OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, crossover study assessed the preference and usability of a new prefilled insulin pen, FlexTouch® (FT) versus vial and syringe (V&S). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 60), and physicians (n = 30) and nurses (n = 30) with experience of diabetes management performedtest injections with FT and V&S, and then answered written questions on ease of use and preference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was preference for FT versus V&S. Secondary end points included perceptions of device handling. RESULTS: Significantly more respondents preferred using FT (88%) to V&S (5%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'), found FT (91%) easier to use than V&S (6%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference') and would recommend FT (91%) over V&S (3%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'). FT received better ratings than V&S for ease of use, holding the device stable when injecting, depressing the push-button/plunger and reading the dose scale (all p < 0.001). Ratings for confidence in correct insulin delivery and controlling blood sugar were also significantly better with FT (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FT was preferred to V&S for insulin delivery in this comparative analysis. The features of FT may improve the experience of insulin injection compared with V&S for a wide range of people with diabetes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, crossover study assessed the preference and usability of a new prefilled insulinpen, FlexTouch® (FT) versus vial and syringe (V&S). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 60), and physicians (n = 30) and nurses (n = 30) with experience of diabetes management performed test injections with FT and V&S, and then answered written questions on ease of use and preference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was preference for FT versus V&S. Secondary end points included perceptions of device handling. RESULTS: Significantly more respondents preferred using FT (88%) to V&S (5%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'), found FT (91%) easier to use than V&S (6%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference') and would recommend FT (91%) over V&S (3%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'). FT received better ratings than V&S for ease of use, holding the device stable when injecting, depressing the push-button/plunger and reading the dose scale (all p < 0.001). Ratings for confidence in correct insulin delivery and controlling blood sugar were also significantly better with FT (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FT was preferred to V&S for insulin delivery in this comparative analysis. The features of FT may improve the experience of insulin injection compared with V&S for a wide range of people with diabetes.