Show simple item record

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

dc.contributor.authorBohannon, Nancyen_US
dc.contributor.authorBergenstal, Richarden_US
dc.contributor.authorCuddihy, Roberten_US
dc.contributor.authorKruger, Davidaen_US
dc.contributor.authorList, Susanen_US
dc.contributor.authorMassaro, Elaineen_US
dc.contributor.authorMolitch, Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorRaskin, Philipen_US
dc.contributor.authorRemtema, Heatheren_US
dc.contributor.authorStrowig, Suzanneen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhitehouse, Freden_US
dc.contributor.authorBrunelle, Rocco L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDreon, Darleneen_US
dc.contributor.authorTan, Mengen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-22T17:23:49Z
dc.date.available2012-03-22T17:23:49Z
dc.date.issued2011-10-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationBohannon, Nancy; Bergenstal, Richard; Cuddihy, Robert; Kruger, Davida; List, Susan; Massaro, Elaine; Molitch, Mark; Raskin, Philip; Remtema, Heather; Strowig, Suzanne; Whitehouse, Fred; Brunelle, Rocco L.; Dreon, Darlene; Tan, Meng (2011). "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 Technology & Therapeutics, 13(10): 1031-1037. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90477>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1520-9156en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/90477
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin. Research Design and Methods: Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS). Results: Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean•SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61+/-0.28 vs. 9.02+/-0.26-mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18+/-0.18 vs. 3.63+/-0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2+/-1.7 vs. 40.3+/-1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001). Conclusions: Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.en_US
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersen_US
dc.titleComparison 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 Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid21732797en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90477/1/dia-2E2011-2E0047.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/dia.2011.0047en_US
dc.identifier.sourceDiabetes Technology & Therapeuticsen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.