Comparison of Preference for NovoPen® 4 With Previous Insulin Pen Treatments After 12 Weeks in Adult Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Multicenter Observational Study

Clinical Therapeutics

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 346-357

  Israël Bultman, Harma ^a   Hyllested Winge, Jacob ^b   Kolaczynski, Marcin ^c   Steindorf, Jörg ^d   Garon, Jean ^e  

^a Isala Klinieken ^*  (Netherlands)

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

^c Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd   (Poland)

^d Endocrinology and Diabetology   (Germany)

^e Clinique d'endocrinologie de l'Outaouais   (Canada)

Author keywords

Diabetes mellitus; Insulin pen; NovoPen; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

FLEXPEN; HUMAPEN; INNOLET; INSULIN; INSULIN LISPRO; NEUTRAL INSULIN; OPTICLIK; PHENETICILLIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG MARKETING; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN TREATMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NETHERLANDS; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUESTIONNAIRE; TRAINING; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; INSULIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 79956024214     PISSN: 01492918     EISSN: 1879114X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Korytkowski M., Niskanen L., Asakura T. FlexPen: addressing issues of confidence and convenience in insulin delivery. Clin Ther 2005, 27(Suppl B):S89-S100.
2. Peyrot M., Rubin R.R., Lauritzen T., et al. Psychosocial problems and barriers to improved diabetes management: results of the Cross-National Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN) Study. Diabet Med 2005, 22:1379-1385.
3. Polonsky W.H., Fisher L., Guzman S., et al. Psychological insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes: the scope of the problem. Diabetes Care 2005, 28:2543-2545.
4. Rubin R.R., 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.
5. Rubin R.R., Peyrot M. Factors affecting use of insulin pens by patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2008, 31:430-432.
6. 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.
7. Summers K.H., Szeinbach S.L., Lenox S.M. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther 2004, 26:1498-1505.
8. Asakura T., Seino H., Nakano R., et al. A comparison of the handling and accuracy of syringe and vial versus prefilled insulin pen (FlexPen). Diabetes Technol Ther 2009, 11:657-661.
9. 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 injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2003, 25:2836-2848.
10. 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.
11. Magnolti M.A., Rayfield E.J. An update on insulin injection devices. Insulin 2007, 2:173-181.
12. Lee W.C., 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, 28:1712-1725. [published correction appears in Clin Ther. 2006;28:1968-1969], discussion 1710-1711.
13. Hyllested-Winge J., Jensen K.H., Rex J. A review of 25 years' experience with the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus. Clin Drug Investig 2010, 30:643-674.
14. Asakura T., Seino H. Assessment of dose selection attributes with audible notification in insulin pen device. Diabetes Technol Ther 2005, 7:620-626.
15. Santiago O.M., Khutoryansky N.M., Bilbo C.M., et al. Accuracy and precision of the NovoPen 3 insulin delivery device after mechanical and temperature stresses. Endocr Pract 2002, 8:351-355.
16. Kristensen C.M., Donsmark M. Dose accuracy and durability of the NovoPen 4 insulin delivery device before and after simulation of 5 years of use and under various stress conditions. Clin Ther 2009, 31:2819-2823.
17. Zou D.J., Chen L.M., Su Q., et al. NovoPen 4 improves treatment satisfaction in Chinese subjects with diabetes and is recommended by healthcare professionals (HCPs) (abstract). Diabetes 2010, 59(Suppl 1):A550.
18. Asakura T., Seino H., Jensen K.H. Patient acceptance and issues of education of two durable insulin pen devices. Diabetes Technol Ther 2008, 10:299-304.
19. ® 3 in insulin-treated diabetes patients. Diabetes Technol Ther 2005, 7:379.
20. Declaration of Helsinki, 2008 Accessed December 19, 2010. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html.
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-S69.
22. Altman D.G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research 1991, Chapman and Hall, London. 1st ed.
23. Donsmark M., Herold L., Kristensen C.M. A comparison of injection force and dosage scale size between NovoPen. 3 and NovoPen 4. Diabetes Technol Ther 2009, 11:581-585.