» Articles » PMID: 14693308

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Comparative, Two-period Crossover Trial of Preference, Efficacy, and Safety Profiles of a Prefilled, Disposable Pen and Conventional Vial/syringe for Insulin Injection in Patients with Type 1 or 2 Diabetes...

Overview
Journal Clin Ther
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2003 Dec 25
PMID 14693308
Citations 90
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The accuracy and convenience of pen devices for insulin injection have improved quality of life for patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (DM). Prefilled, disposable pens have the advantage of simplicity, with minimal training and attention required and no installation of new cartridges necessary.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patient preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen (FlexPen) and conventional vial/syringe injection method for insulin injection therapy among patients with DM.

Methods: In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study, patients with type 1 or 2 DM were transferred from previous QD or BID conventional insulin therapy to a mixture of 70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30% insulin aspart injection (NovoLog Mix 7030) for 4 weeks of dose optimization using their usual type of syringe. Patients were then randomly assigned to use either vial/syringe or a prefilled, disposable pen to inject the biphasic insulin aspart 7030 mixture for the next 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of use of the other injection device. Efficacy, safety profiles, and patient preference for the delivery systems were compared.

Results: A total of 121 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.0 [12.4] years; age range, 28-81 years; mean [SD] body mass index, 31 [5.5] kg/m(2)) were enrolled. One hundred three patients completed the study. Seventy-four percent of patients (78105) indicated a preference for the pen over the vial/syringe method (95% CI, 71%-87%), compared with 20% (21105) who preferred the vial/syringe. Eighty-five percent (88104) considered the pen more discreet for use in public (compared with 9% [9104] for the vial/syringe), 74% (77104) considered it easier to use overall (compared with 21% [22104] for the vial/syringe), and 85% (89105) found the insulin dose scale on the pen easier to read (compared with 10% [10105] for the vial/syringe). Patients had statistically significant improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin values during the study (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in fasting plasma glucose, mean 4-point blood glucose profiles, or serum fructosamine values were found between groups. Overall, the safety profiles during treatment periods with the pen were comparable to those with the vial/syringe.

Conclusions: In this trial, differences in efficacy and safety profiles between the vial/syringe and prefilled, disposable pen appeared negligible. However, more patients expressed a preference to continue use of the pen.

Citing Articles

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.

Diabetes Care. 2024; 48(Supplement_1):S146-S166.

PMID: 39651978 PMC: 11635043. DOI: 10.2337/dc25-S007.


Analysis of factors affecting the accuracy of low-dose insulin dosage using syringes and vials: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese regional hospital.

Kondo M, Saji R, Yamada Y, Hayashi M, Shirai T Diabetol Int. 2024; 15(3):544-549.

PMID: 39101185 PMC: 11291810. DOI: 10.1007/s13340-024-00726-5.


Quality Improvement Initiative and Safety of Insulin Pen Usage in a Small Hospital.

Klug M, Cady K, Tate J, Rivey M Hosp Pharm. 2024; 51(2):158-164.

PMID: 38746765 PMC: 11089606. DOI: 10.1310/hpj5102-158.


7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.

Diabetes Care. 2023; 47(Suppl 1):S126-S144.

PMID: 38078575 PMC: 10725813. DOI: 10.2337/dc24-S007.


Advantages and disadvantages of connected insulin pens in diabetes management.

Lingen K, Pikounis T, Bellini N, Isaacs D Endocr Connect. 2023; 12(11).

PMID: 37610002 PMC: 10563601. DOI: 10.1530/EC-23-0108.