Comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 910-916

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

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

^b NOVO NORDISK A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Dexterity; Insulin injection device; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

HEMOGLOBIN A1C; INSULIN; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEXTERITY TEST; DISEASE DURATION; DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE; FEMALE; HEMOGLOBIN BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN INJECTION PEN; INSULIN TREATMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION; INSULIN INFUSION; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; SUBCUTANEOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AGED; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INJECTIONS, SUBCUTANEOUS; INSULIN; INSULIN INFUSION SYSTEMS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR SKILLS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84873114788     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19322968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/193229681200600423     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Asakura T, Jensen KH. Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference in two insulin pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2009;3(2):312-9.
2. Ignaut DA, Schwartz SL, Sarwat S, Murphy HL. Comparative device assessments: Humalog KwikPen compared with vial and syringe and FlexPen. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(5):789-98.
3. Clark PE, Valentine V, Bodie JN, Sarwat S. Ease of use and patient preference injection simulation study comparing two prefilled insulin pens. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(7):1745-53.
4. Pfützner A. FlexPen for the delivery of insulin: accuracy, injection force and patient preference. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2009;6(2):115-23.
5. 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(10):2043-52.
6. Pfützner J, Hellhammer J, Musholt PB, Pfützner AH, Böhnke J, Hero T, Amann-Zalan I, Ganz M, Forst T, Pfützner A. Evaluation of dexterity, in patients with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(1):158-65.
7. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. (1969). An objective and standardised test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50:311-19.
8. 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;72(5):373-7.
9. 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(2):195-202.
10. Pfützner A, Musholt PB, Schipper C, Niemeyer M, Qvist M, Schorsch A, Forst T. Self-assessment and objective determination of dexterity in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28(1):15-21.
11. Oswald WD, Roth E. Der Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test (ZVT) (number connection test). Handanweisung. 2nd ed. Goettingen: Hogrefe; 1987.
12. Casanova JE, Casanova JS, Young MJ. Hand function in patients with diabetes mellitus. South Med J. 1991;84(9):1111-3.
13. Cederlund RI, Thomsen N, Thrainsdottir S, Eriksson KF, Sundkvist G, Dahlin LB. Hand disorders, hand function, and activities of daily living in elderly men with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications. 2009;23(1):32-9.
14. Dahlin LB, Thrainsdottir S, Cederlund R, Thomsen NO, Eriksson KF, Rosén I, Speidel T, Sundqvist G. Vibrotactile sense in median and ulnar nerve innervated fingers of men with Type 2 diabetes, normal or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabet Med. 2008;25(5):543-9. (Pubitemid 351590893)
15. Travieso D, Lederman SJ. Assessing subclinical tactual deficits in the hand function of diabetic blind persons at risk for peripheral neuropathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(12):1662-72. (Pubitemid 350151401)
16. 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(5):1191-4.
17. Buysman E, Conner C, Aagren M, Bouchard J, Liu F. Adherence and persistence to a regimen of basal insulin in a pre-filled pen compared to vial/syringe in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(9):1709-17.
18. Bastian MD, Wolters NE, Bright DR. Insulin pens vs. vials and syringes: diferences in clinical and economic outcomes. Consult Pharm. 2011;26(6):426-9.
19. Molife C, Lee LJ, Shi L, Sawhney M, Lenox SM. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices versus conventional vial and syringe. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11(8):529-38.
20. Ignaut DA, Schwartz SL, Sarwat S, Murphy HL. Comparative device assessments: Humalog KwikPen compared with vial and syringe and FlexPen. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(5):789-98.
21. 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.