Patient device assessment evaluation of two insulin injection devices in a mixed cohort of insulin-treated patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

References

• Pearson TL. Practical aspects of insulin pen devices. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:522-31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bohannon NJ. Insulin delivery using pen devices. Simple-to-use tools may help young and old alike. Postgrad Med 1999;106:57-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt LM, Valenzuela MA, Pugh JA. NIDDM patients’ fears and hopes about insulin therapy. The basis for patient reluctance. Diabetes Care 1997;20:292-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton JG. Needle phobia: a neglected diagnosis. J Fam Pract 1995;41:169-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korytkowski M, Niskanen L, Asakura T. FlexPen: addressing issues of confidence and convenience in insulin delivery. Clin Ther 2005;27(Suppl B):89-100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner A: FlexPen® for the delivery of insulin: recent developments in accuracy, injection force and patient preference. Exp Opin Med Dev 2009;6:115-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reimer T, Hohberg C, Pfützner AH, et al. Instruction time, intuitiveness and patient acceptance of a prefilled and a re-usable insulin delivery device – the NovoMix® 30 FlexPen® and the HumaPen® Luxura™. Clin Ther 2009;30:2252-62
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner A, Reimer T, Hohberg C, et al. Prefilled insulin device with reduced injection force: patient perception and accuracy. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:254-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asakura T. Comparison of clinically relevant technical attributes of five insulin injection pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1203-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zahn JD. Analysis: desirable attributes of insulin injection pens that drive patient preference and compliance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1210-11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Asche CV, Shane-McWhorter L, Raparla S. Health economics and compliance of vials/syringes versus pen devices: a review of the evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther 2010;12(Suppl 1):S101-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederichs A, Basso N, Adler S. Injection force of reusable insulin pens: NovoPen 4, Lilly Luxura, BerliPen, and ClikSTAR. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1185-90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rissler J, Jørgensen C, Rye Hansen M, Hansen NA. Evaluation of the injection force dynamics of a modified prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008;9:2217-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wielandt JO, Niemeyer M, Hansen MR, et al. An assessment of dose accuracy and injection force of a novel prefilled insulin pen: comparison with a widely used prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011;8:1271-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Burg T. Injection force of SoloSTAR® compared with other disposable insulin pen devices at constant volume flow rates. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:150-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ignaut DA, Opincar MR, Clark PE, et al. Engineering study comparing injection force and dose accuracy between two prefilled insulin injection pens. Curr Med Res Opin 2009;25:2829-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Howard LA. An objective and standardised test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1969;50:311-31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hackel ME, Wolfe GA, Bang SM, Canfield JS. Changes in hand function in the aging adult as determined by the Jebsen Test of Hand Function. Phys Ther 1992;6:373-7
   Google Scholar
• Bovend'Eerdt TJ, Dawes H, Johansen-Berg H, Wade DT. Evaluation of the Modified Jebsen Test of Hand Function and the University of Maryland Arm Questionnaire for Stroke. Clin Rehabil 2004;18:195-202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner A, Musholt PB, Schipper C, et al. Self-assessment and objective determination of dexterity and cognitive function in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:15-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey T, Thurman J, Niemeyer M, Schmeisl G. Usability and preference evaluation of a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism by people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:2043-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, et al. Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2011;8:1259-69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemmingsen H, Niemeyer M, Hansen MR, et al. A prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism and a lower injection force than other prefilled insulin pens. Diabetes Technol Ther 2011;13:1207-11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahn JD. Analysis: desirable attributes of insulin injection pens that drive patient preference and compliance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1210-11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams AS. Analysis: linking laboratory data to human factors and inclusion of persons with disabilities in diabetes technology research. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:1191-4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Uslan M, Blubough M. Analysis: including visual impaired participants in validation design studies of diabetes technology. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2004;4:1236-7
   Google Scholar
• Wesemann W, Schiefer U, Bach M. [New DIN norms for determination of visual acuity] German Ophtalmologe 2010;107:821-6
   Google Scholar
• Casanova JE, Casanova JS, Young MJ. Hand function in patients with diabetes mellitus. South Med J 1991;84:1111-13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cederlund RI, Thomsen N, Thrainsdottir S, et al. Hand disorders, hand function, and activities of daily living in elderly men with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 2009;23:32-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlin LB, Thrainsdottir S, Cederlund R, et al. Vibrotactile sense in median and ulnar nerve innervated fingers of men with Type 2 diabetes, normal or impaired glucose tolerance. Diabet Med 2008;25:543-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfützner J, Hellhammer J, Musholt PB, et al. Evaluation of dexterity, cognitive capacity and perception of chronic stress in patients with insulin treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2011;5:158-65
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schoppe KJ. Das MLS-Gerät: ein neuer Testapparat zur Messung feinmotorischer Leistungen. [The MLS device a new test device for measurement of fine motor skills.] Diagnostica 1974;20:43-7
   Google Scholar
• Pfützner A, Schipper C, Niemeyer M, et al. Comparison of patients’ preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills. J Diabetes Sci Technol (in press)
   Google Scholar
• Stockl K, Ory C, Vanderplas A, et al. An evaluation of patient preference for an alternative insulin delivery system compared to standard vial and syringe. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:133-46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, et al. InnoLet Study Group. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004;63:27-35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar