Evaluation of a New Reusable Insulin Pen (ClikSTAR) in Canadian Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Insulin Glargine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this Canadian observational study was to assess the safety and patient satisfaction with the ClikSTAR(®) (sanofi-aventis, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) reusable insulin pen in clinical practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with diabetes (n=2,517) were recruited from 103 sites, provided with the ClikSTAR pen, and instructed to report product technical complaints (PTCs), product technical failures (PTFs), and adverse events (AEs) over 6-12 weeks of use. A patient subgroup (n = 301) completed a pen use questionnaire at 12 weeks. The risk acceptance criterion was that no validated PTF led to a serious AE (SAE). PTFs were PTCs having a confirmed technical deficiency. RESULTS: Patients (68.5% with type 2 diabetes) had a mean age of 56.2 years, and 92.5% were insulin pen users. In total, 84 PTCs were reported by 79 (3.1%) patients. Most PTCs were due to pen handling errors. PTCs from 12 patients were possibly related to AEs, three of which were SAEs; none was confirmed to be due to a PTF. The single reported PTF was not related to an AE/SAE. In the substudy, 97.0% and 95.3% of patients rated "ease of learning" and "ease of use" of the ClikSTAR pen as excellent or good, respectively. Mean scores for patient satisfaction, convenience, flexibility, and recommendations of current treatment on the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (change version) had positive changes ranging from 1.0 to 1.8. CONCLUSIONS: With ClikSTAR, PTCs were infrequent, and there were no PTFs associated with AEs, demonstrating that the pen is reliable and safe with high levels of patient acceptance and satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".