Evaluation of a new durable insulin pen with memory function among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals

被引:17
作者
Guo, Xiaohui [1 ]
Sommavilla, Baerbel [2 ]
Vanterpool, Grace [3 ]
Qvist, Marianne [4 ]
Bethien, Matthias [5 ]
Lilleore, Soren Kruse [4 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ First Hosp, Dept Endocrinol, Beijing 100034, Peoples R China
[2] Paracelsus Med Univ, Gen Hosp, Ctr Prevent & Care, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
[3] CLCH Diabet, Intermediate Serv, London W14 0LJ, England
[4] Novo Nordisk AS, DK-2860 Soborg, Denmark
[5] GfK SirValUse Consulting GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
diabetes; ease of use; insulin pen; memory function; GLYCEMIC CONTROL; EMPOWERING PATIENTS; INJECTION FORCE; NOVOPEN(R) 4; ACCURACY; ADHERENCE; DELIVERY; TYPE-1; PREFERENCE; MULTICENTER;
D O I
10.1517/17425247.2012.671808
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate durable insulin pens among people with diabetes (PwD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs), by comparing two durable insulin pens with memory function: NovoPen (R) 5 (NP5) and HumaPen (R) Memoir (TM) (HPM), and two durable insulin pens without memory function: HumaPen Luxura (R) (HPL) and ClikSTAR (R) (CS). Research design and methods: This cross-over, multicentre usability test was conducted in China, Germany and the UK. Participants evaluated all four pens in randomised order by performing handling and usability tasks related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens and preferences were rated by completing a questionnaire comprising of rating and open-ended questions. Results: NP5 was preferred by 51% of participants compared with HPM (22%, p < 0.01), HPL (12%, p < 0.01) and CS (15%, p < 0.01). Participants preferred the design of NP5 (in particular, appearance, length and robustness). Memory function for the two pens was rated equally by participants, but 54% of PwD rated NP5 as 'very easy' to learn to use versus 22% for HPM and significantly more HCPs found it 'very easy' to teach patients to use NP5 versus HPM (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). Substantially, more PwD would be confident in using NP5 (64%) compared with HPM (43%), HPL (49%) and CS (45%) (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). Conclusions: NP5 was preferred by > 50% of PwD and HCPs. NP5 was more highly rated for design, memory function and ease of learning/teaching compared with HPM. Most PwD would be confident in using NP5 for administering daily insulin injections.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 366
页数:12
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]  
Adolfsson P, 2011, PEDIAT DIABETES S15, V12, P49
[2]  
[Anonymous], POSTGRAD MED
[3]  
[Anonymous], POSTGRAD MED
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, DECL HELS ETH PRINC
[5]   Patient acceptance and issues of education of two durable insulin pen devices [J].
Asakura, Toshinari ;
Seino, Hiroaki ;
Jensen, Klaus H. .
DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2008, 10 (04) :299-304
[6]  
Asakura T, 2006, DIABETES, V55, pA456
[7]  
Asakura Toshinari, 2005, Diabetes Technol Ther, V7, P620, DOI 10.1089/dia.2005.7.620
[8]  
Asakura Toshinari, 2011, J Diabetes Sci Technol, V5, P1203
[9]   Assessment of adherence and healthcare costs of insulin device (FlexPenA®) versus conventional vial/syringe [J].
Baser, Onur ;
Bouchard, Jonathan ;
DeLuzio, Tony ;
Henk, Henry ;
Aagren, Mark .
ADVANCES IN THERAPY, 2010, 27 (02) :94-104
[10]  
Bastian Michael D, 2011, Consult Pharm, V26, P426, DOI 10.4140/TCP.n.2011.426