Novopen Echo® for the delivery of insulin: A comparison of usability, functionality and preference among pediatric subjects, their parents, and health care professionals

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1468-1475

  Olsen, Birthe S ^a   Lilleøre, Søren Kruse ^b   Korsholm, Conny Nøhr ^b   Kracht, Thorben ^c  

^a GLOSTRUP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^c KINDERKRANKENHAUS AUF DER BULT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Adolescents; Children; Diabetes mellitus; Insulin; Insulin pen; Medical devices; Type 1 diabetes

Indexed keywords

ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; INSULIN;

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BLOOD; CANADA; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG EFFECT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FRANCE; GERMANY; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; MALE; METABOLISM; MULTICENTER STUDY; PARENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SUBCUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BLOOD GLUCOSE; CANADA; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CHILD; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FRANCE; GERMANY; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; INSULIN; MALE; MEDICATION ADHERENCE; PARENTS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953016599     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19322968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/193229681000400622     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. 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(3):486-96.
2. Mollema ED, Snoek FJ, Heine RJ, van der Ploeg HM. Phobia of self-injecting and self-testing in insulin-treated diabetes patients: opportunities for screening. Diabet Med. 2001;18(8):671-74.
3. Pfutzner A, Asakura T, Sommavilla B, Lee W. Insulin delivery with FlexPen: dose accuracy, patient preference and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5(8):915-25.
4. Stockl K, Ory C, Vanderplas A, Nicklasson L, Lyness W, Cobden D, Chang E. An evaluation of patient preference for an alternative insulin delivery system compared to standard vial and syringe. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):133-46.
5. Lombardo F, Salzano G, Messina MF, De Luca F. Compliance and administration methods in management of type 1 diabetes. Acta Biomed. 2005;76(Suppl 3):66-9.
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(1):59-62.
7. 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(10):1712-25.
8. Hanas R. Type 1 diabetes in children, adolescents and young adults. 2nd ed. London: Class Publishing; 2004.
9. Morris AD, Boyle DI, McMahon AD, Greene SA, MacDonald TM, Newton RW. Adherence to insulin treatment, glycaemic control, and ketoacidosis in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The DARTS/MEMO Collaboration. Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland. Medicines Monitoring Unit 4251. Lancet. 1997;350(9090):1505-10.
10. Effect of intensive diabetes treatment on the development and progression of long-term complications in adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. J Pediatr. 1994;125(2):177-88.
11. Peyrot M, Aanstoot H-J. Parent-reported social, psychological, and health care factors associated with youth self-care success in the Multi-national DAWN Youth Survey. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9(Suppl 10):28.
12. Olinder AL, Kernell A, Smide B. Missed bolus doses: devastating for metabolic control in CSII-treated adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes. 2009;10(2):142-8.
13. Medical management of type 1 diabetes. 5th ed. Alexandria, VA: American Diabetes Association; 2008.
14. Danne T, Battelino T, Kordonouri O, Hanas R, Klinkert C, Ludvigsson J, Barrio R, Aebi C, Gschwend S, Mullis PE, Schumacher U, Zumsteg U, Morandi A, Rabbone I, Cherubini V, Toni S, de Beaufort C, Hindmarsh P, Sumner A, van Waarde WM, van den Berg N, Phillip M. A cross-sectional international survey of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in 377 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus from 10 countries. Pediatr Diabetes. 2005;6(4):193-8.
15. Klinkert C, Bachran R, Heidtmann B, Grabert M, Holl RW. Age-specific characteristics of the basal insulin-rate for pediatric patients on CSII. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2008;116(2):118-22.
16. Hanel H, Weise A, Sun W, Pfutzner JW, Thome N, Pfutzner A. Differences in the dose accuracy of insulin pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):478-81.
17. Jacombs J. Every child matters? Children with type 1 diabetes are being let down by lack of support in school. A report by the UK Children With Diabetes Advocacy Group investigating the range of contemporary educational experiences of children with diabetes at school in the UK; 2007. Available from: www.childrenwithdiabetes.com/uk/Final6207EveryChildMattersCombined.pdf
18. 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 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25(11):2836-48.