Literature DB >> 23402225

Accuracy and preference assessment of prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe with diabetes patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals.

Andreas Pfützner1, Timothy Bailey, Carlos Campos, Douglas Kahn, Ellen Ambers, Marcus Niemeyer, German Guerrero, David Klonoff, Irina Nayberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the dosing accuracy of the new prefilled FlexTouch insulin pen (FT) in comparison to conventional vial and syringe (V&S) when used by patients (Pts), caregivers (CG) and healthcare professionals (HCPs).
METHODS: A total of 120 subjects participated in the trial (40 diabetes patients aged 61 ± 11 [mean ± SD] yrs, 20 caregivers [parents and other relatives], 20 physicians, and 40 nurses/certified diabetes educators). The participants were introduced to the devices in randomized order and were asked to perform injections of 5, 25, 43 and 79 IU doses into laboratory tubes. Dosing accuracy was analyzed by weighing the tubes on a pharmaceutical balance and calculating the mean absolute deviation (MAD) from the intended doses. After completing a device assessment questionnaire, Patient Perception Questionnaire (PPQ), with questions regarding device design and performance, the procedure was repeated for the other device, and the patients were finally asked to complete a device preference questionnaire (DPQ).
RESULTS: Dosing accuracy was significantly better for FT when used by any of the cohorts at all doses. (MAD ± SD for FT/V&amp;S; 5 IU: 0.4 ± 0.4/0.6 ± 0.6 IU; 25 IU: 0.3 ± 0.4/0.7 ± 0.9 IU; 43 IU: 0.4 ± 0.4/0.9 ± 1.2 IU; 79 IU: 0.5 ± 0.5/1.7 ± 1.6 IU, p < 0.005 for all doses). Dosing accuracy with FT for all three subgroups was comparable (patients: 0.35-0.59 IU; HCP&amp;CG: 0.29-0.54 IU; n.s.). Dosing accuracy with V&amp;S for all three subgroups was not comparable: HCP and CG performed much better with V&amp;S than patients and delivered the doses with significantly higher accuracy (range of mean MAD; patients: 0.81-2.54 IU; HCP&amp;CG: 0.51-1.30 IU, p < 0.005 at all doses). FT was ranked superior to V&amp;S for all aspects of the PPQ. In the DPQ, 93% of the patients voted for FT (neutral: 5%, V&amp;S: 2%), (CG: 100%/0%/0%; HCPs: 85%/2%/13%; p < 0.001 in all cases).
CONCLUSION: FT, compared to V&amp;S, was more accurate at all tested doses and was used with similar accuracy by patients, HCPs, and CGs. Using questionnaires only, and without dexterity assessment, study participants rated FT higher than V&amp;S in every component of the PPQ and the vast majority of them preferred FT. These findings may point to a better alternative for dosing accuracy and improved adherence when using the new prefilled insulin pen compared to V&amp;S for insulin delivery in patients with diabetes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23402225     DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2013.775112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  15 in total

1.  Patients' Preferences for Insulin Injection Devices.

Authors:  Andreas Pfützner
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2017-01-09

Review 2.  Use of technology when assessing adherence to diabetes self-management behaviors.

Authors:  Kimberly A Driscoll; Deborah Young-Hyman
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 4.810

3.  FlexTouch: An Insulin Pen-Injector with a Low Activation Force Across Different Insulin Formulations, Needle Technologies, and Temperature Conditions.

Authors:  Niels Gudiksen; Thibaud Hofstätter; Birgitte B Rønn; Thomas Sparre
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 6.118

4.  Evaluation of the Dual-Chamber Pen Design for the Injection of Exenatide Once Weekly for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Susan LaRue; Jaret Malloy
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-09

Review 5.  Accuracy of intravenous and enteral preparations involving small volumes for paediatric use: a review.

Authors:  L P Ainscough; J L Ford; C W Morecroft; M Peak; M A Turner; A J Nunn; M Roberts
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2017-01-04

6.  Understanding Patients' Willingness to Pay for Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30/70 in a Pen Device for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment in an Out-of-Pocket Payment Market.

Authors:  Sreenivasa Murthy; Pankaj Aneja; Arthur Joseph Asirvatham; Lise Lotte N Husemoen; Nicolai A Rhee; Jothydev Kesavadev
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2021-01-06

7.  Uptake of new antidiabetic medications in three emerging markets: a comparison between Brazil, China and Thailand.

Authors:  Christine Y Lu; Isabel Cristina M Emmerick; Peter Stephens; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Anita K Wagner
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2015-02-16

Review 8.  Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, and feasibility in relation to the use of injection safety devices in healthcare settings: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rami Tarabay; Rola El Rassi; Abeer Dakik; Alain Harb; Rami A Ballout; Batoul Diab; Selma Khamassi; Elie A Akl
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 9.  Insulin delivery methods: Past, present and future.

Authors:  Rima B Shah; Manhar Patel; David M Maahs; Viral N Shah
Journal:  Int J Pharm Investig       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

Review 10.  A Systematic Review of Patients' Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration.

Authors:  Colin H Ridyard; Dalia M M Dawoud; Lorna V Tuersley; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.