A Comparison of Insulin Pen Devices and Disposable Plastic Syringes - Simplicity, Safety, Convenience and Cost Differences.

Q2 Medicine European Endocrinology Pub Date : 2018-04-01 Epub Date: 2018-04-18 DOI:10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.47
Ripudaman Singh, Clarence Samuel, Jubbin J Jacob
{"title":"A Comparison of Insulin Pen Devices and Disposable Plastic Syringes - Simplicity, Safety, Convenience and Cost Differences.","authors":"Ripudaman Singh,&nbsp;Clarence Samuel,&nbsp;Jubbin J Jacob","doi":"10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.47","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Context:</b> Managing diabetes efficiently demands a simple, safe, convenient and economical therapy. This study was done to understand the simplicity, safety, convenience and cost effectiveness of using pen versus syringe devices in patients on long-term insulin therapy. <b>Design:</b> This prospective observational study was conducted at the endocrine outpatient department of a universityaffiliated teaching hospital in North India. The investigator interviewed patients using a self-made questionnaire after obtaining consent; patients were scored based on their answers. A high score represented a poor response. A total of 90 completed questionnaires (45 from each group) were obtained. <b>Results:</b> Mean simplicity, safety and convenience score among the pen users was 5.31 ± 0.51, 5.4 ± 0.89 and 4.13 ± 1.04 respectively, as compared to 9.78 ± 1.43, 8.09 ± 2.02 and 8.67 ± 0.56 in syringe users respectively. The difference in these scores was statistically significant (p=0.0001). All patients felt that treatment using pen device was costlier when compared to using syringes, with pen users spending Rs1,756 per month on their insulin therapy, as compared to syringe users, who spent Rs590 per month. Among insulin pen users, 22.2% had optimal glycated haemoglobin levels (6-7.5%) as compared to 2.2% among syringe users, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.007). <b>Conclusions:</b> An insulin pen is simple, safe and convenient to use, and may provide better glycaemic control. Treatment with a pen device is costlier, which may be due to the higher use of analogue insulin among pen users.</p>","PeriodicalId":38860,"journal":{"name":"European Endocrinology","volume":"14 1","pages":"47-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.47","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17925/EE.2018.14.1.47","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/4/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Context: Managing diabetes efficiently demands a simple, safe, convenient and economical therapy. This study was done to understand the simplicity, safety, convenience and cost effectiveness of using pen versus syringe devices in patients on long-term insulin therapy. Design: This prospective observational study was conducted at the endocrine outpatient department of a universityaffiliated teaching hospital in North India. The investigator interviewed patients using a self-made questionnaire after obtaining consent; patients were scored based on their answers. A high score represented a poor response. A total of 90 completed questionnaires (45 from each group) were obtained. Results: Mean simplicity, safety and convenience score among the pen users was 5.31 ± 0.51, 5.4 ± 0.89 and 4.13 ± 1.04 respectively, as compared to 9.78 ± 1.43, 8.09 ± 2.02 and 8.67 ± 0.56 in syringe users respectively. The difference in these scores was statistically significant (p=0.0001). All patients felt that treatment using pen device was costlier when compared to using syringes, with pen users spending Rs1,756 per month on their insulin therapy, as compared to syringe users, who spent Rs590 per month. Among insulin pen users, 22.2% had optimal glycated haemoglobin levels (6-7.5%) as compared to 2.2% among syringe users, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.007). Conclusions: An insulin pen is simple, safe and convenient to use, and may provide better glycaemic control. Treatment with a pen device is costlier, which may be due to the higher use of analogue insulin among pen users.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胰岛素笔装置与一次性塑料注射器的比较——简单、安全、方便和成本差异。
背景:有效管理糖尿病需要一种简单、安全、方便和经济的治疗方法。本研究旨在了解长期胰岛素治疗患者使用笔与注射器设备的简单性、安全性、便利性和成本效益。设计:本前瞻性观察研究在印度北部一所大学附属教学医院的内分泌门诊部进行。研究者在征得患者同意后,使用自制问卷对患者进行访谈;根据患者的回答进行评分。得分高代表反应差。共获得90份问卷,每组45份。结果:钢笔使用者的简易性、安全性和便利性平均得分分别为5.31±0.51、5.4±0.89和4.13±1.04,注射器使用者的简易性、安全性和便利性平均得分分别为9.78±1.43、8.09±2.02和8.67±0.56。这些评分的差异有统计学意义(p=0.0001)。所有患者都认为,与使用注射器相比,使用钢笔设备进行治疗更昂贵,钢笔使用者每月在胰岛素治疗上花费1756卢比,而注射器使用者每月花费s590卢比。在胰岛素笔使用者中,22.2%的人糖化血红蛋白水平最佳(6-7.5%),而注射器使用者中为2.2%,这一差异具有统计学意义(p=0.007)。结论:胰岛素笔使用简单、安全、方便,具有较好的血糖控制效果。使用笔式设备治疗更昂贵,这可能是由于笔使用者使用类似胰岛素的频率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Endocrinology
European Endocrinology Medicine-Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ADA-EASD Consensus Report on the Management of Hyperglycaemia in Type 2 Diabetes in an Afro-Asian Context: Broadening the Perspective. Clinical Profile and Factors Associated with Adverse Outcomes in Coronavirus Disease 2019-associated Mucormycosis: A Single-centre Study. What is Glycaemic Variability and which Pharmacological Treatment Options are Effective? A Narrative Review. Alarming Surge in Early-onset Type 2 Diabetes: A Global Catastrophe on the Horizon. Parathyroid Carcinoma Presenting as Recurrent Primary Hyperparathyroidism and Neck Mass: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1