Advertisement

A Systematic Review of Patients’ Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration

  • Colin H. Ridyard
  • Dalia M. M. Dawoud
  • Lorna V. Tuersley
  • Dyfrig A. HughesEmail author
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Subcutaneous injections allow for self-administration, but consideration of patients’ perspectives on treatment choice is important to ensure adherence. Previous systematic reviews have been limited in their scope for assessing preferences in relation to other routes of administration.

Objective

Our objective was to examine patients’ perspectives on subcutaneously administered self-injectable medications when compared with other routes or methods of administration for the same medicines.

Methods

Nine electronic databases were searched for publications since 2000 using terms pertaining to methods of administration, choice behavior, and adverse effects. Eligibility for inclusion was determined through reference to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Results were described narratively.

Results

Of the 1726 papers screened, 85 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were focused mainly on methods of insulin administration for diabetes but also included treatments for pediatric growth disorders, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and migraine. Pen devices and autoinjectors were favored over administration with needle and syringe, particularly with respect to ergonomics, convenience, and portability. Inhalation appeared to be more acceptable than subcutaneous injection (in the case of insulin), but how subcutaneous infusion, intramuscular injection, and needle-free injection devices compare with subcutaneous injections in terms of patient preference is less certain.

Conclusions

The review identified a number of studies showing the importance of the methods and routes of drug delivery on patient choice. However, studies were prone to bias, and further robust evidence based on methodologically sound approaches is required to demonstrate how patient choice might translate to improved adherence.

Keywords

Migraine Sumatriptan Subcutaneous Administration Growth Hormone Therapy Medroxyprogesterone Acetate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported the Medical Research Council North West Hub in Trials Methodology Research: G0800792.

Contributions

CR and DH contributed substantially to the conception and design of the work. All authors made contributions to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. CR and LT drafted and DH redrafted the paper; all authors revised it critically for important intellectual content, and gave their final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

CR, DD, LT, and DH declare no conflicts of interest. All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare the following: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Supplementary material

40271_2015_160_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 43 kb)
40271_2015_160_MOESM2_ESM.docx (50 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 49 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. NICE guideline CG76, 28 January 2009. Available from: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG76/NICEGuidance/pdf/English. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medicines, Prescribing Centre. Medicines optimisation: the safe and effective use of medicines to enable the best possible outcomes. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clifford S, Barber N, Elliott R, Hartley E, Horne R. Patient-centred advice is effective in improving adherence to medicines. Pharm World Sci. 2006;28(3):165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saini SD, Schoenfeld P, Kaulback K, Dubinsky MC. Effect of medication dosing frequency on adherence in chronic diseases. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15:e22–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ingersoll KS, Cohen J. The impact of medication regimen factors on adherence to chronic treatment: a review of literature. J Behav Med. 2008;31:213–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes M. Prefilled syringes: injecting the end-user’s perspective. Drug Deliv Technol. 2010;10:18–23.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner AP, Williams RM, Sloan AP, Haselkorn JK. Injection anxiety remains a long-term barrier to medication adherence in multiple sclerosis. Rehabil Psychol. 2009;54:116–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costello K, Kennedy P, Scanzillo J. Recognizing nonadherence in patients with multiple sclerosis and maintaining treatment adherence in the long term. Medscape J Med. 2008;10:225.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molife C, Lee LJ, Shi L, Sawhney M, Lenox SM. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices versus conventional vial and syringe. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:529–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Asche CV, Shane-McWhorter L, Raparla S. Health economics and compliance of vials/syringes versus pen devices: a review of the evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S101–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    All Wales Systematic Reviews Register, Cardiff University Systematic Review Network–SysNet. Available from: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/insrv/libraries/sure/sysnet/awsrr/patient%20preferences%20for%20subcutaneous%20medications.pdf. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
  13. 13.
    Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2010;377:108–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Published 2009. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm. Accessed 4 Aug 2015.
  15. 15.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ionnadis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beer K, Muller M, Hew-Winzeler AM, Bont A, Maire P, You X, Foulds P, Marlind J, Curtius D. The prevalence of injection-site reactions with disease-modifying therapies and their effect on adherence in patients with multiple sclerosis: an observational study. BMC Neurol. 2011;11:144.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lugaresi A, Durastanti V, Gasperini C, Lai M, Pozzilli C, Orefice G, Sotgiu S, Pucci E, Ardito B, Millefiorini E, The CoSa Study Group. Safety and tolerability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients treated with high-dose subcutaneous interferon-beta by rebiject autoinjection over a 1-year period: The CoSa study. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2008;31:167–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakha F, Henderson C, Glasier A. The acceptability of self-administration of subcutaneous Depo-Provera. Contraception. 2005;72:14–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cameron ST, Glasier A, Johnstone A. Pilot study of home self-administration of subcutaneous depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception. 2012;85:458–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gerber RA, Cappelleri JC, Kourides IA, Gelfand RA. Treatment satisfaction with inhaled insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1556–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cappelleri JC, Cefalu WT, Rosenstock J, Kourides IA, Gerber RA. Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison between an inhaled insulin regimen and a subcutaneous insulin regimen. Clin Ther. 2002;24:552–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hayes RP, Muchmore D, Schmitke J. Effect of inhaled insulin on patient-reported outcomes and treatment preference in patients with type 1 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:435–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chancellor J, Aballea S, Lawrence A, Sheldon R, Cure S, Plun-Favreau J, Marchant N. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:217–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freemantle N, Blonde L, Duhot D, Hompesch M, Eggertsen R, Hobbs FDR, Martinez L, Ross S, Bolinder B, Stridde E. Availability of inhaled insulin promotes greater perceived acceptance of insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:427–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenstock J, Cappelleri JC, Bolinder B, Gerber RA. Patient satisfaction and glycemic control after 1 year with inhaled insulin (Exubera) in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:1318–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Testa MA, Simonson DC. Satisfaction and quality of life with premeal inhaled versus injected insulin in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1399–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacGregor EA, Brandes J, Eikermann A, Giammarco R. Impact of migraine on patients and their families: the Migraine And Zolmitriptan Evaluation (MAZE) survey: phase III. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:1143–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weidmann E, Unger J, Blair S, Friesen C, Hart C, Cady R. An open-label study to assess changes in efficacy and satisfaction with migraine care when patients have access to multiple sumatriptan succinate formulations. Clin Ther. 2003;25:235–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kaniecki RGR. Mixing sumatriptan: a prospective study of stratified care using multiple formulations. Headache. 2001;41:862–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Darba J, Restovic G, Kaskens L, Balbona MA, Carbonell A, Cavero P, Jordana M, Prieto C, Molina A, Padro I. Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:1947–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacGregor EA, Brandes J, Eikermann A. Migraine prevalence and treatment patterns: the global Migraine and Zolmitriptan Evaluation survey. Headache. 2003;43:19–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bohannon N, Bergenstal R, Cuddihy R, Kruger D, List S, Massaro E, Molitch M, Raskin P, Remtema H, Strowig S, Whitehouse F, Brunelle RL, Dreon D, Tan M. Comparison of a novel insulin bolus-patch with pen/syringe injection to deliver mealtime insulin for efficacy, preference, and quality of life in adults with diabetes: a randomized, crossover, multicenter study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13:1031–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harris M, Joy R, Larsen G, Valyi M, Walker E, Frick LW, Palmatier RM, Wring SA, Montaner JSG. Enfuvirtide plasma levels and injection site reactions using a needle-free gas-powered injection system (Biojector). AIDS. 2006;20:719–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boyd MA, Truman M, Hales G, Anderson J, Dwyer DE, Carr A. A randomized study to evaluate injection site reactions using three different enfuvirtide delivery mechanisms (the OPTIONS study). Antivir Ther. 2008;13:449–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lalezari JP, Saag M, Walworth C, Larson P. An open-label safety study of enfuvirtide injection with a needle-free injection device or needle/syringe: The Biojector 2000 open-label safety study (BOSS). AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2008;24:805–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gottlieb M, Thommes JA, WAND Study Team. Short communication safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide administered by a needle-free injection system compared with subcutaneous injection. Antivir Ther. 2008;13:723–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Solnica A, Oh C, Cho MM, Loughli JS, McCulloh DH, McGovern PG. Patient satisfaction and clinical outcome after injecting gonadotropins with use of a needle-free carbon dioxide injection system for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1369–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmed SFS, Smith WAW, Blamires CC. Facilitating and understanding the family’s choice of injection device for growth hormone therapy by using conjoint analysis. Arch Dis Child. 2008;93:110–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dorr HG, Zabransky S, Keller E, Otten BJ, Partsch C-J, Nyman L, Gillespie BK, Lester NR, Wilson AM, Hyren C, van Kuijck MA, Schuld P, Schoenfeld SL. Are needle-free injections a useful alternative for growth hormone therapy in children? Safety and pharmacokinetics of growth hormone delivered by a new needle-free injection device compared to a fine gauge needle. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2003;16:383–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wickramasuriya BPNB, Casey AA, Akhtar SS, Zia R, Ehtisham S, Barrett TG, Shaw NJ, Kirk JMW. Factors determining patient choice of device for GH therapy. Horm Res. 2006;65:18–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Borrs-Blasco J, Gracia-Prez A, Rosique-Robles JD, Castera MD-E, Abad FJ. Acceptability of switching adalimumab from a prefilled syringe to an autoinjection pen. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2010;10:301–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kivitz A, Cohen S, Dowd JE, Edwards JE, Thakker S, Wellborne FR, Renz CL, Segurado OG. Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial. Clin Ther. 2006;28:1619–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lim WH, Chan D, Boudville N, Pellicano S, Herson H, Moody H, Hutchison B, Snedeker M, Dogra G. Patients’ perceptions of subcutaneous delivery of darbepoetin alfa by autoinjector prefilled pen versus prefilled syringe: a randomized, crossover study. Clin Ther. 2012;34:1948–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pfutzner A, Hartmann K, Winter F, Fuchs GS, Kappelgaard A-M, Rohrer TR. Intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference of a prefilled growth hormone injection pen: a noninterventional, randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative usability study of three delivery devices in growth hormone-treated pediatric patients. Clin Ther. 2010;32:1918–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stanhope R, Buchanan C, Butler G, Costigan C, Dunger D, Greene S, Hoey H, Hughes I, Kelnar C, Kirk J, Komulainen J, Lowry M, Warner M. An open-label acceptability study of Norditropin SimpleXx: a new liquid growth hormone formulation. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2001;14:735–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Devonshire V, Arbizu T, Borre B, Lang M, Lugaresi A, Singer B, Verdun di Cantogno E, Cornelisse P. Patient-rated suitability of a novel electronic device for self-injection of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis: an international, single-arm, multicentre, Phase IIIb study. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wray S, Armstrong R, Herrman C, Calkwook J, Cascione M, Watsky E, Hayward B, Mercer B, Dangond F. Results from the single-use autoinjector for self-administration of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MOSAIC) study. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:1543–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Landy SH, Tepper SJ, Wein T, Schweizer E, Ramos E. An open-label trial of a sumatriptan auto-injector for migraine in patients currently treated with subcutaneous sumatriptan an open-label trial of a sumatriptan auto-injector for migraine in patients currently treated with subcutaneous sumatriptan. Headache. 2013;53:118–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in the Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction 3 (STAR 3) Trial. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:143–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marmolin ES, Brodsgaard J, Gjessing HJ, Schousboe K, Grodum E, Jorgensen UL, Moller CC, Pedersen J. Better treatment of outpatients with type 1 diabetes after introduction of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Dan Med J. 2012;59:A4445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Skogsberg L, Fors H, Hanas R, Chaplin JE, Lindman E, Skogsberg J. Improved treatment satisfaction but no difference in metabolic control when using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion vs. multiple daily injections in children at onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:472–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Garmo A, Pettersson-Frank B, Ehrenberg A. Treatment effects and satisfaction in diabetic patients changing from multiple daily insulin injections to CSII. Pract Diabetes Int. 2004;21:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nicolucci A, Maione A, Franciosi M, Amoretti R, Busetto E, Capani F, Bruttomesso D, Di Bartolo P, Girelli A, Leonetti F, Morviducci L, Ponzi P, Vitacolonna E. Quality of life and treatment satisfaction in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a comparison between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injections. Diabet Med. 2008;25:213–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hanas R, Adolfsson P, Elfvin-Akesson K, Hammaren L, Ilvered R, Jansson I, Johansson C, Kroon M, Lindgren J, Lindh A, Ludvigsson J, Sigstrom L, Wilk A, Aman J. Indwelling catheters used from the onset of diabetes decrease injection pain and pre-injection anxiety. J Pediatr. 2002;140:315–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Herman WH, Ilag LL, Johnson SL, Martin CL, Sinding J, Harthi A, Plunkett CD, LaPorte FB, Burke R, Brown MB, Halter JB, Raskin P. A clinical trial of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in older adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1568–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nuboer R, Borsboom GJ, Zoethout JA, Koot HM, Bruining J. Effects of insulin pump vs. injection treatment on quality of life and impact of disease in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus in a randomized, prospective comparison. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:291–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Raskin P, Bode BW, Marks JB, Hirsch IB, Weinstein RL, McGill JB, Peterson GE, Mudaliar SR, Reinhardt RR. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection therapy are equally effective in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, parallel-group, 24-week study. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2598–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Scheidegger U, Allemann S, Scheidegger K, Diem P. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy: effects on quality of life. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007;137:476–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weintrob N, Benzaquen H, Galatzer A, Shalitin S, Lazar L, Fayman G, Lilos P, Dickerman Z, Phillip M. Comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injection regimens in children with type 1 diabetes: a randomized open crossover trial. Pediatrics. 2003;112:559–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wilson DM, Buckingham BA, Kunselman EL, Sullivan MM, Paguntalan HU, Gitelman SE. A two-center randomized controlled feasibility trial of insulin pump therapy in young children with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:15–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Paul C, Stalder JF, Thaci D, Vincendon P, Brault Y, Kielar D, Tebbs V. Patient satisfaction with injection devices: A randomized controlled study comparing two different etanercept delivery systems in moderate to severe psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26:448–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Drent ML, Jakobsdottir S, Van Wijk JAE, Oostdijk W, Wit JM. Acceptability of liquid human growth hormone (hGH) (Norditropin SimpleXx) in adults and children with GH deficiency and children with chronic renal disease. Clin Drug Invest. 2002;22:633–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bruynesteyn KK, Bonsel GJG, Braat DDMD, Fauser BCJM, Devroey P, van Genugten MLL. Economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-beta with a pen device. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:26–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Platteau P, Laurent E, Albano C, Osmanagaolu K, Vernaeve V, Tournaye H, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. An open, randomized single-centre study to compare the efficacy and convenience of follitropin beta administered by a pen device with follitropin alpha administered by a conventional syringe in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1200–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Cadranel JF, Boujenah JL, Bourliere M, Fontanges T, Pol S, Trepo C, Ouzan D. Satisfaction of patients treated for chronic hepatitis C with the peginterferon alfa-2b pen device: the VISA observational study. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2007;31:180–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pfutzner A, Bailey T, Campos C, Kahn D, Ambers E, Niemeyer M, Guerrero G, Klonoff D, Nayberg I. Accuracy and preference assessment of prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe with diabetes patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:475–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bode B, Shelmet J, Gooch B, Hassman DR, Liang J, Smedegaard JK, Sklovlund S, Berg B, Lyness W, Schneider SH, In Duo Study Group. Patient perception and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combined device. Diabetes Educ. 2004;30:301–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2836–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lee IT, Liu HC, Liau YJ, Lee W-J, Huang C-N, Sheu WHJ-H. Improvement in health-related quality of life, independent of fasting glucose concentration, via insulin pen device in diabetic patients. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15:699–703.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L, Nicklasson L, Liang J, Lyness W. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;63:27–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Stockl K, Ory C, Vanderplas A, Nicklasson L, Lyness W, Cobden D, Change E. An evaluation of patient preference for an alternative insulin delivery system compared to standard vial and syringe. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:133–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther. 2004;26:1498–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wilk T, Mora PF, Chaney S, Shaw K. Use of an insulin pen by homeless patients with diabetes mellitus. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2002;14:372–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference associated with use of a pen device delivering a premixed 70/30 insulin aspart suspension (aspart protamine suspension/soluble aspart) versus alternative treatment strategies. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2495–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Stocks A, Perry S-R, Brydon P. HumaPen Ergo: a new 3.0 ml reusable insulin pen evaluation of patient acceptability. Clin Drug Invest. 2001;21:319–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fox C, McKinnon C, Wall A, Lawton SA. Ability to handle, and patient preference for, insulin delivery devices in visually impaired patients with type 2 diabetes. Pract Diabetes Int. 2002;19:104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ignaut DA, Schwartz SL, Sarwat S, Murphy HL. Comparative device assessments: Humalog KwikPen compared with vial and syringe and FlexPen. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35:789–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Israel-Bultman H, Hyllested-Winge J, Kolaczynski M, Steindorf J, Garon J. Comparison of preference for NovoPen® 4 with previous insulin pen treatments after 12 weeks in adult patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a multicenter observational study. Clin Ther. 2011;33:346–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Venekamp WJ, Kerr L, Dowsett SA, Johnson PA, Wimberley D, McKenzie C, Malone J, Milicevic Z. Functionality and acceptability of a new electronic insulin injection pen with a memory feature. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:315–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bailey T, Thurman J, Niemeyer M, Schmeisl G. Usability and preference evaluation of a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism by people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:2043–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Guo X, Sommavilla B, Vanterpool G, Qvist M, Bethien M, Lilleore SK. Evaluation of a new durable insulin pen with memory function among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2012;9:355–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hancu N, Czupryniak L, Genestin E, Sourij H. A Pan-European and Canadian prospective survey to evaluate patient satisfaction with the SoloSTAR insulin injection device in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1224–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Nadeau DA, Campos C, Niemeyer M, Bailey T. Healthcare professional and patient assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus two widely available prefilled insulin pens for ease of use, teaching and learning. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28:3–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Niskanen L, Jensen LE, Rastam J, Nygaard-Pedersen L, Erichsen K, Vora JP. Randomized, multinational, open-label, 2-period, crossover comparison of biphasic insulin aspart 30 and biphasic insulin lispro 25 and pen devices in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2004;26:531–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Reimer T, Hohberg C, Pfutzner A, Jorgensen C, Jensen KH, Pfutzner A. 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;30:2252–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ristic S, Bates PC, Martin JM, Llewelyn JA. Acceptability of a reusable insulin pen, Humapen Ergo, by patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002;18:68–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Schipper C, Musholt P, Niemeyer M, Loffler A, Forst T, Pfutzner A. Patient device assessment evaluation of two insulin injection devices in a mixed cohort of insulin-treated patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin. 2012;28:1297–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Asakura T, Seino H, Jensen KH. Patient acceptance and issues of education of two durable insulin pen devices. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10:299–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gottesman I, Perron P, Berard L, Stewart J, Basso N, Mettimano K, Elliott T. Evaluation of a new reusable insulin pen (ClikSTAR) in Canadian patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin glargine. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:926–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Asakura T, Jensen KH. Comparison of intuitiveness, ease of use, and preference in two insulin pens. J Diab Sci Technol. 2009;3:312–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Garg S, Bailey T, DeLuzio T, Pollom D. Preference for a new prefilled insulin pen compared with the original pen. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27:2323–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, Lecointre B, Spollett G. 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. Clin Ther. 2007;29:650–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Olsen BS, Lilleore SK, Korsholm CN, Kracht T. Novopen Echo for the delivery of insulin: a comparison of usability, functionality and preference among pediatric subjects, their parents, and health care professionals. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:1468–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Oyer D, Narendran P, Qvist M, Niemeyer M, Nadeau DA. Ease of use and preference of a new versus widely available prefilled insulin pen assessed by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8:1259–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sommavilla BB, Jorgensen CC, Jensen KK. Safety, simplicity and convenience of a modified prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008;9:2223–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Sommavilla B, Pietranera G. A randomized, open-label, comparative crossover handling trial between two durable pens in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1212–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kappelgaard AM, Mikkelsen S, Bagger C, Fuchs GS. Children and adolescent acceptability of a new device system to administer human growth hormone: a pilot study. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2012;25:285–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Fuchs GS, Mikkelsen S, Knudsen TK, Kappelgaard A. Ease of use and acceptability of a new pen device for the administration of growth hormone therapy in pediatric patients: an open-label, uncontrolled usability test. Clin Ther. 2009;31:2906–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Hey-Hadavi J, Pleil A, Deeb LC, Fuqua JS, Silverman LA, Reiner B, Newfield R, Rajicic N, Wajnrajch MP, Cara JF. Ease of use and preference for a new disposable self-injection pen compared with a reusable pen for administering recombinant human growth hormone: a multicenter, 2-month, single-arm, open-label clinical trial in patient-caregiver dyads. Clin Ther. 2010;32:2036–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Kappelgaard AM, Mikkelsen S, Knudsen TK, Fuchs GS. Patient preference for a new growth hormone injection device: results of an open-label study in Japanese pediatric patients. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2011;24:489–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. In: Bateman IJ, editor. The economics of non-market goods and resources, vol. 11. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2008.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Anderson BJ, Redondo MJ. What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1563–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin H. Ridyard
    • 1
  • Dalia M. M. Dawoud
    • 2
  • Lorna V. Tuersley
    • 1
  • Dyfrig A. Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics and Medicines EvaluationBangor UniversityBangorUK
  2. 2.Faculty of PharmacyCairo UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations