Patient device assessment evaluation of two insulin injection devices in a mixed cohort of insulin-treated patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Volumn 28, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1297-1303

  Schipper, Christina ^a   Musholt, Petra ^a   Niemeyer, Marcus ^b   Qvist, Marianne ^b   Löffler, Andrea ^a   Forst, Thomas ^a   Pfützner, Andreas ^a  

^a IKFE Institute for Clinical Research and Development   (Germany)

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Insulin injection; Patient preference; Pen device

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; INSULIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DISEASE DURATION; FEMALE; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN INJECTION PEN; INSULIN TREATMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DEVICE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, JET; INSULIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF REPORT;

EID: 84864571047     PISSN: 03007995     EISSN: 14734877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2012.708325     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Pearson TL. Practical aspects of insulin pen devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:522-31
2. Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106:57-8
3. Hunt LM, Valenzuela MA, Pugh JA. NIDDM patients' fears and hopes about insulin therapy. The basis for patient reluctance. Diabetes Care 1997;20:292-8
4. Hamilton JG. Needle phobia: A neglected diagnosis. J Fam Pract 1995;41:169-73
5. Korytkowski M, Niskanen L, Asakura T. FlexPen: Addressing issues of confidence and convenience in insulin delivery. Clin Ther 2005;27(Suppl B):89-100
6. Pfü tzner A: FlexPen for the delivery of insulin: recent developments in accuracy, injection force and patient preference. Exp Opin Med Dev 2009;6:115-23
7. Reimer T, Hohberg C, Pfü tzner AH, et al. Instruction time, intuitiveness and patient acceptance of a prefilled and a re-usable insulin delivery device-the NovoMix 30 FlexPen and the HumaPen LuxuraTM. Clin Ther 2009;30:2252-62
8. Pfü tzner A, Reimer T, Hohberg C, et al. Prefilled insulin device with reduced injection force: patient perception and accuracy. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:254-9
9. Asakura T. Comparison of clinically relevant technical attributes of five insulin injection pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1203-9
10. Zahn JD. Analysis: desirable attributes of insulin injection pens that drive patient preference and compliance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1210-11
11. Asche CV, Shane-McWhorter L, Raparla S. Health economics and compliance of vials/syringes versus pen devices: A review of the evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12(Suppl 1):S101-8
12. Friederichs A, Basso N, Adler S. Injection force of reusable insulin pens: NovoPen 4, Lilly Luxura, BerliPen, and ClikSTAR. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1185-90
13. Rissler J, Jørgensen C, Rye Hansen M, Hansen NA. Evaluation of the injection force dynamics of a modified prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008;9:2217-22
14. Wielandt JO, Niemeyer M, Hansen MR, et al. An assessment of dose accuracy and injection force of a novel prefilled insulin pen: comparison with a widely used prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011;8:1271-6
15. van der Burg T. Injection force of SoloSTAR compared with other disposable insulin pen devices at constant volume flow rates. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:150-5
16. Ignaut DA, Opincar MR, Clark PE, et al. Engineering study comparing injection force and dose accuracy between two prefilled insulin injection pens. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:2829-33
17. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Howard LA. An objective and standardised test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969;50:311-31
18. Hackel ME, Wolfe GA, Bang SM, Canfield JS. Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen Test of Hand Function. Phys Ther 1992;6:373-7
19. Bovend'Eerdt TJ, Dawes H, Johansen-Berg H, Wade DT. Evaluation of the Modified Jebsen Test of Hand Function and the University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:195-202
20. Pfü tzner A, Musholt PB, Schipper C, et al. Self-assessment and objective determination of dexterity and cognitive function in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:15-21
21. Bailey T, Thurman J, Niemeyer M, Schmeisl G. Usability and preference evaluation of a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism by people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:2043-52
22. Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, et al. Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011;8:1259-69
23. Hemmingsen H, Niemeyer M, Hansen MR, et al. A prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism and a lower injection force than other prefilled insulin pens. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:1207-11
24. Zahn JD. Analysis: desirable attributes of insulin injection pens that drive patient preference and compliance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1210-11
25. Williams AS. Analysis: linking laboratory data to human factors and inclusion of persons with disabilities in diabetes technology research. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1191-4
26. Uslan M, Blubough M. Analysis: including visual impaired participants in validation design studies of diabetes technology. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2004;4:1236-7
27. Wesemann W, Schiefer U, Bach M. New DIN norms for determination of visual acuity German Ophtalmologe 2010;107:821-6
28. Casanova JE, Casanova JS, Young MJ. Hand function in patients with diabetes mellitus. South Med J 1991;84:1111-13
29. Cederlund RI, Thomsen N, Thrainsdottir S, et al. Hand disorders, hand function, and activities of daily living in elderly men with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2009;23:32-9
30. Dahlin LB, Thrainsdottir S, Cederlund R, et al. Vibrotactile sense in median and ulnar nerve innervated fingers of men with Type 2 diabetes, normal or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabet Med 2008;25:543-9
31. Pfützner J, Hellhammer J, Musholt PB, et al. Evaluation of dexterity, cognitive capacity and perception of chronic stress in patients with insulin treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:158-65
32. Schoppe KJ. Das MLS-Gerä t: ein neuer Testapparat zur Messung feinmotorischer Leistungen. The MLS device a new test device for measurement of fine motor skills. Diagnostica 1974;20:43-7
33. Pfützner A, Schipper C, Niemeyer M, et al. Comparison of patients' preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills. J Diabetes Sci Technol (in press)
34. Stockl 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;23:133-46
35. Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, et al. InnoLet Study Group. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004;63:27-35