Comparative usability study of the dulaglutide single-use pen versus the insulin degludec FlexTouch<sup>®</sup> among self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan.
Curr Med Res Opin · 2018
Last updated 2026-05-28In a study of 48 people with type 2 diabetes in Japan who had never injected themselves before, the dulaglutide single-use pen required an average of 7.4 minutes of training to learn correct use, compared to 19.7 minutes for the insulin degludec FlexTouch pen. Both devices had similar success rates for error-free mock injections, but 92% of participants said the dulaglutide pen was easier to use.
AI summary of the abstract below.
| Journal | Curr Med Res Opin, 2018 |
|---|---|
| Citations | 8 |
| Relative citation ratio | 0.41 |
| NIH percentile | 24 |
| Molecules | dulaglutide |
| Conditions studied | Type 2 Diabetes |
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed training time with the dulaglutide single-use pen (SUP) and the insulin degludec disposable prefilled pen (FlexTouch) in self-injection-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan.
METHODS: This multi-center, open-label, comparative, crossover study measured training time with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch. Participants learned how to use both devices in a randomly assigned order. Healthcare providers (HCP) conducted the training. The primary end-point was the time required to train self-injection-naïve T2DM participants to self-inject correctly using each device. Secondary end-points included performance measures, such as success and error rates, patient perceptions related to ease-of-use, and factors associated with training time and performance.
RESULTS: Overall, 48 participants were randomized and completed the study. The mean training time to achieve correct administration was significantly shorter with the dulaglutide SUP vs FlexTouch (7.4 min vs 19.7 min, p < .001). The proportions of participants who successfully completed the mock injection without error were similar for both devices. Ninety-two percent (44/48) of participants reported that the dulaglutide SUP was easier to use than FlexTouch.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, participants required a shorter training time to achieve correct administration with the dulaglutide SUP, and had a higher preference for the dulaglutide SUP, when compared to FlexTouch. These data suggest that the dulaglutide SUP is easy-to-use, which may decrease the burden on HCPs to train diabetic patients how to administer injection therapy and reduce patient injection hurdles, such as needle fear.
Verbatim abstract via PubMed 29504812 ↗
Related research
- Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.
- Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial.
- Dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (AWARD-7): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.
- Dulaglutide and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis of the REWIND randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
- Once-weekly dulaglutide versus once-daily liraglutide in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (AWARD-6): a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.
- Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide added onto pioglitazone and metformin versus exenatide in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-1).
- Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3).
- Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide versus sitagliptin after 52 weeks in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-5).