Korytkowski Mary, Bell David, Jacobsen Carol, Suwannasari Rudee
Department of Medicine, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Clin Ther. 2003 Nov;25(11):2836-48. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(03)80337-5.
The accuracy and convenience of pen devices for insulin injection have improved quality of life for patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (DM). Prefilled, disposable pens have the advantage of simplicity, with minimal training and attention required and no installation of new cartridges necessary.
The aim of this study was to assess patient preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen (FlexPen) and conventional vial/syringe injection method for insulin injection therapy among patients with DM.
In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study, patients with type 1 or 2 DM were transferred from previous QD or BID conventional insulin therapy to a mixture of 70% insulin aspart protamine suspension and 30% insulin aspart injection (NovoLog Mix 7030) for 4 weeks of dose optimization using their usual type of syringe. Patients were then randomly assigned to use either vial/syringe or a prefilled, disposable pen to inject the biphasic insulin aspart 7030 mixture for the next 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of use of the other injection device. Efficacy, safety profiles, and patient preference for the delivery systems were compared.
A total of 121 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.0 [12.4] years; age range, 28-81 years; mean [SD] body mass index, 31 [5.5] kg/m(2)) were enrolled. One hundred three patients completed the study. Seventy-four percent of patients (78105) indicated a preference for the pen over the vial/syringe method (95% CI, 71%-87%), compared with 20% (21105) who preferred the vial/syringe. Eighty-five percent (88104) considered the pen more discreet for use in public (compared with 9% [9104] for the vial/syringe), 74% (77104) considered it easier to use overall (compared with 21% [22104] for the vial/syringe), and 85% (89105) found the insulin dose scale on the pen easier to read (compared with 10% [10105] for the vial/syringe). Patients had statistically significant improvement in glycosylated hemoglobin values during the study (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences in fasting plasma glucose, mean 4-point blood glucose profiles, or serum fructosamine values were found between groups. Overall, the safety profiles during treatment periods with the pen were comparable to those with the vial/syringe.
In this trial, differences in efficacy and safety profiles between the vial/syringe and prefilled, disposable pen appeared negligible. However, more patients expressed a preference to continue use of the pen.
胰岛素注射笔的准确性和便利性改善了接受胰岛素治疗的糖尿病患者的生活质量。预填充一次性笔具有操作简单的优点,所需培训和关注度极低,且无需安装新笔芯。
本研究旨在评估预填充一次性笔(优伴笔)和传统小瓶/注射器注射方法在糖尿病患者胰岛素注射治疗中的患者偏好、疗效和安全性。
在一项多中心、随机、开放标签、交叉研究中,1型或2型糖尿病患者从先前的每日一次或每日两次传统胰岛素治疗转换为70%精蛋白锌门冬胰岛素混悬液和30%门冬胰岛素注射液的混合制剂(诺和锐30),使用其常用类型的注射器进行4周的剂量优化。然后,患者被随机分配使用小瓶/注射器或预填充一次性笔注射双相门冬胰岛素30混合制剂,为期4周,随后使用另一种注射装置4周。比较两种给药系统的疗效、安全性和患者偏好。
共纳入121例患者(平均[标准差]年龄,57.0[12.4]岁;年龄范围,28 - 81岁;平均[标准差]体重指数,31[5.5]kg/m²)。103例患者完成了研究。74%的患者(78/105)表示更喜欢笔式注射而非小瓶/注射器注射方法(95%置信区间,71% - 87%),相比之下,20%(21/105)的患者更喜欢小瓶/注射器注射。85%(88/104)的患者认为笔式注射在公共场合使用更隐蔽(相比之下小瓶/注射器注射为9%[9/104]),74%(77/104)的患者认为总体上笔式注射更易于使用(相比之下小瓶/注射器注射为21%[22/104]),85%(89/105)的患者发现笔上的胰岛素剂量刻度更易于读取(相比之下小瓶/注射器注射为10%[10/105])。在研究期间,患者糖化血红蛋白值有统计学显著改善(P < 0.05)。两组间空腹血糖、平均四点血糖曲线或血清果糖胺值无统计学显著差异。总体而言,使用笔式注射期间的安全性与使用小瓶/注射器注射相当。
在本试验中,小瓶/注射器和预填充一次性笔在疗效和安全性方面的差异似乎微不足道。然而,更多患者表示倾向于继续使用笔式注射。