Preference for a new prefilled insulin pen compared with the original pen

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 2323-2333

  Garg, S ^a   Bailey, T ^b   Deluzio, T ^c   Pollom, D ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER   (United States)

^b AMCR Institute Inc   (United States)

^c NOVO NORDISK INC   (United States)

^d Diabetes and Internal Medicine and Endocrinology   (United States)

Author keywords

FlexPen; FlexTouch; Insulin; Pen device; T1DM; T2DM

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; HEMOGLOBIN A1C; INSULIN ASPART; INSULIN DETEMIR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRONCHITIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; GENERAL MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; HEADACHE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN TREATMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MULTICENTER STUDY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREFILLED INSULIN PEN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RHINOPHARYNGITIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIA; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, INTRADERMAL; INSULIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 81855184883     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: 14734877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2011.630721     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs-2007.pdf, http:// www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/factsheet11.htm. Accessed 18 October 2011
2. Levitzky YS, Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, et al. Impact of impaired fasting glucose on cardiovascular disease: the Framingham Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:264-70
3. Schmidt MI, Duncan BB, Bang H, et al. Identifying individuals at high risk for diabetes: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2013-18
4. Yang W, Lu J, Weng J, et al. Prevalence of diabetes among men and women in China. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1090-101
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837-53
6. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of longterm complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977-86
7. van Melle JP, Bot M, de JP, et al. Diabetes, glycemic control, and new-onset heart failure in patients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the heart and soul study. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2084-9
8. Chapman TM, Noble S, Goa KL. Insulin aspart: a review of its use in the management of type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Drugs 2002;62:1945-81
9. Perfetti R. Reusable and disposable insulin pens for the treatment of diabetes: understanding the global differences in user preference and an evaluation of inpatient insulin pen use. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12(Suppl 1):S79-S85
10. 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;11:657-61
11. 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 Res Clin Pract 1998;41:15-23
12. 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;27:2495-7
13. Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Factors affecting use of insulin pens by patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2008;31:430-2
14. Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther 2004;26:1498-505
15. Davis EM, Christensen CM, Nystrom KK, et al. Patient satisfaction and costs associated with insulin administered by pen device or syringe during hospitalization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:1347-57
16. Hornquist JO, Wikby A, Andersson PO, et al. Insulin-pen treatment, quality of life and metabolic control: retrospective intra-group evaluations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1990;10:221-30
17. Jefferson IG, Marteau TM, Smith MA, et al. A multiple injection regimen using an insulin injection pen and pre-filled cartridged soluble human insulin in adolescents with diabetes. Diabet Med 1985;2:493-5
18. Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, et al. A multicenter, randomized, openlabel, 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;25:2836-48
19. Asamoah E. Insulin pen-the 'iPod' for insulin delivery (why pen wins over syringe). J Diabetes Sci Technol 2008;2:292-6
20. Baser O, Bouchard J, DeLuzio T, et al. Assessment of adherence and healthcare costs of insulin device (FlexPen) versus conventional vial/syringe. Adv Ther 2010;27:94-104
21. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects - Last amended by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul 2008. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/ 30publications/10policies/b3/
22. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1), Step 4. 1996. Available at:
23. EN-ISO 14155-1: 2003 Clinical Investigation of Medical Devices for Human Subjects. Part 1: General requirements. 2003
24. EN-ISO 14155-2: 2003 Clinical Investigation of Medical Devices for Human Subjects. Part 2: Clinical investigation plans. 2003
25. Niskanen L, Jensen LE, Rastam J, et al. Randomized, multinational, openlabel, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2004;26:531-40
26. Anderson RT, Skovlund SE, Marrero D, et al. Development and validation of the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Clin Ther 2004;26:565-78
27. Brod M, Christensen T, Bushnell D. Maximizing the value of validation findings to better understand treatment satisfaction issues for diabetes. Qual Life Res 2007;16:1053-63
28. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16(3):297-334
29. Leontitsis A, Pagge J. A Simulation Approach on Cronbach's Alpha Statistical Significance. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 73(5). Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, 2007:336-40
30. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1990
31. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill College, 1998
32. Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, et al. Ease of use and preference assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus a widely available prefilled insulin pen in people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011;8(10):1259-69
33. Bailey T, Thurman J, Niemeyer M, et al. Usability and preference evaluation of a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27(10):2043-52
34. Pfutzner A, Asakura T, Sommavilla B, et al. Insulin delivery with FlexPen: dose accuracy, patient preference and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2008;5:915-25
35. Pfutzner A, Reimer T, Hohberg C, et al. Prefilled insulin device with reduced injection force: patient perception and accuracy. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:2545-9