Pen Devices to Improve Patient Adherence With Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

References

• Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27(5): 1047–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Statistics. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-statistics.jsp. Accessed August 29, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2005. National Diabetes 2005. Abstract.
   Google Scholar
• The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(14): 977–986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998; 352(9131): 837–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E, et al. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 1995; 28(2): 103–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000; 321 (7258): 405–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick HE, Foster GL, Bardsley J, Ratner RE. Achievement of American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations among US adults with diabetes, 1999–2002. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Diabetes Care. 2006; 29(3): 531–537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, et al. Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988–2002. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144(7): 465–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. American College of Endocrinology consensus statement on guidelines for glycemic control. http://www.aace.com/meetings/consensus/dcc/pdf/dcewhitepaper.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• State of Diabetes in America^TM Report, http://www.aace.com/public/awareness/stateofdiabetes/DiabetesAmericaReport.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Skovlund SE, Peyrot M. The Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) Program: a new approach to improving outcomes of diabetes care. Diabetes Spectrum. 2005; 18(3): 136–142.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer JA. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27(5): 1218–1224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee WC, Balu S, Cobden D, et al. Medication adherence and the associated health-economic impact among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus converting to insulin pen therapy: an analysis of third-party managed care claims data. Clin Ther. 2006; 28(10): 1712–1725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korytkowski M. When oral agents fail: practical barriers to starting insulin. IntJObes. 2002; 26(suppl 3): S18–S24.
   Google Scholar
• Shah BR, Hux JE, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical inertia in response to inadequate glycemic control: do specialists differ from primary care physicians? Diabetes Care. 2005; 28(3): 600–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peyrot M, Rubin RR, Lauritzen T, et al. Resistance to insulin therapy among patients and providers. Results of the cross-national Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes, and Needs (DAWN) study. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28(11): 2673–2679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siminerio L. Challenges and strategies for moving patients to injectable medications. Diabetes Educ. 2006; 32(suppl 2): 82S–90S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cryer PE, Childs BP. Negotiating the barrier of hypoglycemia in diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum. 2002; 15: 20–27.
   Google Scholar
• Cunie CJ, Morgan CL, Poole CD, et al. Multivariate models of health- related utility and the fear of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006; 22(8): 1523–1534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care. 1999; 22(7): 1125–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough SC. A review of human and analogue insulin trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007; 77(1): 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kølendorf K, Ross GP, Pavlic-Renar I, et al. Insulin detemir lowers the risk of hypoglycaemia and provides more consistent plasma glucose levels compared with NPH insulin in type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2006; 23(7): 729–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yki-Järvinen H, Dressler A, Ziemen M. Less nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in type 2 diabetes. HOE 901/3002 Study Group. Diabetes Care. 2000; 23(8): 1130–1136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfutzner A, Asakura T, Sommavilla B, et al. Insulin delivery with FlexPen®: dose accuracy, patient preference and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008; 5(8): 915–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, et al. 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 mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003; 25(11): 2836–2848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sucic M, Galic E, Cabrijan T, et al. Patient acceptance and reliability of new Humulin®/Humalog® 3.0 ml prefilled insulin pen in ten Croatian diabetes centres. Med Sci Monit. 2002; 8 (3): PI21–PI26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Niskanen L, Jensen LE, Rastam J, et al. Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2004; 26(4): 531–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asakura T, Seino H. Assessment of dose selection attributes with audible notification in insulin pen devices. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005; 7(4): 620–626.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Venekamp WJ, Kerr L, Dowsett SA, et al. Functionality and acceptability of a new electronic insulin injection pen with a memory feature. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006; 22(2): 315–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawton S, Berg B. Comparative evaluation of FlexPen®, a new prefilled insulin delivery system, among patients and healthcare professionals. Diabetes. 2001; 50: A440. Abstract.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis EM, Christensen CM, Nystrom KK, et al. Patient satisfaction and costs associated with insulin administered by pen device or syringe during hospitalization. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008; 65(14): 1347–1357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Costa S, Brackenridge B, Hicks D. A comparison of insulin pen use in the United States and the United Kingdom. Diabetes Educator. 2002; 28(1): 52–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar