Comparative device assessments: Humalog KwikPen compared with vial and syringe and FlexPen

Diabetes Educator

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 789-798

  Ignaut, Debra A ^a   Schwartz, Sherwyn L ^b   Sarwat, Samiha ^a   Murphy, Heather L ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b Diabetes and Glandular Disease Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; DRUG DERIVATIVE; INSULIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG SELF ADMINISTRATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SUBCUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; SYRINGE;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; INSULIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF ADMINISTRATION; SYRINGES;

EID: 70350168941     PISSN: 01457217     EISSN: 15546063     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0145721709340056     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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 hypoglycemic agents. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 1998;41:15-23.
2. Graff MR, McClanahan MA Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 1998;20:486-496.
3. Korytkowski M., Bell D., Jacobsen C., Suwannasari R., the FlexPen Study Team. 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 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2836-2848.
4. Fox C., McKinnon C., Wall A., Lawton S. Ability to handle, and patient preference for, insulin delivery devices in visually impaired patients with type 2 diabetes. Practical Diabetes International. 2002;19:104-107.
5. 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.
6. Gnanalingham MG, Newland P., Smith CP Accuracy and reproducibility of low dose insulin administration using pen-injectors and syringes. Arch Dis Child. 1998;79:59-62.
7. Lteif AN, Schwenk WF Accuracy of pen injectors versus insulin syringes in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:137-140.
8. Bohannon NJ Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med. 1999; 106:57-58, 61.
9. Fowler MJ Diabetes devices. Clinical Diabetes. 2008;26:130-133.
10. 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. 2007;23:133-146.
11. Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther. 2004;26:1498-1505.
12. DaCosta S., Brackenridge B., Hicks D. A comparison of insulin pen use in the United States and the United Kingdom. Diabetes Educ. 2002;28:52-56, 59-60.
13. Ignaut DA, Venekamp WJ HumaPen Memoir: A novel insulin-injecting pen with a dose-memory feature. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4:793-802.
14. Ignaut DA, Opincar C., Lenox S. FlexPen and KwikPen prefilled insulin injection devices: A laboratory evaluation of ergonomic and injection force characteristics. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2:533-537.
15. Westfall PH, Krishen AK Optimally weighted, fixed sequence, and gatekeeper multiple testing procedures. J Stat Plan Infer. 2001;99:25-40.
16. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2000: 1-626.
17. Grizzle J. The two-period changeover design and its use in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1965;21:467-480.
18. World Health Organization. WHO diabetes fact sheet No. 312. [World Health Organization web site]. November 2008. Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en/. Accessed July 9, 2009.
19. 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. 2004;27:2495-2497.
20. 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: 216-219.
21. Keith K., Nicholson D., Rogers D. Accuracy and precision of low-dose insulin administration using syringes, pen injectors, and a pump. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2004;43:69-74.
22. Cramer JA A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1218-1224.
23. Saydah SH, Geiss LS, Tierney E., Benjamin SM, Engelgau M., Brancati F. Review of the performance of methods to identify diabetes cases among vital statistics, administrative, and survey data. Ann Epidemiol. 2004;14:507-516.
24. 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. 2006;28:1712-1725.