Comparative glycemic control, safety and patient ratings for a new 4mm×32G insulin pen needle in adults with diabetes

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1531-1541

  Hirsch, Laurence J ^a   Gibney, Michael A ^a   Albanese, John ^a   Qu, Shankang ^a   Kassler Taub, Kenneth ^a   Klaff, Leslie J ^b   Bailey, Timothy S ^c  

^a BD Technologies   (United States)

^b Rainier Clinical Research Center   (United States)

^c AMCR Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

Control; Diabetes; Fructosamine; Insulin therapy; Pen needle

Indexed keywords

FRUCTOSAMINE; HEMOGLOBIN A1C; INSULIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DIABETES MELLITUS; DYSPEPSIA; DYSPNEA; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; HEART INFARCTION; HEMOGLOBIN BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; HYPERGLYCEMIA; INJECTION SITE PAIN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN HYPOGLYCEMIA; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEEDLE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SAFETY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; FEMALE; GLYCEMIC INDEX; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, INTRADERMAL; INSULIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952477638     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: 14734877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2010.482499     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Kortykowski 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 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2003;11:2836-2848
2. Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther 2004;9:1498-1505
3. Stocki 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
4. 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. Diab Care 2004;27:2495-2497
5. Bohannon NJV, 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;22:1049-1067
6. Rosak C, Burkard G, Hoffmann JA, et al. Metabolic effect and acceptance of an insulin pen treatment in 20,262 diabetic patients. Diab Nutr Metab 1993;6:139-145
7. McKay M, Compion G, Lytzen L. A comparison of insulin injection needles on patients' perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptability: a randomized, open-label, crossover study in subjects with diabetes. Diab Tech Ther 2009;11:195-201
8. Strauss K, Hannet I, McGonigle J, et al. Ultra-short (5 mm) insulin needles: trial results and clinical recommendations. Pract Diab Intl 1999;16:218-222
9. Miyakoshi M, Kamoi K, Iwanaga M, et al. Comparison of patient's preference, pain perception, and usability between Micro Fine Plus® 31-gauge needle and microtapered NanoPass® 33-gauge needle for insulin therapy. J Diab Sci Technol 2007;1:718-724
10. Iwanaga M and Kamoi K. Patient perceptions of injection pain and anxiety: a comparison of NovoFine 32-gauge tip 6 mm and Micro Fine Plus 31-gauge 5 mm needles. Diab Tech Ther 2009;11:81-86
11. Fujimoto R, Okeda T, Nobuyuki A, et al. Study on penetration pain of pen needles for insulin injection. Practice 2009;26:95-99
12. De Coninck C, Frid A, Gaspar R, et al. The 2008-2009 insulin injection technique questionnaire survey: results and analysis. 2010 [In press]
13. Hansen B, Kirketerp G, Ehlers G, et al. Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Injection of Insulin for Adults with Diabetes Mellitus, 2nd edn. Dansk Sygeplejera?d (Danish Nurses Organization), 2006
14. Frid A, Hirsch L, Gaspar R, et al. New injection recommendations for patients with diabetes. 2010 Manuscript submitted for publication
15. RevillSI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ. The reliability of a linear analogue scale for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia 1976;31:1191-1198
16. Powell CV, Kelly AM, Williams A. Determining the minimum clinically significant difference in visual analog pain score for children. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37:28-31
17. Hom FG, Ettinger B, Lin MJ. Comparison of serum fructosamine vs glycohe-moglobin as measures of glycemic control in a large diabetic population. Acta Diabetol 1998;35:48-51
18. Hom F. Fructosamine, hemoglobin A1c, and measures of diabetic control. Diab Tech Ther 1999;1:443-445
19. Smaldone A. Glycemic control and hemoglobinopathy: when A1c may not be reliable. Diab Spectrum 2008;21:46-49
20. Ross SA, Jamal R, Leiter LA, et al. Evaluation of 8 mm insulin pen needles in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Pract Diab Intl 1999;16: 145-148
21. Egekvist H, Bjerring P, Arendt-Nielsen L. Pain and mechanical injury of skin following mechanical needle insertions. Eur J Pain 1999;3:41-49
22. Arendt-Nielsen L, Egekvist H, Bjerring P. Pain following controlled cutaneous insertion of needles with different diameters. Somatosens Mot Res 2006; 23:37-43
23. Hanas R, Lyzten L, Ludvigsson J. Thinner needles do not influence injection pain, insulin leakage or bleeding in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diab 2000;1:142-149
24. Bijur PE, Silver W, Gallagher EJ. Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:1153-1157
25. Karges B, Muche R, Moritz M, et al. Low discomfort and pain associated with intensified insulin therapy in children and adolescents. Diab Res Clin Pract 2008;80:96-101
26. Schwartz S, Hassman D, Shelmet J, etal. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge × 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge × 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2004;26:1663-1678
27. Gibney MA, Arce CH, Byron KJ, et al. Skin and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness in adults with diabetes at sites used for insulin injections: implications for needle length recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:1519-1530
28. Laurent A, Mistretta F, Bottigioli D, et al. Echographic measurement of skin thickness in adults by high frequency ultrasound to assess the appropriate microneedle length for intradermal delivery of vaccines. Vaccine 2007; 25:6423-6430
29. Heinemann L, Hompesch M, Kapitza C, et al. Intra-dermal insulin lispro application with a new microneedle delivery system led to substantially more rapid insulin absorption than subcutaneous injection. Diabetologia 2006;49(S1):620
30. Seidenari S, Giusti G, Bertoni L, et al. Thickness and echogenicity of the skin in children as assessed by 20-MHz ultrasound. Dermatology 2000;201:218-222
31. Hofman PL, Lawton SA, Peart JM, et al. An angled insertion technique using 6-mm needles markedly reduces the risk of intramuscular injections in children and adolescents. Diabet Med 2007;24:1400-1405
32. Birkebaek NH, Solvig J, Hansen B, et al. A 4-mm needle reduces the risk of intramuscular injections without increasing backflow to skin surface in lean diabetic children and adults. Diab Care 2008;31:e65
33. Kreugel G, Keers JC, Jongbloed A, et al. The influence of needle length on glycemic control and patient preference in obese diabetic patients. Diabetes 2009;58(S1):440-P
34. Frid A, Linde B. Intraregional differences in the absorption of unmodified insulin from the abdominal wall. Diabet Med 1992;9:236-239
35. Frid A. Fat thickness and insulin administration, what do we know? Infusystems International 2006;5:17-19
36. Siegmund T, Blankenfeld H, Schumm-Draeger P-M. Comparison of usability and patient preference for insulin pen needles produced with different production techniques: Thin-wall' needles compared to 'Regular-wall' needles: an open-label study. Diab Tech Ther 2009;11:523-528