OBJECTIVES: To determine patient ease of use and preference for the Humalog KwikPen* (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog dagger] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) (insulin lispro pen) versus the Next Generation FlexPen double dagger (prefilled insulin aspart [NovoRapid section sign ] pen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (insulin aspart pen). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 8-sequence crossover study in insulin pen-naïve patients with diabetes. Randomized patients (N = 367) received device training, then simulated low- (15 U) and high- (60 U) dose insulin injections with an appliance. Patients rated pens using an ease of use questionnaire and were asked separately for final pen preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Insulin Device 'Ease of Use' Battery is a 10-item questionnaire with a 7-point scale (higher scores reflect greater ease of use). The primary objective was to determine pen preference for 'easy to press to inject my dose' (by comparing composite scores [low- plus high-dose]). Secondary objectives were to determine pen preference on select questionnaire items (from composite scores), final pen preference, and summary responses for all questionnaire items. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint, 'easy to press to inject my dose,' a statistically significant majority of patients with a preference chose the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen (68.4%, 95% CI = 62.7-73.6%). Statistically significant majorities of patients with a preference also favored the insulin lispro pen on secondary items: 'easy to hold in my hand when I inject' (64.9%, 95% CI = 58.8-70.7%), 'easy to use when I am in a public place' (67.5%, 95% CI = 61.0-73.6%), and 'overall easy to use' (69.9%, 95% CI = 63.9-75.4%). A statistically significant majority of patients had a final preference for the insulin lispro pen (67.3%, 95% CI = 62.2-72.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Among pen-naïve patients with diabetes who had a preference, the majority preferred the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen with regard to ease of use. Study limitations included open-label design and injection simulation, use of an unvalidated questionnaire, and enrollment of mostly insulin-naïve patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine patient ease of use and preference for the Humalog KwikPen* (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog dagger] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) (insulin lispro pen) versus the Next Generation FlexPen double dagger (prefilled insulinaspart [NovoRapid section sign ] pen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (insulinaspartpen). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 8-sequence crossover study in insulinpen-naïve patients with diabetes. Randomized patients (N = 367) received device training, then simulated low- (15 U) and high- (60 U) dose insulin injections with an appliance. Patients rated pens using an ease of use questionnaire and were asked separately for final pen preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Insulin Device 'Ease of Use' Battery is a 10-item questionnaire with a 7-point scale (higher scores reflect greater ease of use). The primary objective was to determine pen preference for 'easy to press to inject my dose' (by comparing composite scores [low- plus high-dose]). Secondary objectives were to determine pen preference on select questionnaire items (from composite scores), final pen preference, and summary responses for all questionnaire items. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint, 'easy to press to inject my dose,' a statistically significant majority of patients with a preference chose the insulin lispro pen over the insulinaspartpen (68.4%, 95% CI = 62.7-73.6%). Statistically significant majorities of patients with a preference also favored the insulin lispro pen on secondary items: 'easy to hold in my hand when I inject' (64.9%, 95% CI = 58.8-70.7%), 'easy to use when I am in a public place' (67.5%, 95% CI = 61.0-73.6%), and 'overall easy to use' (69.9%, 95% CI = 63.9-75.4%). A statistically significant majority of patients had a final preference for the insulin lispro pen (67.3%, 95% CI = 62.2-72.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Among pen-naïve patients with diabetes who had a preference, the majority preferred the insulin lispro pen over the insulinaspartpen with regard to ease of use. Study limitations included open-label design and injection simulation, use of an unvalidated questionnaire, and enrollment of mostly insulin-naïve patients.
Authors: Andreas Pfützner; Christina Schipper; Marcus Niemeyer; Marianne Qvist; Andrea Löffler; Thomas Forst; Petra B Musholt Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-07-01
Authors: Louis S Matza; Kristina S Boye; Katie D Stewart; Evan W Davies; Rosirene Paczkowski Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-11-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Kristina S Boye; Jessica B Jordan; Raleigh E Malik; Brooke M Currie; Louis S Matza Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 2.945