Insulin pen use for type 2 diabetes--a clinical perspective

The Effectiveness of Health Education in Improving Knowledge about Hypoglycemia and Insulin Pen Use among Outpatients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at a Primary Care Hospital in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have limited knowledge about hypoglycemia and insulin pen use are likely to have hypoglycemia and other complications.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of health education on knowledge about hypoglycemia and insulin pen use among outpatients with T2DM at a primary care hospital in Vietnam.

METHODS

A pretest-posttest study was conducted among 80 patients with T2DM at District 11 Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. At baseline, patients were interviewed through a predefined, structural questionnaire to assess their knowledge about hypoglycemia and insulin pen use. After that, patients underwent an individual health education session about hypoglycemia and insulin pen. One month and two months after this intervention, knowledge about hypoglycemia and insulin pen use were recorded again.

RESULTS

The majority were males (65.0%) and the mean age was 59.6 (standard deviation 8.1, range 35-75) years. Very few patients had good knowledge and proper insulin pen use, with percentages ranging from 13.8% to 60%. There was a significant improvement of knowledge and practice after the intervention. Such improvement remained high one month and two months after the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The health education intervention is effective in improving knowledge and practice in this population. There is a pressing need for such intervention at primary care hospitals to optimize treatment for patients with T2DM, possibly focusing on those who had characteristics to have the best effectiveness found in this study.

User experiences with second-generation 32-gauge × 4 mm vs. thinner comparator pen needles: prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Two similarly designed studies compared user experiences with a second-generation extra-thin-wall, 5-bevel 32 G × 4 mm pen needle (PN) with redesigned hub versus four thinner commercially available PNs.

METHODS

Adults (18-75 years old) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and ≥3 months of experience with pen injectors qualified for single-visit, single-blinded randomized studies. The investigational 32 G PN was compared with three 33-34 G × 3.5-4 mm PNs in Study 1 and one 34 G × 4 mm PN in Study 2. Participants completed 12 abdominal injections of 0.3 mL sterile saline using insulin pens in 6 pairs, each comprising one investigational 32 G PN and one comparator PN in random order. After each injection pair, participants compared injection pain via relative 150 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and perceived dose delivery force via relative 5 point Likert scale. Adjusted models tested injection pain scores (primary endpoint) for noninferiority and, if met, then for superiority. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03878758 and NCT03878745.

RESULTS

The investigational 32 G PN met noninferiority as well as superiority criteria for less injection pain vs. each comparator (p < .01), with adjusted mean relative VAS scores 9.1-17.6 in Study 1 (n = 154) and 7.3 in Study 2 (n = 55). The investigational 32 G PN was also superior vs. each comparator PN in requiring less relative perceived force to deliver the dose (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The investigational 32 G PN was associated with less participant-reported injection pain and less perceived dose delivery force compared with four thinner PNs, suggesting no additional pain reduction or force reduction benefit conferred by the thinner PNs.

Strategies for implementing effective mealtime insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, many people with T2D require insulin at some point, most commonly a long-acting (basal) insulin to assist with 24-h control of glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

This opinion paper provides an overview of considerations for primary care providers (PCPs) in intensifying the treatment regimen when basal insulin therapy is inadequate.

RESULTS

Control of mealtime hyperglycemia, in addition to fasting hyperglycemia, has been shown to be crucial in reaching A1c goals of <7.0%. However, initiating and optimizing mealtime insulin therapy can be challenging for both people with T2D and PCPs, due to a perceived lack of efficacy and burden of insulin treatment, causing "psychological insulin resistance" in people with T2D and clinical inertia among PCPs. Successful implementation of mealtime insulin therapy requires not only choosing appropriate treatment strategies, but also addressing patient-related behavioral and emotional barriers. Simplified treatment algorithms, combined with the use of advanced technology (devices such as insulin pens, pumps, and patches), and collaborative decision-making can help decrease barriers to effective mealtime insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to implement an effective basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T2D in a way that improves glucose control while minimizing negative effects on quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

Simplicity, safety, and acceptability of insulin pen use versus the conventional vial/syringe device in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate the simplicity, safety, patients' preference, and convenience of the administration of insulin using the pen device versus the conventional vial/syringe in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

This observational study was conducted in multiple community pharmacies in Lebanon. The investigators interviewed patients with diabetes using an insulin pen or conventional vial/syringe. A total of 74 questionnaires were filled over a period of 6 months. Answers were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Excel spreadsheet. t-test, logistic regression analysis, and correlation analysis were used in order to analyze the results.

RESULTS

A higher percentage of patients from the insulin pen users group (95.2%) found the method easy to use as compared to only 46.7% of the insulin conventional users group (P 0.001, relative risk [RR]: 2.041, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.178-3.535). Moreover, 61.9% and 26.7% of pen users and conventional users, respectively, could read the scale easily (P 0.037, RR 2.321, 95% CI: 0.940-5.731), while 85.7% of pen users found it more convenient shifting to pen and 86.7% of the conventional users would want to shift to pen if it had the same cost. Pain perception was statistically different between the groups. A much higher percentage (76.2%) of pen users showed no pain during injection compared to only 26.7% of conventional users (P 0.003, RR 2.857, 95% CI: 1.194-6.838).

CONCLUSION

The insulin pen was significantly much easier to use and less painful than the conventional vial/syringe. Proper education on the methods of administration/storage and disposal of needles/syringes is needed in both groups.