United States patient preference and usability for the new disposable insulin device solostar® versus other disposable pens

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Volumn 2, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1157-1160

  Fischer, Jerome S ^a   Edelman, Steven V ^b   Schwartz, Sherwyn L ^a  

^a Diabet/Glandular Dis Res Assoc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Disposable pen; FlexPen; Insulin device; Lilly disposable pen; SoloSTAR; United States

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960975741     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19322968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/193229680800200626     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. American Diabetes Association, Diabetes statistics [cited 2006 Feb. 8]. Available from: http://www.diabetes.orQldiabetes-statistics.jsp.
2. Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther. 2004;26(9):1498-505.
3. Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med. 1999;106(5):57-8, 61-4, 68.
4. 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.
5. Bohannon NJ, Ohannesian JP, Burdan AL, Holcombe JH, Zagar A. Patient and physician satisfaction with the Humulin/Humalog Pen, a new 3.0-mL prefilled pen device for insulin delivery. Clin Ther. 2000;22(9):1049-67.
6. 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.
7. Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L, Nicklasson L, Liang J, Lyness W; InnoLet Study Group. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/sy ringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;63(1):27-35.
8. 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.
9. Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, Lecointre B, Spollett G. Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device SoloSTAR versus FlexPen, lilly disposable pen and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clin Ther. 2007;29(4):650-60.
10. Arslanoglu I, Saka N, Bundak R, Günöz H, Darendeliler F. A comparison of the use of premixed insulins in pen-injectors with conventional patient-mixed insulin treatment in children and adolescents with IDDM. Is there a decreased risk of night hypoglycemia? J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13(3):313-8.
11. Lteif AN, Schwenk WF. Accuracy of pen injectors versus insulin syringes in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(1):137-40.
12. de Luis DA, Aller R, Cuellar L, Terroba MC, Ovalle HF, Izaola O, Romero E. Effect on quality of life with a new insulin injection device in elderly patients with diabetes mellitus type 2. J Diabetes Complications. 2004;18(4):216-9.
13. Albano S. Assessment of quality of treatment in insulin-treated patients with diabetes using a pre-filled insulin pen. The ORBITER Study Group. Acta Biomed. 2004;75(1):34-9.
14. Lassmann-Vague V. Hypoglycaemia in elderly diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab. 2005;31(Spec No 2):5S53-5S7.
15. Rosenstock J. Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly: special considerations. Drugs Aging. 2001;18(1):31-44.
16. American Diabetes Association. Insulin administration. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(Suppl 1):S106-S7.