A randomized, cross-over comparison of preference between two reusable insulin pen devices in pen-naïve adults with diabetes

Choosing an insulin injector by a structured, pharmaceutical-neutral curriculum via an informed shared decision-making process in 349 insulin-naive patients with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The national guideline for diabetes type 2 claims to involve patients in their decision-making on therapy. Unfortunately, no structured, pharmaceutical-neutral curriculum is available to guide patients in this shared decision-making (SDM) process regarding the insulin injector. The aim of the study was to evaluate which injector patients chose after SDM process and the reasons for their choice.

METHODS

We developed a curriculum for a SDM process to choose an insulin injector for insulin-naive patients with diabetes mellitus, which took place immediately before the start of the initial treatment with insulin. It was conducted by a physician or diabetes educator with no conflicts of interest. All available human short-acting disposable insulin injectors (A, B and C) were handed out for try-out accompanied by individual counselling. The patients selected their injector of choice and were asked immediately afterwards about the criteria for their selection.

RESULTS

349 consecutive patients (94% diabetes type 2; age 58.6 + 13.4y; HbA1c 10.4 + 2.1%) were included. Patients choose Injector A in 10.0%, B in 61.9% and C in 28.1%. Criteria for selection were: design (41.8%), general impression (23.5%), dose window (7.7%), dose selection dial (7.4%), most practical (6.6%) and other (13%). Selection of a specific injector was not associated with age, diabetes type, diabetes duration, BMI, HbA1c, presence of concomitant diseases, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic foot or physician/diabetes educator.

DISCUSSION

Insulin-naive patients with diabetes mellitus chose their own insulin injector within a newly developed structured SDM process to meet the national guideline. Main selection criteria were design and practicability.

Preference for a prefilled syringe or an auto-injection device for delivering golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized crossover study

PURPOSE

Simponi^® (golimumab, MSD) is a fully human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor alpha administered subcutaneously using an autoinjector or a prefilled syringe. This study examined preference for administration of golimumab by autoinjector or prefilled syringe in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, open-label, randomized crossover trial (EudraCT no 2014-000656-29). Patients with moderate-to-severe UC were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 subcutaneous injections of 50 mg golimumab with the autoinjector followed by 2 injections of 50 mg with the prefilled syringe or the same 4 injections administered in the opposite order. Patients assessed preference, ease of use, and discomfort immediately after the injections and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were included (median age=42.7 years [range, 19.7-93.7]; 58% male). The autoinjector was preferred by 76.9% of patients immediately after injections and by 71.4% 2 weeks later. The autoinjector was more often considered extremely easy or easy to use (94.5%) than the prefilled syringe (73.6%). Moderate discomfort or worse was reported by more patients when using the prefilled syringe (20.9%) than when using the autoinjector (5.5%), and severe discomfort or discomfort preventing injection of future doses was reported by 8.8% for the pre-filled syringe but not at all when using the autoinjector. A favorable or extremely favorable overall impression was reported by 89.0% for the autoinjector and 72.5% for the prefilled syringe.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with moderate-to-severe UC preferred to self-administer golimumab with the autoinjector over a prefilled syringe.

Crossover design and its application in late-phase diabetes studies

Crossover design has been widely used in late-phase clinical studies, as well as in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic, bioequivalence, and medical device studies; however, its interpretability and applicability continue to be debated. Herein we provide discussions around a crossover design's scientific benefit, applicability, and how it can be implemented in late-phase diabetes studies by properly handling key issues: carryover effect, washout period, and baseline selection. Specifically, detailed considerations are provided about the validity and situations of having appropriate length of study duration to deal with carryover effects so that a washout period may not be needed. A simulation study and data mining results on 12 crossover late-phase insulin clinical trials are presented to examine the discussion points and proposals.

Usability of devices for self-injection: results of a formative study on a new disposable pen injector

This article presents a late-stage formative usability study of a pen-injector platform device. Such devices are used for the subcutaneous delivery of biopharmaceuticals, primarily for self-administration by the patient. The study was conducted with a broad user population, defined to represent user characteristics across a range of indications. The goals of the study were to confirm that the pen could be used without recurring patterns of use errors leading to hazardous situations, to evaluate the comprehension of the instructions for use (IFU), and to determine if training is necessary. In the study, a total of 36 participants in six groups (health care providers, caregivers, adolescents, diabetics with retinopathy, diabetics with neuropathy, and patients with arthritis) each read the IFU, prepared the device, and performed two simulated injections into an injection pad. Any use errors, near misses, or deviations from the IFU procedure were recorded. The overall success rate (injection completed by the participant without need for assistance) was 94% for the first and 100% for the second injection. Ninety-two percent of the participants reported that they felt confident using the device, 100% found the IFU helpful, and 75% found the device positively comfortable to use. Overall, a total average of 3.35 deviations and errors per user and injection were recorded (there were no near misses). Subtracting the errors without any potential for negative consequences for the injection or the user (trivial deviations), as well as those related to attaching and removing the pen needle (independent of the design of the pen itself), led to an average of 1.31 potentially relevant deviations per user and injection. It was concluded that the pen injector together with the IFU could be safely and efficiently used by all user groups without any training, and thus that the device and IFU in their current form are well suited for use in a range of specific applications.