Dataset Information

A comparison of glide force characteristics between 2 prefilled insulin lispro pens.

ABSTRACT: Glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability of the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) were compared to the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL pen (hereafter, KwikPen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Data were collected on 2 doses, 2 injection speeds, and 2 needle types. Insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen showed significantly lower maximum glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability than the KwikPen across all combinations of dose size, dose speed, and needle type. The lower glide force observed with the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen offers another treatment option for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who require greater than 20 units of mealtime insulin daily.

SUBMITTER: Rees TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4604579 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of glide force characteristics between 2 prefilled insulin lispro pens.

Rees Tina M TM Lennartz Amanda H AH Ignaut Debra A DA

Journal of diabetes science and technology 20150114 2

Glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability of the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) were compared to the Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL pen (hereafter, KwikPen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Data were collected on 2 doses, 2 injection speeds, and 2 needle types. Insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen showed significantly lower maximum glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability than the KwikPen across all c ...[more]

PMID: 25591858

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis multicenter, randomized, crossover study compared preference, ease of use, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety of repeated subcutaneous (SC) self-administrations with prefilled pens and prefilled syringes delivering methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Patients and methodsThe study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01793259) enrolled 120 patients requiring initiation or intensification of MTX therapy for RA. Patients were randomized to receive the test drug, a prefilled pen (Metex(®) PEN/Metoject(®) PEN), or the reference drug, a prefilled syringe (Metex(®)/Metoject(®)), at doses of 15, 17.5, or 20 mg MTX SC once a week for 3 weeks. This was followed by receipt of the reference drug (prefilled syringe) or the test drug (prefilled pen) in a crossover design, with each patient serving as his/her own control. Questionnaires regarding patient preference, the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), and diaries regarding local tolerability were used to document outcomes.ResultsOverall patient preference for the MTX prefilled pen was 75% (P<0.0001). In a six-item questionnaire, 73% to 76% of the patients preferred the prefilled pen in relation to use, acceptability, and satisfaction, and 67% of the patients confirmed that it did not take much effort to overcome SC self-injection with the pen. The SIAQ showed no clinical differences, in any domain scores, between both devices. Overall patient attitude towards self-injection at baseline was positive, as was patient experience with both devices during the study. As well, 92% of physicians and study nurses indicated that they would recommend the MTX prefilled pen to patients for future MTX treatment. The formulations were generally well tolerated.ConclusionSC self-injection of MTX with a prefilled pen was generally preferred, by patients with RA, over a prefilled syringe with regard to use, acceptability, and satisfaction. This is supported by the strong appreciation of their attending study nurses and physicians, for its convenience.

Project description:Maternal metabolism changes substantially during pregnancy, which poses numerous challenges to physicians managing pregnancy in women with diabetes. Insulin is the agent of choice for glycemic control in pregnant women with diabetes, and the insulin analogs are particularly interesting for use in pregnancy. These agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and promote a more physiological glycemic profile than regular human insulin in pregnant women with type 1 (T1D), type 2 (T2D), or gestational (GDM) diabetes. However, there have been concerns regarding potential risk for crossing the placental barrier, mitogenic stimulation, teratogenicity, and embryotoxicity. Insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), an intermediate- to long-acting insulin, has a stable and predictable pharmacological profile, and appears to have a favorable time-action profile and produce desirable basal and postprandial glycemic control. As the binding of insulin lispro is unaffected by the protamine molecule, ILPS is likely to have the same mitogenic and immunogenic potential as insulin lispro. Insulin lispro produces similar outcomes to regular insulin in pregnant women with T1D, T2D, or GDM, does not cross the placental barrier, and is considered a useful treatment option for pregnant women with diabetes. Clinical data support the usefulness of ILPS for basal insulin coverage in non-pregnant patients with T1D or T2D, and suggest that the optimal regimen, in terms of balance between efficacy and hypoglycemic risk, is a once-daily injection, especially in patients with T2D. Available data concerning use of ILPS in pregnant women are currently derived from retrospective analyses that involved, in total, >1200 pregnant women. These analyses suggest that ILPS is at least as safe and effective as neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. Thus, available experimental and clinical data suggest that ILPS once daily is a safe and effective option for the management of diabetes in pregnant women.

Dataset Information

A comparison of glide force characteristics between 2 prefilled insulin lispro pens.

Publications

A comparison of glide force characteristics between 2 prefilled insulin lispro pens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets