Biomedical subjects

John Shelmet

Publications and source records attributed to John Shelmet.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge x 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge x 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Optimal needle length for subcutaneous insulin injection may differ for obese and nonobese patients, which could affect management of diabetes mellitus (DM). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether 31 gauge (G) x 6 mm (shorter) needles are appropriate alternatives to 29 G x 12.7 mm (longer) needles in obese patients with DM. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover trial was conducted in insulin-treated patients with type 1 or 2 DM with body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) and glycosylated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentration <or=10%. All patients used the same injection device and were randomized to receive 12 weeks of therapy with 1 injection site (thigh or abdomen) and 1 of the 2 needle lengths. Patients used the same injection site but the alternate needle during the second 12-week period. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (31 men, 31 women; mean [SD] age, 50.5 [10.6] years; age range, 20-73 years) received treatment. Fifty-six patients completed all 24 weeks of treatment. No differences in glycemic control were found. Double-blind assessments of pain scores and leakage measurements, and results from the World Health Organization Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and most sections of the Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (ITSQ), indicated no differences. However, patients indicated greater satisfaction with the shorter needle on the ITSQ (P < 0.001). The most common adverse event was injection-site bruising (51% [30/59] for the longer needle vs 34% [21/61] for the shorter needle; P = NS). Eighty-nine percent of patients (49/55) preferred the shorter needle (P < 0.001), and 76% (42/55) had a strong, very strong, or extremely strong preference for it. CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients, use of 31 G x 6 mm and 29 G x 12.7 mm needles produced comparable HbA(1c) values, double-blind pain and leakage scores, convenience, and ease of use. However, patients preferred the shorter needle.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe.

InnoLet is a disposable insulin injection device with a large easy-to-read dial, large push button for injection, and audible clicks for each unit injected. This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and utilization of healthcare resources (estimated nursing care) for InnoLet and vial/syringe. Patients with diabetes mellitus (N=79, mean age 68.2+/-8.6 years, duration of diabetes 16.5+/-10.9 years) having visual and/or motor disabilities and having difficulty (or required caregiver assistance) for previous injections by vial/syringe were randomized to use of either InnoLet or vial/syringe for 6 weeks, then switched to the alternate regimen for 6 weeks. At the end of the study, utilization of healthcare resources was assessed in terms of the caregiver time required to assist in preparation, storage, and disposal of each device. For vial/syringe, 60% of patients required assistance in drawing up the appropriate dosage in the syringe, and 36% of patients required assistance when injecting insulin. A major portion of the patients (53%) could independently conduct injections (without nursing/caregiver assistance) during use of InnoLet, versus 20% for vial/syringe. As a result, mean daily nursing costs associated with the injection regimen were US$ 114 for the InnoLet device, and US$ 196 for vial/syringe (P<0.001). A majority of patients (82%) indicated a preference for the InnoLet device (P<0.001).

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Patient perception and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combined device.

PURPOSE: This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combination device versus syringes and a separate glucose monitor. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter, 2-period crossover study, 15 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use either a combined injector/monitor device or syringes, a vial, and a separate glucose monitor, then switched to the alternate treatment. Efficacy, safety, preference, satisfaction, and actual use (via meter download) of the 2 systems were compared. RESULTS: Most of the patients preferred using the combination device to syringes and a separate meter. Results from the Handling of Delivery Systems questionnaire given at the end of the study indicated that 49% of patients felt they tested their blood glucose more often with the combination device than with a separate meter. A higher frequency of daily monitoring was reported with the combination device in patients overall (approximately 1 more reading per week). However, a large subset of patients (32%) showed substantial increases in their frequency of daily glucose monitoring (an average of 1 additional reading per day). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the combination device was associated with significant improvements in patient treatment satisfaction.

Adult↗