SCOPE: Recently, many publicly funded healthcare organizations suffered from an economical crisis. This forced some organizations to utilize less costly alternatives where possible. Insulin cartridges and vials are examples. Many patients are questioning the difference between the two alternatives as they contain the same active ingredient. OBJECTIVE: To find out if insulin cartridges really provide a lower risk of potential diabetes complications than traditional vials. METHOD: A questionnaire was used to ask two random samples of diabetic patients about the development of some diabetes complications. The first sample (n = 41) consisted of patients using cartridges; the second sample (n = 40) consisted of patients using vials. Patients were randomly selected from the endocrine clinic and the out-patient pharmacy in Al-Hussein Hospital in King Hussein Medical Center in Amman- Jordan. RESULTS: 44% of respondents in the first sample did not suffer from any complication; on the other hand, the percentage was only 15% of respondents in the second sample. All respondents (100%) in the first sample suffered from only 2 complications or less; however, 25% of the respondents in the second sample suffered from 3 or more complications. Nephropathy complications, were slightly higher in the first sample; 22% compared to 15% in the second sample. On the other hand, all complications reported in the second sample were higher; 30% for neuropathy, 65% for retinopathy complications and 42.5% for extremities damage compared to only 9.7%, 7.3% and 26.8% respectively in the first sample. CONCLUSION: In general, respondents who were using cartridges reported a lesser incidence of diabetes complications. Although many organizations suffered from an economical crisis, the cost-effectiveness aspect should be taken into consideration when purchasing medical alternatives. This will provide higher quality of life for patients and eventually lower hidden and future costs for the organizations.
SCOPE: Recently, many publicly funded healthcare organizations suffered from an economical crisis. This forced some organizations to utilize less costly alternatives where possible. Insulin cartridges and vials are examples. Many patients are questioning the difference between the two alternatives as they contain the same active ingredient. OBJECTIVE: To find out if insulin cartridges really provide a lower risk of potential diabetes complications than traditional vials. METHOD: A questionnaire was used to ask two random samples of diabeticpatients about the development of some diabetes complications. The first sample (n = 41) consisted of patients using cartridges; the second sample (n = 40) consisted of patients using vials. Patients were randomly selected from the endocrine clinic and the out-patient pharmacy in Al-Hussein Hospital in King Hussein Medical Center in Amman- Jordan. RESULTS: 44% of respondents in the first sample did not suffer from any complication; on the other hand, the percentage was only 15% of respondents in the second sample. All respondents (100%) in the first sample suffered from only 2 complications or less; however, 25% of the respondents in the second sample suffered from 3 or more complications. Nephropathy complications, were slightly higher in the first sample; 22% compared to 15% in the second sample. On the other hand, all complications reported in the second sample were higher; 30% for neuropathy, 65% for retinopathy complications and 42.5% for extremities damage compared to only 9.7%, 7.3% and 26.8% respectively in the first sample. CONCLUSION: In general, respondents who were using cartridges reported a lesser incidence of diabetes complications. Although many organizations suffered from an economical crisis, the cost-effectiveness aspect should be taken into consideration when purchasing medical alternatives. This will provide higher quality of life for patients and eventually lower hidden and future costs for the organizations.
Authors: Mohammad G Al-Sharayri; Tariq M Alsabrah; Tareq M Aljbori; Ala'a Eddeen K Abu-Rumman Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2012-08-26 Impact factor: 4.330