836-48.
11. Corsi A, Torre E, Coronel G et al. Prefilled insulin pen in newly insulin-treated diabetic patients over 60 years old. Diab Nutr Metab Clin Exp. 1997; 10:78-81.
12. De Luis DA, Aller R, Cuellar L et al. Effect on quality of life with a new insulin injection device in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. J Diabetes Complications. 2004; 18:216-9.
13. Lee WC, Balu S, Cobden D et al. 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. 2006; 28:1712-25. [Erratum, Clin Ther. 2006; 28:1968-9.]
14. Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J et al. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004; 63:27-35.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2005. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2005.pdf (accessed 2008 Apr 18).
16. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2000; 284:3043-5.
17. Martin JM, Llewelyn JA, Ristic S et al. Acceptability and safety of a new 3.0 ml reusable insulin pen (HumaPen) in clinical use. Diab Nutr Metab. 1999; 12:306-9.
18. Sucic M, Galic E, Cabrijan T et al. Patient acceptance and reliability of new Humulin/Humalog 3.0 ml prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. Med Sci Monit. 2002; 8:PI21-6.
19. Cappelleri JC, Gerber RA, Kourides IA et al. Development and factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with injected and inhaled insulin for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000; 23:1799-803.
20. Bott U, Ebrahim S, Hirschberger S et al. Effect of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart on quality of life and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2003; 20:626-34.
21. Bradley C, Speight J. Patient perceptions of diabetes and diabetes therapy: assessing quality of life. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2002; 18(suppl 3):S64-9.
22. Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther. 2004; 26:1498-505.
23. Pawaskar MD, Camacho FT, Anderson RT et al. Health care costs and medication adherence associated with initiation of insulin pen therapy in Medicaid-enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database analysis. Clin Ther. 2007; 29:1294-305.
24. Medicare. Formulary finder for prescription drug plans. http://formulary finder.medicare.gov/formularyfinder/selectstate.asp (accessed 2007 May 30).
25. Nebraska Medicaid Program Pharmacy Services. Covered drug listing. www.hhs.state.ne.us/med/pharm/covered.asp (accessed 2008 Mar 10).
26. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Coverage of insulin pens and cartridges. www.wvdhhr.org/BMS/sProg_Instr/pima_files/ bms_pima0164.pdf (accessed 2008 Mar 4).
27. Jagger J, Bentley M. Direct costs of follow-up for percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposure to at-risk body fluids: data from two hospitals. Adv Expos Prev. 1998; 3(3):25,34-5.