Predictors of Preferences for Use of MK-1293 Pens among Patients with Diabetes—Findings from a Multinational Study in the U.S., Canada, and U.K.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the predictors of preferences of pen devices used with originator insulin glargine and MK-1293, a recently approved biosimilar insulin glargine (referred to as “Pen X”), among patients with diabetes. Adult patients with type 1/type 2 diabetes were recruited from commercial panels in the U.S., Canada, and the UK for one hour study visits. Respondents rated several attributes of each pen along with overall preferences for each of the two insulin pens. Non-inferiority analyses were conducted to compare ratings of the originator insulin glargine pen with Pen X. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to identify predictors of overall preference. A total of N=177 patients completed the study: mean age of 53.2 years, 56% males, with 73% type 2 diabetes. Overall, 63.2% preferred Pen X, 22.3% preferred originator insulin glargine pen and 14.5% had no preference. Except for employment, demographics were not significantly associated with overall preference, however the ease of pushing the injection button, instruction booklet and overall quality of the pen were predictive of an overall preference of Pen X (Table 1).The current study suggests that >60% of patients preferred Pen X and that overall, functional use and individual pen characteristics were the strongest predictors of preference, after adjusting for other pen characteristics. Disclosure B. Alemayehu: Employee; Self; Merck & Co., Inc. A.M. Nguyen: Employee; Self; Merck & Co., Inc. M. DiBonaventura: Employee; Self; Pfizer Inc.. Consultant; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. B. Shah-Manek: None. C. Karki: None. M. Crutchlow: Employee; Self; Merck & Co., Inc.. Consultant; Spouse/Partner; Novo Nordisk Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S, XOMA Corporation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".