Current medical research and opinion · 2010
Ease of use and patient preference injection simulation study comparing two prefilled insulin pens.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clark Paula E, Valentine Virginia, Bodie Jennifer N, Sarwat Samiha
Аннотация
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.
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.