CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A randomized, cross-over comparison of preference between two reusable insulin pen devices in pen-naïve adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate final preference and ease-of-use attributes of two reusable pen injectors, HPS (HumaPen Savvio) and HPL (HumaPen Luxura), in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 1 day, randomized, two-period crossover, open-label, simulated-injection study in 203 pen-naïve subjects (mean age 58.4 years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional and ease-of-use attributes of insulin pen injectors were evaluated using a 16-item survey (7 point scale) where higher scores reflected greater preference and equal scores reflected no preference. The primary objective was final pen preference, with statistical gate-keeping to the ease of detecting an insufficient remaining dose (IRD) of insulin upon dose selection.

RESULTS: For final overall pen preference, HPS was chosen by 150 of 203 subjects (73.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.3%-79.8%). For the IRD item, 'It is easy to know when there is not enough insulin left in the cartridge for the dose I need before I inject', HPS was preferred by 94 of 107 subjects with a preference (87.9%, 95% CI = 80.1%-93.4%). In 14 of the remaining 15 survey items, 64.3% to 87.7% of subjects with a preference statistically significantly preferred HPS over HPL. To confirm the results, subjects with no preference for either pen, which ranged between 95 and 148, were included in a Bayesian analysis.

KEY LIMITATIONS: Injection simulation, use of an unvalidated survey, and office setting which did not allow for direct clinical experience with the devices.

CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pen-naïve subjects preferred HPS over HPL. For all ease-of-use attributes, the majority of subjects with a preference chose HPS over HPL. Some attributes of both pens were equally acceptable, as many subjects had no preference.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app