OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using aninsulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS). RESULTS: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean±SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61±0.28 vs. 9.02±0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18±0.18 vs. 3.63±0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2±1.7 vs. 40.3±1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS). RESULTS: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean±SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61±0.28 vs. 9.02±0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18±0.18 vs. 3.63±0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2±1.7 vs. 40.3±1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.
Authors: H Peter Chase; Brian Horner; Kim McFann; Hannah Yetzer; Jana Gaston; Carolyn Banion; Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Robert Slover; Georgeanna Klingensmith Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Karen Stockl; Caron Ory; Ann Vanderplas; Lars Nicklasson; William Lyness; David Cobden; Eunice Chang Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: John Shelmet; Sherwyn Schwartz; John Cappleman; Gregory Peterson; Soren Skovlund; Lene Lytzen; Lars Nicklasson; John Liang; William Lyness Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Darlene M Dreon; Trevor M Hannon; Brett Cross; Brett J Carter; Nicholas S Mercer; Jason H Nguyen; Andy Tran; Peter A Melendez; Nancy Morales; Jonathan E Nelson; Meng H Tan Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2018-02-28
Authors: Richard M Bergenstal; Mark Peyrot; Darlene M Dreon; Vanita R Aroda; Timothy S Bailey; Ronald L Brazg; Juan P Frias; Mary L Johnson; David C Klonoff; Davida F Kruger; Shenaz Ramtoola; Julio Rosenstock; Pierre Serusclat; Ruth S Weinstock; Ramachandra G Naik; David M Shearer; Vivien Zraick; Brian L Levy Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Abdul Ahad; Mohammad Raish; Yousef A Bin Jardan; Abdullah M Al-Mohizea; Fahad I Al-Jenoobi Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 6.321