These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ease of use and patient preference injection simulation study comparing two prefilled insulin pens.
    Author: Clark PE, Valentine V, Bodie JN, Sarwat S.
    Journal: Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Jul; 26(7):1745-53. PubMed ID: 20482243.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To determine patient ease of use and preference for the Humalog KwikPen* (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog dagger] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) (insulin lispro pen) versus the Next Generation FlexPen double dagger (prefilled insulin aspart [NovoRapid section sign ] pen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (insulin aspart pen). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 8-sequence crossover study in insulin pen-naïve patients with diabetes. Randomized patients (N = 367) received device training, then simulated low- (15 U) and high- (60 U) dose insulin injections with an appliance. Patients rated pens using an ease of use questionnaire and were asked separately for final pen preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Insulin Device 'Ease of Use' Battery is a 10-item questionnaire with a 7-point scale (higher scores reflect greater ease of use). The primary objective was to determine pen preference for 'easy to press to inject my dose' (by comparing composite scores [low- plus high-dose]). Secondary objectives were to determine pen preference on select questionnaire items (from composite scores), final pen preference, and summary responses for all questionnaire items. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint, 'easy to press to inject my dose,' a statistically significant majority of patients with a preference chose the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen (68.4%, 95% CI = 62.7-73.6%). Statistically significant majorities of patients with a preference also favored the insulin lispro pen on secondary items: 'easy to hold in my hand when I inject' (64.9%, 95% CI = 58.8-70.7%), 'easy to use when I am in a public place' (67.5%, 95% CI = 61.0-73.6%), and 'overall easy to use' (69.9%, 95% CI = 63.9-75.4%). A statistically significant majority of patients had a final preference for the insulin lispro pen (67.3%, 95% CI = 62.2-72.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Among pen-naïve patients with diabetes who had a preference, the majority preferred the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen with regard to ease of use. Study limitations included open-label design and injection simulation, use of an unvalidated questionnaire, and enrollment of mostly insulin-naïve patients.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]