Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes.
Sara A Wettergreen, Morgan P Stewart, Katelyn Kennedy, Jennifer M Trujillo
{"title":"Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes.","authors":"Sara A Wettergreen, Morgan P Stewart, Katelyn Kennedy, Jennifer M Trujillo","doi":"10.2337/ds21-0108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study's aim was to compare the time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences with pen devices for the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide XR BCise, and semaglutide.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this triple crossover, open-label, simulated injection study, GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices were compared, with time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences as primary outcomes. Participants had type 2 diabetes and were naive to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Participants watched instructional videos for each device, demonstrated administration, and then provided feedback after each demonstration. Investigators tracked errors and omissions of demonstration steps for accuracy and time. Differences across devices were compared using univariate mixed models, adjusting for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 60 participants, 50% were male, a majority (65%) were Caucasian, and most (65%) had adequate health literacy. Participants rated the dulaglutide device easier to use than those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (<i>P</i> <0.001 for each). Participants expressed greater satisfaction with the dulaglutide device compared with those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (<i>P</i> <0.01 for each). Most participants (75%) preferred the dulaglutide device overall; however, many participants (61%) preferred the size and portability of the semaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took less time to use than the exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide devices (69 vs. 126 and 146 seconds, respectively; <i>P</i> <0.001 for each). Participants were less accurate when using the dulaglutide device.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most participants preferred the dulaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took the least amount of time to demonstrate; however, demonstration accuracy was lower.</p>","PeriodicalId":39737,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Spectrum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9935291/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds21-0108","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Aim: This study's aim was to compare the time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences with pen devices for the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide XR BCise, and semaglutide.
Materials and methods: In this triple crossover, open-label, simulated injection study, GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices were compared, with time and accuracy of use and participants' satisfaction and preferences as primary outcomes. Participants had type 2 diabetes and were naive to GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. Participants watched instructional videos for each device, demonstrated administration, and then provided feedback after each demonstration. Investigators tracked errors and omissions of demonstration steps for accuracy and time. Differences across devices were compared using univariate mixed models, adjusting for multiple comparisons.
Results: Of the 60 participants, 50% were male, a majority (65%) were Caucasian, and most (65%) had adequate health literacy. Participants rated the dulaglutide device easier to use than those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.001 for each). Participants expressed greater satisfaction with the dulaglutide device compared with those of exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide (P <0.01 for each). Most participants (75%) preferred the dulaglutide device overall; however, many participants (61%) preferred the size and portability of the semaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took less time to use than the exenatide XR BCise or semaglutide devices (69 vs. 126 and 146 seconds, respectively; P <0.001 for each). Participants were less accurate when using the dulaglutide device.
Conclusion: Most participants preferred the dulaglutide device. The dulaglutide device took the least amount of time to demonstrate; however, demonstration accuracy was lower.
期刊介绍：
The mission of Diabetes Spectrum: From Research to Practice is to assist health care professionals in the development of strategies to individualize treatment and diabetes self-management education for improved quality of life and diabetes control. These goals are achieved by presenting review as well as original, peer-reviewed articles on topics in clinical diabetes management, professional and patient education, nutrition, behavioral science and counseling, educational program development, and advocacy. In each issue, the FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE section explores, in depth, a diabetes care topic and provides practical application of current research findings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
