TY - JOUR
T1 - Pen Devices for Insulin Self-Administration Compared with Needle and Vial
T2 - Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis
AU - Lasalvia, Pieralessandro
AU - Barahona-Correa, Julián Esteban
AU - Romero-Alvernia, Diana Marcela
AU - Gil-Tamayo, Sebastián
AU - Castañeda-Cardona, Camilo
AU - Bayona, Juan Gabriel
AU - Triana, Juan José
AU - Laserna, Andrés Felipe
AU - Mejía-Torres, Miguel
AU - Restrepo-Jimenez, Paula
AU - Jimenez-Zapata, Juliana
AU - Rosselli, Diego
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Diabetes Technology Society.
PY - 2016/7/1
Y1 - 2016/7/1
N2 - Objectives: Pen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS. Methods: A systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done. Results: In all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36. Conclusions: There is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.
AB - Objectives: Pen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS. Methods: A systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done. Results: In all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36. Conclusions: There is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.
KW - diabetes mellitus
KW - equipment and supplies
KW - glycosylated
KW - hemoglobin A
KW - insulin
KW - medication adherence
KW - patient preference
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009286822&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1932296816633721
DO - 10.1177/1932296816633721
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26920639
AN - SCOPUS:85009286822
SN - 1932-2968
VL - 10
SP - 959
EP - 966
JO - Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
JF - Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
IS - 4
ER -