Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2016

01-08-2016 | Systematic Review

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

Authors: Colin H. Ridyard, Dalia M. M. Dawoud, Lorna V. Tuersley, Dyfrig A. Hughes

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
5.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Hughes M. Prefilled syringes: injecting the end-user’s perspective. Drug Deliv Technol. 2010;10:18–23.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
12.
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.CrossRefPubMed
14.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lakha F, Henderson C, Glasier A. The acceptability of self-administration of subcutaneous Depo-Provera. Contraception. 2005;72:14–8.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Kaniecki RGR. Mixing sumatriptan: a prospective study of stratified care using multiple formulations. Headache. 2001;41:862–6.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
31.
MacGregor EA, Brandes J, Eikermann A. Migraine prevalence and treatment patterns: the global Migraine and Zolmitriptan Evaluation survey. Headache. 2003;43:19–26.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Summers KH, Szeinbach SL, Lenox SM. Preference for insulin delivery systems among current insulin users and nonusers. Clin Ther. 2004;26:1498–505.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Sommavilla BB, Jorgensen CC, Jensen KK. Safety, simplicity and convenience of a modified prefilled insulin pen. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008;9:2223–32.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.
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.
103.
Metadata
Title
A Systematic Review of Patients’ Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration
Authors
Colin H. Ridyard
Dalia M. M. Dawoud
Lorna V. Tuersley
Dyfrig A. Hughes
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0160-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 4/2016 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Psychometric Evaluation of a New Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Symptom Diary for Varicose Veins: VVSymQ® Instrument

Original Research Article

A Comparison of Methods for Capturing Patient Preferences for Delivery of Mental Health Services to Low-Income Hispanics Engaged in Primary Care

Original Research Article

Understanding the Experience of Age-Related Vestibular Loss in Older Individuals: A Qualitative Study

Original Research Article

A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery

Original Research Article

Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors

Original Research Article

Satisfaction, Adherence and Health-Related Quality of Life with Transdermal Buprenorphine Compared with Oral Opioid Medications in the Usual Care of Osteoarthritis Pain
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits