Ease of Use of the Insulin Glargine 300 U/mL Pen Injector in Insulin-Naïve People With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: injector pen has been modified to ensure accurate administration of this reduced volume and to improve user experience. METHODS: Insulin- and pen-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with oral antihyperglycemic drugs, who had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 7.0-11.0 % (53-97 mmol/mol) were studied. They received once-daily Gla-300 in this 4-week, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study (NCT02227212). Ease of use/ease of learning (the primary endpoint), glycemic control, safety, and reliability of the disposable (prefilled) Gla-300 injector pen (secondary endpoints) were evaluated. RESULTS: At week 4, 95.0% of 40 participating subjects assessed the pen as excellent/good and none as poor/very poor; 97.5% would recommend it to others. Total Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores were stable throughout the study. Mean (SD) fasting plasma glucose levels decreased from 166.1 (35.0) mg/dL at baseline to 124.2 (41.1) mg/dL at week 4. No product technical complaints (PTCs) or adverse events (AEs) related to PTCs were reported. The number of subjects experiencing hypoglycemic events of any kind and the incidence of AEs were low. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The Gla-300 injector pen is easy to use and easy to learn to use, with demonstrable reliability and high degrees of acceptance and treatment satisfaction. Once-daily Gla-300 basal insulin treatment was well tolerated and effective in pen- and insulin-naïve adult T2DM subjects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".