Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2009 Mar 1;3(2):312-9.
doi: 10.1177/193229680900300212.

Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference in two insulin pens

Toshinari Asakura  1 , Klaus H Jensen
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference in two insulin pens

Toshinari Asakura et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. .

Abstract

Background: The intuitiveness, instruction time, and handling of the Levemir (insulin detemir) FlexPen and the Lantus OptiClik pen (with insulin glargine) were investigated.

Methods: This randomized open-label crossover study involved two groups of insulin-device-naive Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes [mean (SD) age 61.9 +/- 12.3 years, 57% male]. Patients were evaluated on the ease-of-use of each insulin pen without instruction [intuitiveness group (n = 32)], or with instruction [instruction time group (n = 29)]. Patient preferences for the respective devices were assessed by questionnaire.

Results and discussion: FlexPen required significantly less instruction time (p < .001) and was objectively more intuitive to use (p < .001) than OptiClik. Nevertheless, few patients in the intuitiveness group felt confident injecting either pen prior to instruction (FlexPen, 31%; OptiClik, 16%). No patients in the instruction time group found FlexPen difficult to learn, whereas 45% of patients found OptiClik difficult or very difficult to learn. FlexPen was rated simpler to use (77% versus 12%; p < .001), easier to inject (67% versus 13%; p < .001), and more convenient (71% versus 12%; p < .001) compared with OptiClik. More patients would trust FlexPen to deliver insulin injections (p < .01) and would prefer to use FlexPen compared with OptiClik (82% versus 13%; p < .001).

Conclusions: FlexPen was faster to teach, simpler to use, and more trusted by patients compared with OptiClik. Mean injection time was significantly shorter for FlexPen than OptiClik, with or without instruction. This study highlights not only how easy it is for patients to learn to use FlexPen, but also how easily health care providers can teach patients to use it.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study flow chart. Sixty-one patients were enrolled and randomized into either the intuitiveness group (n = 32) or the instruction time group (n = 29). In each group, patients were randomized to a treatment sequence: either Levemir FlexPen followed by OptiClik with Lantus or OptiClik with Lantus followed by Levemir FlexPen. Finally the patients were asked to answer several questionnaires.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The absence of a glycemic threshold for the development of long-term complications: the perspective of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes. 1996;45(10):1289–1298. - PubMed
    1. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 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
    1. Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, Matthews DR, Manley SE, Cull CA, Hadden D, Turner RC, Holman RR. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000;321(7258):405–412. - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2007. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(Suppl 1):S4–S41. - PubMed
    1. IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2005. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes. http://www.idf.org/home/index.cfm?node=1457. Accessed December 8, 2008.

Publication types