Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes

Impact of patient satisfaction with insulin pens on glycemic control

Aim: Adherence to the insulin regimen is poor. The use of an insulin pen contributes positively to glycemic control by increasing patient satisfaction and adherence. The aim of this study is to analyze the influence of patients' opinions of insulin pen use on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Material and Method: 126 patients with T2DM who use insulin and inject it with insulin pens were included in the study. Patients' evaluations about the pens (ergonomics, ease of reading the dosage scale, dose selection, needle change, and ease of use of the insulin pen in general) were assessed. Glycemic parameters, demographic characteristics, and treatment protocol were recorded. Results: Patients who perceived the use of the insulin pen as ergonomically 'excellent’ had a significantly lower HbA1c (8.0±1.4%) (p=0.04). HbA1c was significantly lower in patients who perceived needle tip replacement as ‘very easy’ (8.0±1.6%) (p=0.04). No statistically significant relationship was found between the ease of reading the dosage scale and the HbA1c value (p=0.53). The HbA1c value decreased significantly in patients who rated the dosage selection as 'very easy' (8.1±1.7%) (p=0.02). The HbA1c value increased significantly in patients who rated the pen as ‘difficult’ to use (12.2±1.6%) (p=0.01). Conclusion: In our study, we found that patients' opinions of insulin pen use may influence glycemic control parameters. HbA1c was better in patients who found the insulin pen as easy to use and good in ergonomics. In T2DM, patient assessment of insulin pen injection is related to glycemic control. New studies are needed to say whether this situation is related to the appropriate dose of insulin injection or adherence to therapy.

The Review of Insulin Pens-Past, Present, and Look to the Future

Currently, there are about 150-200 million diabetic patients treated with insulin globally. The year 2021 is special because the 100th anniversary of the insulin discovery is being celebrated. It is a good occasion to sum up the insulin pen technology invention and improvement which are nowadays the leading mode of an insulin delivery. Even though so many years have passed, insulin is still administered subcutaneously, that is why devices to deliver it are of great importance. Insulin pens have evolved only through the last decades (the reusable, durable pens, and the disposable, prefilled pens) and modern smart insulin pens have been developed in the last few years, and both types of the devices compared to traditional syringes and vials are more convenient, discrete in use, have better dosing accuracy, and improve adherence. In this review, we will focus on the history of insulin pens and their improvement over the previous decades.

Assessment of basal insulin adherence using 2 methodologies among Texas Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Basal insulin is often recommended as the initial therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment. Adequate adherence is critical to diabetes management, yet suboptimal insulin adherence has been reported. Second-generation long-acting (SGLA) insulin has higher dosing flexibility and lower hypoglycemia risk and may improve adherence. However, little is known regarding adherence to SGLA insulin and how adherence to SGLA insulin compares with intermediate-acting neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) and first-generation long-acting (FGLA) insulin. Measurement of insulin adherence is challenging because of the inaccuracies of recorded days supply of insulin, and traditional medication possession ratio (MPR) may be negatively affected. Adjusted MPR (aMPR) has been developed in an effort to address this issue. OBJECTIVE: To examine the unadjusted and adjusted associations between basal insulin type and adherence to basal insulin using MPR and aMPR. METHODS: This retrospective database study used Texas Medicaid prescription claims from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2017. The index date was the date of the first basal insulin prescription without the same prescription 6 months before (pre-index), and all patients were followed for 12 months (post-index). Patients aged 18-63 years with ≥ 1 pre-index prescription of an oral hypoglycemia agent (OHA) or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), without any post-index prescription of premixed insulin or a basal insulin different from index insulin, and with continuous enrollment throughout the pre- and post-index periods, were included. The dependent variable was basal insulin adherence over 12 months, measured using MPR and aMPR. Unadjusted and adjusted adherence comparisons were conducted by basal (background) insulin type (NPH, FGLA, and SGLA). Covariates included age, gender, baseline use of basal insulins and comorbid medications, total number of medications, OHA adherence, post-index number of OHAs, and use of bolus insulins and GLP-1 RAs. Analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 5,034 patients included, NPH, FGLA, and SGLA insulin users accounted for 3.7%, 89.8%, and 6.5%, respectively. The overall mean (SD) age was 50.9 (9.9) years, and 65.9% were female. In the unadjusted bivariate analyses, SGLA insulin users had significantly higher adherence, using either MPR (SGLA 0.68 [0.25] vs. FGLA 0.59 [0.27] vs. NPH 0.55 [0.27]; P < 0.0001) or aMPR (0.83 [0.23] vs. 0.78 [0.26] vs. 0.73 [0.28]; P = 0.0001). After controlling for covariates, insulin type was not significantly associated with the likelihood of being adherent (MPR or aMPR ≥ 0.8) using either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to SGLA insulin was not different from adherence to other basal insulins after controlling for patient characteristics. Yet, MPR and aMPR have limitations and warrant further confirmation of the study findings. Before new adherence measures for insulin therapy are developed, MPR and aMPR should be used with caution. DISCLOSURES: No specific funding was received for this manuscript. The authors report no potential conflicts of interest. Part of the data from this study was presented as posters at the American Pharmacists Association 2020 Annual Meeting & Exposition, March 20-23, 2020, in National Harbor, MD, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 Conference, May 16-20, 2020, in Orlando, FL.