Toshinari Asakura1, Shuichi Suzuki2, Toshihiko Aranishi2, Zhihong Cai2. 1. a Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences , Niigata University of Pharmacy and Applied Life Sciences , Niigata city , Niigata , Japan. 2. b Eli Lilly Japan, K.K. , Chuo-Ku, Kobe , Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed training time with the dulaglutide single-use pen (SUP) and the insulin degludec disposable prefilled pen (FlexTouch®) in self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. METHODS: This multi-center, open-label, comparative, crossover study measured training time with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch®. Participants learned how to use both devices in a randomly assigned order. Healthcare providers (HCP) conducted the training. The primary end-point was the time required to train self-injection-naïve T2DM participants to self-inject correctly using each device. Secondary end-points included performance measures, such as success and error rates, patient perceptions related to ease-of-use, and factors associated with training time and performance. RESULTS: Overall, 48 participants were randomized and completed the study. The mean training time to achieve correct administration was significantly shorter with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch® (7.4 min vs 19.7 min, p < .001). The proportions of participants who successfully completed the mock injection without error were similar for both devices. Ninety-two percent (44/48) of participants reported that the dulaglutide SUP was easier to use than FlexTouch®. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, participants required a shorter training time to achieve correct administration with the dulaglutide SUP, and had a higher preference for the dulaglutide SUP, when compared to FlexTouch®. These data suggest that the dulaglutide SUP is easy-to-use, which may decrease the burden on HCPs to train diabetic patients how to administer injection therapy and reduce patient injection hurdles, such as needle fear.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed training time with the dulaglutide single-use pen (SUP) and the insulin degludec disposable prefilled pen (FlexTouch®) in self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. METHODS: This multi-center, open-label, comparative, crossover study measured training time with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch®. Participants learned how to use both devices in a randomly assigned order. Healthcare providers (HCP) conducted the training. The primary end-point was the time required to train self-injection-naïve T2DM participants to self-inject correctly using each device. Secondary end-points included performance measures, such as success and error rates, patient perceptions related to ease-of-use, and factors associated with training time and performance. RESULTS: Overall, 48 participants were randomized and completed the study. The mean training time to achieve correct administration was significantly shorter with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch® (7.4 min vs 19.7 min, p < .001). The proportions of participants who successfully completed the mock injection without error were similar for both devices. Ninety-two percent (44/48) of participants reported that the dulaglutide SUP was easier to use than FlexTouch®. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, participants required a shorter training time to achieve correct administration with the dulaglutide SUP, and had a higher preference for the dulaglutide SUP, when compared to FlexTouch®. These data suggest that the dulaglutide SUP is easy-to-use, which may decrease the burden on HCPs to train diabeticpatients how to administer injection therapy and reduce patient injection hurdles, such as needle fear.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus; Dulaglutide; Injections; Insulin degludec; Self-administration; type 2
Authors: David C Klonoff; Stephanie Bassock; Andrea Dwyer; Ella Engels; Marianne Qvist; Thomas Sparre; Soren Snitker Journal: J Diabetes Investig Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 4.232
Authors: Johan Jendle; Andreas L Birkenfeld; William H Polonsky; Robert Silver; Kari Uusinarkaus; Thomas Hansen; Jonas Håkan-Bloch; Sayeh Tadayon; Melanie J Davies Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 6.577
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