Multiple daily insulin injections improve self-confidence

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.

What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices?

Although a variety of effective treatment options are available for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, many patients in the United States have difficulty reaching their glycemic goals. Patient adherence to insulin therapy, which often involves self-administered subcutaneous injections of insulin using either a vial and syringe or an insulin pen device, is often poor. Various factors associated with the type of injection device have been shown to influence the rate of patient adherence to insulin therapy. This article reviews patient-reported outcome (PRO) evidence from pediatric and adult studies that compared insulin pen devices with vial and syringe use. In a majority of these cases, patients preferred the pen devices over vial and syringe, stating advantages such as ease of use, convenience, greater confidence in their ability to properly administer the drug, and a greater perceived social acceptance. The pens were considered less painful than syringes and were associated with less needle fear. In addition, PRO evidence has directed pen technology design, leading to development of more advanced insulin pen devices. By appreciating the correlation between adherence to insulin regimens and a patient's device preference, clinicians can make improved treatment recommendations to facilitate achievement and maintenance of glycemic targets.

Needle with a novel attachment versus conventional screw-thread needles: a preference and usability test among adults with diabetes and impaired manual dexterity

BACKGROUND

NovoTwist(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark) is an insulin pen needle that features a novel attachment and detachment system. The aim of this test was to assess overall preference and handling of NovoTwist compared with conventional screw-thread needles in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

One hundred twenty adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and manual dexterity dysfunction who were currently self-injecting with an insulin pen were included in this open-label, randomized, crossover test. Participants were stratified according to the impact that manual dexterity problems had on their ability to inject insulin (1 = no effect at all; 4 = a lot), and those rated as 1 were excluded from subanalyses because of low numbers. Following instruction, participants attached the needle to Next Generation FlexPen(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S), made an injection into a foam cushion, and detached the needle; this process was repeated three times with NovoTwist and the participant's current screw-thread needle (or NovoFine(®) [Novo Nordisk A/S]) in a random order. Responses to questions on user experience with each needle were subsequently recorded on a 6-point rating scale (1 = very difficult; 6 = very easy).

RESULTS

Significantly more respondents had a preference for NovoTwist (79%) compared with the conventional screw-thread needles (21%, P < 0.001). Significantly more respondents preferred NovoTwist for both ease of attachment (80%, P < 0.001) and ease of detachment (74%, P < 0.001). Most respondents found NovoTwist the most appropriate needle for performing everyday injections (71%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Such preference by patients has a positive impact on the treatment of diabetes as NovoTwist may alleviate the burden of performing everyday injections through its ease of use.

A review of 25 years' experience with the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus

NovoPen, the first insulin pen, was introduced in 1985. This review article is an update of a review paper published in 2006 on 20 years' use of the NovoPen family of insulin pens in the management of diabetes mellitus. The literature searches conducted in the earlier review article were updated with search results for new articles published since April 2005. This was followed by an iterative search of references cited in identified publications and by searches of abstracts from proceedings of major international diabetes conferences since 2005. Most of the original studies identified in the 2006 review showed that insulin regimens using the NovoPen family of insulin pens were at least as effective (and in some cases superior) in maintaining glycaemic control and were as safe (in terms of hypoglycaemia) as conventional insulin regimens employing vials and syringes. Most patients preferred the various NovoPen insulin pens over vials and syringes, with some evidence suggesting that the use of discreet devices, such as those of the NovoPen family, facilitates intensive insulin therapy regimens, thereby helping to improve lifestyle flexibility. The new search results showed that the current generation of the device for the adult population, NovoPen 4, retains these benefits and further meets patients' needs by improving ease of use, convenience and discretion, which may be particularly important for those with manual dexterity, visual or auditory impairments. There was also evidence that healthcare professionals would be more likely to recommend NovoPen 4 to their patients than other devices. The recently introduced NovoPen Echo, designed specifically for the paediatric population, combines half-increment dosing with a memory function that can be used to retrieve information about the time and amount of the last dose, potentially reducing the fear of double dosing or missing a dose. Evidence obtained from the new searches suggested that paediatric patients, their parents and healthcare professionals were highly satisfied with NovoPen Echo overall, with most paediatric patients rating it their favourite pen compared with other insulin pens. In conclusion, new data published over the last 5 years on the use of NovoPen devices add to the large body of published evidence supporting the patient-related benefits of durable insulin injection pens in the treatment of diabetes since the first such pen was introduced in 1985. Together, the benefits of NovoPen are considered likely to improve both patients' quality of life and their compliance with therapy.

Evidence-based insulin treatment in type 1 diabetes mellitus

AIM

Evaluation of the evidence base for recommending different insulin treatment regimens in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A computerised literature survey was conducted using The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and the Pub Med database for the period of 1982-2007.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis on only 49 out of 1295 references showed that CSII compared with conventional or multiple insulin injections therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in mean HbA1c (primary outcome) of 1.2% CI [0.73; 1.59] (P<0.001) without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. The evidence for using four versus two daily insulin injections was based on only one publication demonstrating an improved quality of life but no significant reduction in HbA1c or hypoglycaemia. A comparison of rapid-acting insulin analogues and human soluble insulin demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c of 0.1% CI: [0.01; 0.16] (P=0.03) using rapid-acting insulin analogues. The mean frequency of hypoglycaemia was reduced with 14+/-3.7% (<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence supporting the three common insulin regimens was rather sparse. Only five studies during the past 25 years fulfil the optimal criteria for a clinical trial, and only 5 trials on insulin analogues were performed as double-blinded. Current evidence suggests that CSII treatment results in a significant reduction in HbA1c without inducing more hypoglycaemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogues compared to human soluble insulin provide statistically significant but clinically minor improvement in HbA1c but seem to reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia.

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices versus conventional vial and syringe

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) associated with insulin therapy are potentially important determinants of adherence to diabetes management programs. This article reviews published evidence of PROs over the past 3 decades in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and/or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who used vial and syringe for insulin delivery compared to those who used insulin pens. Based on predetermined selection criteria, articles were identified through a search of primary sources published from January 1980 to February 2008. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility and performed a detailed evaluation of the articles that met the selection criteria. Of the 124 articles screened, 41 met selection criteria. Approximately 75% of the selected articles were published between 1990 and 2008, and a majority (78%) of the research studies was conducted outside the United States. Most (>75%) of the studies evaluated male and female patients with T1D and/or T2D and mean ages around 45 years. Studies used varied comparative study designs with follow-up periods ranging from 2 weeks to 5 years. The PROs assessed in these articles included preference, acceptability, treatment satisfaction, ease of use, convenience, injection pain, handling, and dosing. Most articles (n = 36) showed more favorable PROs for insulin pen users compared to vial and syringe users. These findings have potential clinical and policy implications for patients, diabetes care providers, and/or payers to make evidence-based decisions regarding ways to facilitate initiation and management of insulin therapy.

A Review of 20??Years??? Experience with the Novopen?? Family of Insulin Injection Devices

NovoPen, the first insulin pen injector, was introduced in 1985. This article reviews the published evidence over two decades of use of the NovoPen family of injection devices in diabetes management. A search for NovoPen publications from 1985 onwards was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstract Reviews and Effects, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Publications were examined and underwent a selection process to identify studies of NovoPen devices (NovoPen [1], NovoPen 2, NovoPen 1.5 and NovoPen 3) in the diabetes/insulin therapy area that contained evidence of the effects of NovoPen in a variety of categories. Of the studies identified, most showed that insulin regimens using the NovoPen family of devices are at least as effective (and in some cases superior) in maintaining glycaemic control and are as safe (in terms of hypoglycaemia) as conventional insulin regimens employing syringes. The published evidence identified also showed that insulin administration via NovoPen devices was for most patients easier, more convenient and quicker than with conventional syringes and that most patients preferred the various NovoPen devices over syringes. There was also some evidence that the use of discreet devices, like those of the NovoPen family, facilitates adherence to intensive insulin therapy regimens, helps to improve lifestyle flexibility and reduces injection pain compared with conventional syringe-based regimens. Together these benefits of NovoPen devices are considered likely to improve both patients' quality of life and compliance with therapy. In conclusion, a large body of published evidence accumulated over the past two decades testifies to the patient-related benefits of the NovoPen family of insulin injection devices in the treatment of diabetes.

Effect of patient-selected intensive insulin therapy on quality of life

The purpose of the study was to assess quality of life in patients with IDDM in relation to the type of insulin therapy. Two patient cohorts were studied. In cohort A, 77 patients deliberately intensified their traditional insulin injection therapy from up to two daily injections with syringe to multiple daily injections with insulin-pen; in cohort B, 55 patients changed from intensive therapy with pen to insulin pump-treatment (CSII). The therapeutic regimens were changed during a 5-day in-patient treatment and teaching course. The DCCT questionnaire was applied before and up to 6 months after changing of therapy. Treatment satisfaction increased after intensification of insulin therapy in both groups, mainly due to greater flexibility with leisure-time activities, and with the diet. Pump-users reported reduced problems with hypoglycemia (P < 0.02). HbA1c indicating acceptable metabolic control already before the study, remained unchanged. Therapy-associated inconvenience, mainly in association with lifestyle, improved in IDDM patients deliberately intensifying their insulin therapy by pens or pumps (CSII). Pump-treatment, rather than pen-therapy, conferred particular protection from hypoglycaemia.

Audit of the change from twice daily to basal-bolus insulin regimens in insulin-dependent diabetes

Basal-bolus insulin regimens have become popular with patients, but clinicians' enthusiasm for their use has been tempered by a number of reports that suggest that these regimens do not improve overall glycemic control when compared with conventional, twice daily, regimens. Indeed, it has been suggested that basal-bolus regimens may be abused by certain patients leading to an increase in body weight and deterioration in glycemic control. This paper reports the results of a retrospective audit of 145 insulin-dependent diabetic patients changed from conventional insulin therapy to a basal-bolus insulin regimen. After 3 months on the basal-bolus regimen, a small but significant fall in total insulin (10%; p < 0.001) and intermediate-acting insulin (50%; p < 0.001) dose was recorded. During this time period serum fructosamine measurements also fell by 10% (p < 0.001) indicating a small but significant improvement in glycemic control. Body-mass index (BMI) and body weight data did not support the view that basal-bolus regimens lead to an increase in body weight. Analysis of the data by gender did not support the view that the basal-bolus insulin regimen is prone to abuse by female patients.

Does flexibility at mealtimes disturb blood glucose control on a multiple insulin injection regimen?

Randomized crossover studies of a half-sized lunch with reduced insulin dose in 21 patients, and a delayed (by 2 h) evening meal in 22 patients, compared with normal meals, were performed in Type 1 diabetic patients. The aim was to examine whether the size and timing of meals can be varied in patients on multiple injection regimens without disturbance of blood glucose control. All patients had previously had their control optimized on multiple injection therapy using a pen-injector. The studies were carried out at home on 6 days (3 changed meals, 3 control) over 2 months, and as 8- and 7-h metabolic profiles (1 study day, 1 control) in an investigation unit. A halved calorie lunch with half the usual insulin dose resulted in equivalent blood glucose control on the study day (area under curve: changed meal 40.0 +/- 3.4 vs control meal 40.3 +/- 3.5 mmol l-1 h for the 5-h period after the meal). Ketone body levels were also unchanged. The late evening meal shifted the post-prandial blood glucose concentration accordingly, but the excursion was not different in extent from the control day (24.8 +/- 1.9 vs 21.0 +/- 1.7 mmol l-1 h). A small excursion of 3-hydroxybutyrate levels before the delayed meal (to 187 +/- 48 mumol l-1) was quickly corrected on eating. Hypoglycaemia was not different in frequency on the changed meal days. Thus no problems of clinical significance were observed when some flexibility in meal size and timing was allowed.

Use of the pen delivery system for intensive insulin therapy in college-age students with type I diabetes

The present report describes our experience with 16 adolescents and young adults with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM; Type I) who switched from two injections of insulin per day to the NovolinPen and four insulin injections a day. Their mean age at the initiation of therapy was 19.2 years with a duration of diabetes of 8.9 years. Sixteen random computer-matched (for age, sex, and duration of diabetes) controls who remained on two insulin injections a day were evaluated for comparison. Most subjects were preparing to leave home for college. After a minimum of 1 year of using the pen, the mean weight gain of the test subjects was significantly greater (P less than .05) than for the computer-matched controls. Glycemic control, as monitored by mean HbA1c values, were similar for the NovolinPen and the control groups (10.8 versus 10.9, respectively) after almost 2 years. The main advantage to the pen expressed by the users was a sense of freedom of lifestyle.