Comparative study of dulaglutide single-use pen Ateos versus insulin degludec FlexTouch on learning and mock administration time in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus - a <i>post-hoc</i> analysis.
Curr Med Res Opin · 2020
Last updated 2026-05-28In a study of 48 people with type 2 diabetes who had never used injection pens before, participants took an average of 75 seconds to complete a mock injection with the dulaglutide pen Ateos, compared to 288 seconds with the insulin pen FlexTouch. Each step of the injection process—preparation, injection, and clean-up—was faster with Ateos, and fewer participants made errors that required repeating steps.
AI summary of the abstract below.
| Journal | Curr Med Res Opin, 2020 |
|---|---|
| Citations | 1 |
| Relative citation ratio | 0.10 |
| NIH percentile | 7 |
| Molecules | dulaglutide |
| Conditions studied | Type 2 Diabetes |
Abstract
Clinical data have shown that patients with diabetes require shorter training time to use Ateos versus FlexTouch. Using data acquired from a previous study, self-administration procedures that necessitated more time and repetition during mock injection were evaluated. In this open-label task- and interview-based crossover study, 48 self-injection naïve participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were randomized to 1 of 2 sequences to perform a mock injection of Ateos and FlexTouch into a rubber pad after receiving training. Time needed to conduct mock injection steps (preparation, pre-injection set-up, injection, clean-up), and the number and time needed for repeated steps due to procedural errors, were measured as analyses. Mean time for preparation, injection, and clean-up was shorter for Ateos (13, 15, 9 s) versus FlexTouch (96, 53, 36 s). Overall time for administration including repeated steps was 75 s for Ateos and 288 s for FlexTouch. Nine participants repeated procedures due to errors when using Ateos (preparation: 6; pre-injection set-up: 2; injection: 1), and 7 participants when using FlexTouch (preparation: 2; pre-injection set-up: 2; injection: 5). There was 1 repeat per person for Ateos injections versus multiple repeats for FlexTouch injections. analysis demonstrates the time needed for overall administration was shorter for Ateos than FlexTouch, and time for each procedure was shorter or similar for Ateos versus FlexTouch. Ateos was easy for participants with T2DM to learn with fewer repeated steps due to procedural errors, and easy for healthcare professionals to introduce to their patients.
Verbatim abstract via PubMed 32141343 ↗
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).