Healthcare professional and patient assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus two widely available prefilled insulin pens for ease of use, teaching and learning

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.

Consensus on Choice of Insulin Pen Devices in Routine Clinical Practice in India

Although insulin delivery devices are widely used by the patients, there is a paucity of published guidelines to help professionals manage their patients in insulin therapies. To provide simple and easily implementable guidelines to health care physicians on the choice of insulin delivery devices in routine clinical practice, experts in diabetes gathered together and discussed the recommendations at the National insulin Summit 2018. An ideal insulin delivery device should accurately deliver the prescribed dose of insulin and be easy to use. Recommendations are: (1) insulin should be initiated by using an insulin device if the patient seems to discontinue insulin therapy. (2) Pen devices offer accurate dosing than a syringe and vial and are associated with cost savings in the long term. (3) Switching over from syringes and vial to disposable pen devices improves adherence. (4) FlexPen^® offers better accuracy, and it requires lower dose force and injection force than SoloStar^® and KwikPen^® (5). Durable delivery pens such as NovoPen^® 4 maintain accuracy and low dose force compared with vials and syringes. (6) One pen should be used by only one patient. (7) Regular counseling on the proper use of the pen device is required regularly. This consensus-based recommendation is a useful reference tool for health care practitioners to initiate insulin therapy in patients with diabetes by using the appropriate insulin pen device.

Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER)

AIM

When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset.

RESULTS

There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

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

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch¹ versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar² pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism

AIMS

To evaluate the injection success and user perception of a shield-triggered pen-injector mechanism.

METHODS

The trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02627287) was an exploratory, two-centre, one-visit, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany in 150 injection-experienced individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants self-administered subcutaneous injections of a placebo solution using a prototype shield-triggered pen-injector, DV3316 (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Injection success was evaluated on a yes/no basis by the investigator. Participant confidence, leakage of fluid and pain were evaluated after each injection. Pain and device experience were assessed after completion of all injections with each pen-injector. Overall preference was assessed after completion of all injections with both pen-injectors.

RESULTS

Injection success was high with both pen-injectors (97.0%, DV3316 vs 99.7%, FlexPen). Participant confidence in dose delivery was similar for the two devices (88% of injections with DV3316 vs 81% with FlexPen were scored as "extremely confident"). The median injection pain score on a visual analogue scale (0-100) was 3 with DV3316 vs 4 with FlexPen after each injection, and 4 with DV3316 vs 5 with FlexPen after all injections with each device. After all injections were completed, 55% of participants reported an overall preference for DV3316 vs 21% for FlexPen.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that injection-experienced individuals can achieve a high injection success rate with a shield-triggered pen-injector, with similar patient confidence and injection pain compared with FlexPen.

Nurse evaluation of the redesigned fertility pen injector: a questionnaire-based observational survey

BACKGROUND

Owing to the wide-ranging role nurses have in supporting patients undergoing fertility treatment, we recorded the learning/teaching expectations and experiences of nurses using a redesigned fertility pen injector.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, simulated-use study, using unbranded placebo-filled pens. Before teaching patients, nurses were given free choice to rank the importance of the device attributes and predict the level of patient anxiety. Nurses taught 2-5 patients how to prepare the device, inject the dose and complete an incomplete dose. They rated the teaching experience on a 5-point scale during a questionnaire interview.

RESULTS

Thirty nurses were enrolled across four countries. All nurses found the redesigned fertility pen injector easy to use and teach. 90% found the overall administration process easy to learn and teach. More than 80% (range 83%-100%) found each of the steps easy (score 4 or 5), and most found the steps easier to teach than expected (score 4 or 5; range 57%-90%). 97% would recommend the redesigned fertility pen injector to a colleague.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses rated the redesigned fertility pen injector easy to learn and use and easier to teach than expected. Most would recommend the device to a colleague.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of weekly injection devices for treatment of type 2 diabetes

Background

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are often recommended as part of combination therapy for type 2 diabetes when oral medication does not result in sufficient glycemic control. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are available as weekly injections. These medications vary in their injection delivery systems, and these differences could impact quality of life and treatment preference. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with attributes of injection delivery systems for weekly GLP-1 therapies.

Methods

Participants with type 2 diabetes in the UK valued health states in time trade-off interviews. The health states (drafted based on literature, device instructions for use, and clinician interviews) had identical descriptions of type 2 diabetes, but differed in description of the treatment process. One health state described oral treatment, while six others described oral treatment plus a weekly injection. The injection health states varied in three aspects of the treatment administration process: requirements for reconstituting the medication (i.e., mixing the medication prior to the injection), waiting during medication preparation, and needle handling. Every participant valued all seven health states.

Results

A total of 209 participants completed interviews (57.4% male; mean age = 60.4y). The mean utility of the oral treatment health state was 0.89. All injection health states had significantly (p < 0.01) lower utilities ranging from 0.86 to 0.88. Differences among health state utilities suggest that each administration requirement had a small but measureable disutility: -0.004 (reconstitution), -0.004 (needle handling), -0.010 (reconstitution, needle handling), and -0.020 (reconstitution, waiting, needle handling).

Conclusions

Findings suggest it is feasible to use the TTO method to quantify preferences among injection treatment processes. It may be useful to incorporate these utility differences into cost-utility models comparing weekly injectable treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes.

FlexTouch: An Insulin Pen-Injector with a Low Activation Force Across Different Insulin Formulations, Needle Technologies, and Temperature Conditions

FlexTouch® (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) is a pen-injector with a torque spring mechanism requiring a low activation force. This laboratory-based study compared the activation force of FlexTouch during the injection of insulin with different needles and at temperature conditions within the range at which the device is recommended for use. Using a tensile tester, activation force was measured at maximum dose settings for insulin detemir (100 U/mL) and insulin degludec (100 and 200 U/mL) at standard (23°C ± 5°C), cool (5°C ± 3°C), and warm (30°C ± 2°C) conditions. Activation force was measured with two 32-gauge needles differing in internal diameter at standard conditions. At standard, cool, and warm conditions, estimated mean activation forces with 95% confidence interval were 5.71 newtons (N) (5.63-5.79), 5.94 N (5.83-6.06), and 5.69 N (5.58-5.80) with insulin detemir, 5.53 N (5.45-5.62), 5.56 N (5.44-5.67), and 5.33 N (5.22-5.44) with 100 U/mL insulin degludec, and 5.53 N (5.45-5.61), 5.83 N (5.71-5.94), and 5.56 N (5.45-5.68) with 200 U/mL insulin degludec, respectively. Mean activation forces were observed to be low with very small variability between measurements; however, the differences between insulins and temperature conditions were statistically significant. The activation force required by FlexTouch remained low across all situations tested. The differences between activation force needed with different insulins and temperature conditions were small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous injections allow for self-administration, but consideration of patients' perspectives on treatment choice is important to ensure adherence. Previous systematic reviews have been limited in their scope for assessing preferences in relation to other routes of administration.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to examine patients' perspectives on subcutaneously administered self-injectable medications when compared with other routes or methods of administration for the same medicines.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases were searched for publications since 2000 using terms pertaining to methods of administration, choice behavior, and adverse effects. Eligibility for inclusion was determined through reference to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Results were described narratively.

RESULTS

Of the 1726 papers screened, 85 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were focused mainly on methods of insulin administration for diabetes but also included treatments for pediatric growth disorders, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and migraine. Pen devices and autoinjectors were favored over administration with needle and syringe, particularly with respect to ergonomics, convenience, and portability. Inhalation appeared to be more acceptable than subcutaneous injection (in the case of insulin), but how subcutaneous infusion, intramuscular injection, and needle-free injection devices compare with subcutaneous injections in terms of patient preference is less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified a number of studies showing the importance of the methods and routes of drug delivery on patient choice. However, studies were prone to bias, and further robust evidence based on methodologically sound approaches is required to demonstrate how patient choice might translate to improved adherence.

Comparative usability study for a certolizumab pegol autoinjection device in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the usability of a new certolizumab pegol (CZP) autoinjector with the adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab devices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Two identical studies were performed in 2013 and 2016; patients performed a simulated self-injection with the CZP autoinjector and the most up-to-date device versions at the time in a randomized, consecutive sequence. The primary end point was the ranking of the four autoinjectors in order of preference. Device usability and intuitiveness were assessed across a range of secondary and exploratory end points.

RESULTS

The 2013 and 2016 study populations included 76 patients each; a significant majority (2013: 67%; 2016: 59%) ranked the CZP autoinjector as their most preferred device (p < 0.001). Most patients agreed that the CZP autoinjector was easier to use, start, and manipulate, and were more willing to use it than the comparator devices (p < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons with CZP). Likert score differences also favored the CZP autoinjector regarding how easy it was to determine injection completion. The CZP autoinjector was associated with a low rate of use error.

CONCLUSIONS

In both studies, the CZP autoinjector was the preferred choice compared to the alternative devices and was associated with a high level of patient satisfaction.

Usability of the Novel Liraglutide 3.0 mg Pen Injector Among Overweight or Obese Adult Patients With or Without Prior Injection Experience

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with multiple comorbidities and increased mortality, making it an important target for treatment. However, achieving and maintaining weight loss by diet and physical activity remains challenging, and may often require pharmacotherapy. Liraglutide 3.0 mg has recently been approved for weight management in the United States, Canada, and EU. The current analysis used a summative usability test to assess safety and effectiveness, ease of use, and training requirements for the novel liraglutide 3.0 mg pen injector.

METHODS

Of the 234 participants, half received instructions for use and video-based training and/or opportunity to handle the device. All participants (excluding pharmacists) performed 6 tasks followed by post- task interviews on task difficulty, device ease of use, and any use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties. Tasks included differentiation of correct box and pen injector, medication clarity assessment, normal, dose reversal, and end-of-content injection. Number/type of use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties were evaluated.

RESULTS

All assessed participants interpreted the instructions for use correctly. No potentially serious use errors, and low numbers of nonserious errors, were reported. Overall, participants committed 105 use errors related to handling, with no potential for harm. A total of 25 close calls and 44 operational difficulties were reported without any pattern indicative of a design flaw. Marked differences in the incidence of events were observed for trained versus untrained participants regardless of prior injection experience. Participants rated ease of use as 6.4/7.

CONCLUSIONS

The liraglutide 3.0 mg pen injector is safe and easy to use for liraglutide administration. New device features allow for safe use after brief training.

Safe and Effective Use of the Once Weekly Dulaglutide Single-Dose Pen in Injection-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This 4-week, phase 3b, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, outpatient study demonstrated the safe and effective use of the dulaglutide single-dose pen containing 0.5 mL of placebo for subcutaneous injection in injection-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with A1C ≤ 8.5% (69 mmol/mol), BMI ≥ 23 kg/m2 and ≤ 45 kg/m(2).

METHOD

Patients completed a modified self-injecting subscale of the Diabetes Fear of Injecting and Self-Testing Questionnaire (mD-FISQ) and were trained to self-inject with the single-dose pen. Patients completed the initial self-injection at the site, injected at home for 2 subsequent weeks, and returned to the site for the final injection. The initial and final self-injections were evaluated for success; the final (initial) self-injection success rate was the primary (secondary) outcome measure, and the primary (secondary) objective was to demonstrate this success rate as being significantly greater than 80%. Patients recorded their level of pain after each injection. After the final injection, patients completed the mD-FISQ and the Medication Delivery Device Assessment Battery (MDDAB) to assess their perceptions of the single-dose pen, including ease of use and experience with the device.

RESULTS

Among 211 patients (mean age: 61 years), the primary objective was met, with a final injection success rate of 99.1% (95% CI: 96.6% to 99.7%). Among 214 patients, the initial injection success rate was 97.2% (95% CI: 94.0% to 98.7%), meeting the key secondary objective. Overall, most patients (>96%) found the device easy to use, were satisfied with the device, and would be willing to continue to use the single-dose pen after the study. There was a significant reduction (P < .001) from baseline to study end in patients' fear of self-injecting, as measured by the mD-FISQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The dulaglutide single-dose pen was found to be a safe and effective device for use by patients with T2D who were injection-naïve. A positive injection experience is an important factor for patients and providers when initiating injectable therapy.

Assessment for ease of use and preference of a new prefilled insulin pen (FlexTouch Degludec U100/U200) versus the SoloSTAR insulin pen by patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVE

FlexTouch® (FT) is a new prefilled insulin pen with no push-button extension and a low injection force used to deliver several basal insulins, including insulin degludec across a wide dose range (1 - 80 units with FT 100 IU/ml [FT100] and 2 - 160 units with 200 IU/ml [FT200]). This study was carried out to evaluate whether the novel features of FT affect the preferences of the device among patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals compared with the widely used SoloSTAR® pen.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study compared FT100 and FT200 with SoloSTAR. The study included patients with either type 1 (n = 22) or type 2 diabetes (n = 42), nurses (n = 32) and physicians (n = 32). Subjects were randomized to test each of the FT100, FT200 and SoloSTAR pens in a crossover set up. Subjects performed injections into a foam cushion at 4 - 6 different doses per device (2, 20, 40, 80, 120 and 160 IU).

RESULTS

Overall, a significantly higher proportion of subjects, including dexterity-impaired and pen-naive patients, preferred to use FT100 (93.0%; 119/128) and FT200 (91.4%; 117/128) compared with 2.3% (3/128) and 3.9% (5/128) who preferred SoloSTAR (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

FT100 and FT200 were preferred over SoloSTAR by nurses, physicians and patients with diabetes. This may be due to the novel design of FT, which improves ease of use, preference and confidence in delivering a complete, accurate dose of insulin, even at high doses.

Insulin degludec once-daily in type 2 diabetes: simple or step-wise titration (BEGIN: once simple use)

INTRODUCTION

Insulin degludec (IDeg) is a new basal insulin in development with a flat, ultra-long action profile that may permit dosing using a simplified titration algorithm with less frequent self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) measurements and more simplified titration steps than currently available basal insulins.

METHODS

This 26-week, multi-center, open-label, randomized, treat-to-target study compared the efficacy and safety of IDeg administered once-daily in combination with metformin in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes using two different patient-driven titration algorithms: a "Simple" algorithm, with dose adjustments based on one pre-breakfast SMBG measurement (n = 111) versus a "Step-wise" algorithm, with adjustments based on three consecutive pre-breakfast SMBG values (n = 111). IDeg was administered using the FlexTouch® insulin pen (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsværd, Denmark), with once-weekly dose titration in both groups.

RESULTS

Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased from baseline to week 26 in both groups (-1.09%, IDegSimple; -0.93%, IDegStep-wise). IDegSimple was non-inferior to IDegStep-wise in lowering HbA1c [estimated treatment difference (IDegSimple - IDegStep-wise): -0.16% points (-0.39; 0.07)95% CI]. Fasting plasma glucose was reduced (-3.27 mmol/L, IDegSimple; -2.68 mmol/L, IDegStep-wise) with no significant difference between groups. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia [1.60, IDegSimple; 1.17, IDegStep-wise events/patient year of exposure (PYE)] and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycemia (0.21, IDegSimple; 0.10, IDegStep-wise events/PYE) were low, with no significant differences between groups. Daily insulin dose after 26 weeks was 0.61 U/kg (IDegSimple) and 0.50 U/kg (IDegStep-wise). No significant difference in weight change was seen between groups by week 26 (+1.6 kg, IDegSimple; +1.1 kg, IDegStep-wise), and there were no clinically relevant differences in adverse event profiles.

CONCLUSION

IDeg was effective and well tolerated using either the Simple or Step-wise titration algorithm. While selection of an algorithm must be based on individual patient characteristics and goals, the ability to attain good glycemic control using a simplified titration algorithm may enable patient empowerment through self-titration, improved convenience, and reduced costs.

Empowering people with diabetes: improving perceptions and outcomes with technical advances in insulin pens

For people with diabetes treated with insulin, the development of insulin pens has led to important advantages compared with the use of vials and syringes. Insulin pens are associated with improved ease of use, user confidence, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life compared with vials and syringes. Continual improvements to insulin pen designs to further enhance usability and improve patient perceptions may help to lower patients' resistance to initiating insulin therapy and further improve treatment adherence. This article reviews recent developments in prefilled insulin pens that may assist health care professionals when considering insulin-delivery devices to recommend to their patients.

Usability and preference assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe in people with diabetes, physicians and nurses

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, crossover study assessed the preference and usability of a new prefilled insulin pen, FlexTouch® (FT) versus vial and syringe (V&S).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

People with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (n = 60), and physicians (n = 30) and nurses (n = 30) with experience of diabetes management performed test injections with FT and V&S, and then answered written questions on ease of use and preference.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was preference for FT versus V&S. Secondary end points included perceptions of device handling.

RESULTS

Significantly more respondents preferred using FT (88%) to V&S (5%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'), found FT (91%) easier to use than V&S (6%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference') and would recommend FT (91%) over V&S (3%; p < 0.001; the remainder chose 'no preference'). FT received better ratings than V&S for ease of use, holding the device stable when injecting, depressing the push-button/plunger and reading the dose scale (all p < 0.001). Ratings for confidence in correct insulin delivery and controlling blood sugar were also significantly better with FT (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FT was preferred to V&S for insulin delivery in this comparative analysis. The features of FT may improve the experience of insulin injection compared with V&S for a wide range of people with diabetes.

FlexTouch® for the delivery of insulin: technical attributes and perception among patients and healthcare professionals

Insulin injection pens have improved the ease and convenience of administering insulin for people with diabetes. This article reviews the data on a new prefilled insulin pen, FlexTouch®. FlexTouch has a novel injection mechanism with no push-button extension and a lower injection force than other prefilled pens, and other features including an end-of-dose click; a large dose display; color-coded pens to distinguish different insulin types; an ergonomic design; and compatibility with both NovoTwist® needles and most screw-thread needles. FlexTouch has been demonstrated to deliver insulin consistently and accurately at minimum, half-maximum and maximum doses. In usability studies recruiting patients and healthcare professionals, FlexTouch was easier to use and instilled more confidence than other prefilled pens, and was preferred to other prefilled pens. FlexTouch was also found to be easier to use and was preferred for learning and teaching to use.