Insulin Pen Needles: Effects of Extra-Thin Wall Needle Technology on Preference, Confidence, and Other Patient Ratings

Clinical Therapeutics

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 923-933.e4

  Aronson, Ronnie ^a   Gibney, Michael A ^b   Oza, Kunjal ^b   Bérubé, Julie ^b   Kassler Taub, Kenneth ^b   Hirsch, Laurence ^b  

^a LMC DIABETES AND ENDOCRINOLOGY   (Canada)

^b BD Technologies   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INSULIN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; EXTRA THIN WALL PEN NEEDLE; FEMALE; FLOW RATE; FORCE; HANDEDNESS; HUMAN; HYPOGLYCEMIA; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INSULIN PEN NEEDLE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEEDLE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF INJECTION; THUMB FORCE; TIME; TIME TO DELIVER MEDICATION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84880514502     PISSN: 01492918     EISSN: 1879114X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.05.020     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. International Diabetes Federation IDF Diabetes Atlas Update 2012 2012, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, Belgium, Accessed January 7, 2013. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/5e/Update2012, 5th ed.
2. International Diabetes Federation IDF Diabetes Atlas 2011, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, Belgium, Accessed January 7, 2013. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas, 5th ed.
3. Da Costa S., Brackenridge B., Hicks D. A comparison of insulin pen use in the United States and the United Kingdom. Diabetes Educ 2002, 28:52-60.
4. Bhargava A. Insulin therapy: the question this issue. Insulin 2007, 2:92-94.
5. Marcus A. Diabetes care: insulin delivery in a changing world. Medscape J Med 2008, 10:120.
6. Molife C., Lee L.J., Shi L., et al. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices versus conventional vial and syringe. Diab Tech Ther 2009, 11:529-537.
7. Luijf Y.M., DeVries J.H. Dosing accuracy of insulin pens versus conventional syringes and vials. Diab Tech Ther 2010, 12(Suppl 1):S73-S77.
8. Hirsch L.J., Gibney M.A., Albanese J., et al. Comparative glycemic control, safety, and patient ratings for a new 4 mm × 32 G insulin pen needle in adults with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 2010, 26:1531-1541.
9. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Stainless steel needle tubing for the manufacture of medical devices. 9626 First Edition 1991-09-01, Amendment 1 2001-06-01. ISO 2001;ICS11.040.20:1-5.
10. Poiseuille's law. Merriam-Webster medical dictionary. Accessed February 20, 2013. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/poiseuille's%20law.
11. Hirsch L.J., Gibney M., Berube J., Manocchio J. Impact of a modified needle tip geometry on penetration force as well as acceptability, preference, and perceived pain in subjects with diabetes. J Diab Sci Tech 2012, 6:328-335.
12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Pen injectors for medical use, Part 3: finished cartridges, requirements and test methods. 11608-3:2000(E), ISO 2000; ICS 11.040.25:1-14.
13. Dunnett C.W. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Statist Assoc 1955, 50:1096-1121.
14. World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2000. Accessed May 1, 2013. http://www.wma.net/.
15. Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance (ICH-E6), 1996. Accessed May 1, 2013. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/GuidancesInformationSheetsandNotices/ucm219488.htm.
16. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Clinical Investigation of medical devices for human subjects -- good clinical practice. ISO14155:2011; ICS 11.100.20;1-58.
17. Turan Y., Duruöz M.T., Aksakalli E., Gürgan A. Validation of Duruöz Hand Index for diabetic hand dysfunction. J Investig Med 2009, 57:887-891.
18. Oyer D., Niemeyer M., Moses A. Empowering people with diabetes: improving perceptions and outcomes with technical advances in insulin pens. Postgrad Med 2013, 124:110-120.
19. Strauss K., Hannet I., McGonigle J., et al. Ultra-short (5 mm) insulin needles: trial results and clinical recommendations. Pract Diab Intl 1999, 16:218-222.
20. Schwartz S., Hassman D., Shelmet J., et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference with a 31 gauge × 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge × 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther 2004, 26:1663-1678.
21. Kreugel G., Keers J.C., Kerstens M.N., Wolffenbuttel B.H. Randomized trial on the influence of the length of two insulin pen needles on glycemic control and patient preference in obese patients with diabetes. Diab Tech Ther 2011, 13:737-741.
22. Miwa T., Itoh R., Kobayashi T., et al. Comparison of the effects of a new 32-gauge x 4-mm pen needle and a 32-gauge x 6-mm pen needle on glycemic control, safety, and patient ratings in Japanese adults with diabetes. Diab Tech Ther 2012, 14:1084-1090.
23. Siegmund T., Blankenfeld H., Schumm-Draeger P.M. Comparison of usability and patient preference for insulin pen needles produced with different production techniques: 'thin-wall' needles compared to 'regular-wall' needles: an open-label study. Diab Tech Ther 2009, 11:523-528.