Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study
- PMID: 17617288
- DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2007.04.003
Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study
Abstract
Background: Patients with diabetes have been found to have a preference for insulin pens over a vial and syringe since these devices offer improvements in compliance, freedom, and flexibility.
Objective: This study assessed the usability, specific pen features, and patient preference for 4 prefilled, disposable, insulin pens: Solostar, Humulin/Humalog pen (Lilly pen), FlexPen, and a fourth, prototype pen, Pen X, in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. In 1-hour interviews, patients carried out simulated use (preparing the pens, setting a dose, and injecting into a receptacle, not the body) under observation, and answered qualitative and quantitative questions. Patients were supplied with the relevant user manual. The usability (ability and time taken to carry out handling tasks) and preference (based on 14 key pen features and overall preference) of each pen were assessed without blinding for pen make/manufacturer. During the interviews, the patients prepared each pen and performed injections into a receptacle. Comparisons were made between the pens at every step. Subgroup analyses of the usability exercises were carried out based on age (11-15 years; >/=60 years), previous pen experience, and disability (visual and dexterity).
Results: In total, 510 diabetes patients (65% type 2 diabetes; 51% female; mean age, 43 years [range, 11-82 years]) from 4 countries (United States, Germany, France, and Japan) completed the study. Overall, a greater proportion of patients correctly prepared the pen and performed an injection into a receptacle with Solostar versus all comparator pens (P < 0.05). Similar findings were observed in the usability subgroup analyses based on age, previous pen experience, and visual/dexterity disabilities. A significantly (P < 0.05) higher proportion of patients expressed overall preference for Solostar (53%) versus FlexPen (31%) or Lilly pen (15%).
Conclusion: Of the 4 pens compared, both the Solostar pen and FlexPen were found to have high patient usability, and the new Solostar pen was found to have high patient preference in these patients with diabetes.
Similar articles
-
Dose accuracy and injection force dynamics of a novel disposable insulin pen.Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007 Mar;4(2):165-74. doi: 10.1517/17425247.4.2.165. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2007. PMID: 17335413 Review.
-
Ease of use and patient preference injection simulation study comparing two prefilled insulin pens.Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Jul;26(7):1745-53. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.489028. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010. PMID: 20482243 Clinical Trial.
-
United States patient preference and usability for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus other disposable pens.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008 Nov;2(6):1157-60. doi: 10.1177/193229680800200626. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008. PMID: 19885306 Free PMC article.
-
Intuitiveness, instruction time, and patient acceptance of a prefilled insulin delivery device and a reusable insulin delivery device in a randomized, open-label, crossover handling study in patients with type 2 diabetes.Clin Ther. 2008 Dec;30(12):2252-62. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.12.004. Clin Ther. 2008. PMID: 19167585 Clinical Trial.
-
Reusable and disposable insulin pens for the treatment of diabetes: understanding the global differences in user preference and an evaluation of inpatient insulin pen use.Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010 Jun;12 Suppl 1:S79-85. doi: 10.1089/dia.2009.0179. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010. PMID: 20515312 Review.
Cited by
-
Injection force of SoloSTAR® compared with other disposable insulin pen devices at constant volume flow rates.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Jan 1;5(1):150-5. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500120. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011. PMID: 21303637 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative Assessment of Lixisenatide, Exenatide, and Liraglutide Pen Devices: A Pilot User-Based Study.J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 Jan;8(1):123-131. doi: 10.1177/1932296813511733. Epub 2014 Jan 1. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014. PMID: 24876548 Free PMC article.
-
Performance of a new reusable insulin pen.Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011 Mar;13(3):373-9. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0174. Epub 2011 Feb 3. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011. PMID: 21291331 Free PMC article.
-
Initial experience and evaluation of reusable insulin pen devices among patients with diabetes in emerging countries.Diabetes Ther. 2014 Dec;5(2):545-55. doi: 10.1007/s13300-014-0081-z. Epub 2014 Sep 12. Diabetes Ther. 2014. PMID: 25213801 Free PMC article.
-
Performance and Usability of Various Robotic Arm Control Modes from Human Force Signals.Front Neurorobot. 2017 Oct 25;11:55. doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2017.00055. eCollection 2017. Front Neurorobot. 2017. PMID: 29118699 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical