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

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.

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

Diabetes-related technology has undergone great advancement in recent years. These technological devices are more commonly utilized in the type 1 diabetes population, which requires insulin as the primary treatment modality. Available devices include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid systems referred to as automated insulin delivery systems or hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine those two devices along with software algorithms to achieve advanced therapeutic capabilities, including automatic modulation of insulin delivery based on sensor-derived glucose levels to minimize abnormal glucose trends. Use of diabetes technology is associated with significant positive health and psychosocial outcomes, yet utilization rates are generally lacking across both adult and pediatric type 1 diabetes populations in the United States and other countries. There are consistent themes in existing barriers to technology uptake reported by individuals with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes, including physical burdens associated with wearing the devices, concerns in navigating the technology and the devices’ abilities to meet user expectations, high cost, inadequate resources within the healthcare team to support device use, disparities in technology access, and psychosocial barriers. It is important to understand the common barriers to uptake of not only the automated insulin delivery systems but also their component devices (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors) to fully support individuals in utilizing these devices and optimizing health benefits. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current automated insulin delivery devices that are available for use in management of type 1 diabetes, review common barriers to uptake of those systems and their component devices, and provide expert opinion on existing and future solutions to identified barriers.

User-Centric Approach to Specifying Technical Attributes of Drug Delivery Devices: Empirical Study of Autoinjector-Cap Removal Forces

PURPOSE

The subcutaneous delivery of biologics using pre-filled autoinjector devices continues to attract broad scholarly interests. However, research still lacks a detailed understanding of user perceptions as the basis for specifying the clinically relevant technical attributes of a device, such as the cap-removal force. Therefore, this article studies the ability of users to remove the autoinjector cap, as well as the effects of the cap-removal force and user characteristics on the perceived ease of decapping.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two participants among patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals removed the protective cap using non-functional devices with different target cap-removal forces between 25 N and 55 N. Data were collected on the ability of the users to effectively decap the device and their perceived ease of decapping. Linear regression was then applied to quantify the impact of the decapping force and patient characteristics on the perceived ease of decapping.

RESULTS

The participants of the study effectively decapped all autoinjector devices irrespective of age, sex, and dexterity impairments. Moreover, the study reveals that the perceived ease of decapping decreases significantly with increasing decapping force and participants' dexterity impairments.

CONCLUSION

The study provides initial empirical evidence on the ability of users to decap autoinjector devices and shows how increasing the cap-removal force and dexterity impairments reduce the perceived ease of decapping.

Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review

In recent years, the development of basal insulin therapies has focused on insulin analogues that have longer durations of action and more predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles than their human insulin-based predecessors, such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Dosed once-daily, such analogues can provide a more stable glucose-lowering action, which translates clinically into a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec (degludec) became available in Canada in 2017 and is the first basal insulin analogue to have a half-life exceeding the dosing interval. As well as offering the promise of an exceptionally flat PK/PD profile when at steady state, this characteristic means that insulin degludec can be dosed with some flexibility with regard to time of day and that it need not be taken at the same time each day. However, the approximately 25-h half-life also has some implications concerning dose titration. This article provides an up-to-date review of the study data describing the clinical profile of degludec, and aims to give helpful and practical advice to prescribers about its use. While the clinical benefits of degludec are described, it is also acknowledged that further study is required to better understand how its clinical performance compares with that of insulin glargine 300 units/mL.

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.

Motorized botulinum toxin injection device: a pilot study on attitudes toward technology-assisted injection in novice and experienced cosmetic practitioners

This study was performed to investigate the user perception of a cordless, motorized electronically controlled delivery system for botulinum toxin type A. Forty-six post-graduate students of varying experience levels of botulinum toxin injections and four members of the faculty from the MSc programme in Esthetic Medicine at Queen Mary University London participated in a demonstration of a motorized injection device. Thereafter, they performed a number of injections on a high fidelity silicone simulation model before completing a nine-item questionnaire. The more experienced injectors tended to appreciate the accuracy of the device more than the less experienced participants. Seventy-eight percent of participants said the device improved accuracy, particularly when administering small doses. Eighty-four percent leaned toward a favorable general view of the device. Forty-seven percent would possibly consider purchasing the device. Sixty-one percent would consider recommending the device to a colleague. The main advantage of the motorized injection device was the improved accuracy enabling delivery of small and precise doses. This may open up the possibility of new approaches to botulinum toxin treatments.

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.

Achieving Glycaemic Control with Concentrated Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The recent introduction of the second-generation long-acting analogue insulins degludec and insulin glargine U300 have increased the choice of basal insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these insulins result in a flatter profile that lasts over 24 h and provides an increased window of administration of 6 h once daily. Large-scale multicentre randomised clinical trial programmes (BEGIN for degludec U100 and U200 and EDITION for glargine U300) evaluating these insulin therapies against glargine U100 have demonstrated that they are either non-inferior or superior for glycaemic efficacy and safety, but less likely to result in severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia than glargine U100. The disposable pen devices for these insulins have been designed with patient satisfaction and convenience in mind. No concerns have arisen with adverse events with insulin analogues or cardiovascular safety from the ORIGIN and DEVOTE trials. As they demonstrate equivalent glycaemic efficacy to other basal insulins, they should be considered more in selected patient groups including those with recurrent or increased risk of hypoglycaemia, especially severe or nocturnal episodes, in the elderly or those living alone, and in patients with multiple co-morbidities such as cardiovascular or renal disease.

How to prevent medication errors: a multidimensional scaling study to investigate the distinguishability between self-injection platform device variants

Background: The importance of subcutaneous drug delivery using self-injection devices based on common device platforms continues to grow. The resulting broad adoption of potentially look-alike or similar devices, however, raises concerns over limited device distinguishability and ensuing risk of medication errors. The objective of the study is thus to understand whether and how users effectively distinguish between self-injection device variants. Methods: Seventy-four patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals were asked to pairwise rate the similarity of eight platform autoinjector variants. Multidimensional scaling was then used to convert individual ratings into spatial configurations and thereby identify the attributes that influence device distinguishability. Results: Five different device attributes driving distinguishability were identified. Three of the attributes corresponded to single design features (the label color, device size and device shape). Two device attributes (the aspect ratio and chromaticity) combined distinct yet interrelated design features. Conclusions: The study provides initial empirical evidence that users are able to distinguish between device variants and as to what device attributes drive distinguishability. Furthermore, the results highlight patterns in how various user groups distinguish between device variants. These patterns relate with the user group characteristics (e.g. age, sight or dexterity) and the context of device usage (e.g. healthcare professionals).

Toward a new age of patient centricity? The application of eye-tracking to the development of connected self-injection systems

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in digitally enhanced drug delivery tools urges both industry and academia to rethink current approaches to product usability testing. This article introduces mobile eye-tracking, generating detailed contextual data about user engagement with connected self-injection systems as a new methodological approach to formative usability assessment.

METHODS

A longitudinal case study with a total of 35 injection-naïve participants was conducted. In three consecutive experiments, eye-tracking was applied to formative usability testing of a novel connected self-injection device. Three eye-tracking derived usability indicators were established to assess product effectiveness, efficiency, and ease of use.

RESULTS

Analysis of the data revealed events of user hesitation, process interruption and unintended action, and these occurrences could either be completely eliminated or significantly reduced throughout the process (product effectiveness). At the same time, the overall use duration decreased from 86.1 to 58.7 sec (product efficiency). Analysis revealed that product modifications successfully guided user attention to those interface elements most relevant during each task, thereby improving product ease-of-use.

CONCLUSIONS

The step-wise improvement in the usability indicators demonstrates that iteratively applying eye-tracking methods effectively supports the user-centered design of connected self-injection systems. The results highlight how eye-tracking can be employed to gain an in-depth understanding of patient engagement with novel healthcare technologies.

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.

Pen devices for self-injection: contrasting measured injection force with users' perceived ease of injection

OBJECTIVES

Past research has emphasized injection force as a clinically highly relevant technical attribute of pen devices. However, little work has been conducted to relate these results to in-use studies. This article explores whether and how differences in pen injection force profiles influence users' self-reported perceived ease of injection and preferences.

METHODS

Three different pen systems were subjected to measurements of injection force using an automated mechanical set-up followed by a simulated use study where users assessed perceived ease of injection.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE

Outcomes were measured by fitting data of measured injection force and perceived ease of injection using a linear model.

RESULTS

Although mechanical testing revealed significant differences between the three pen's measured injection forces these differences were not directly perceived by users in simulated injection studies.

CONCLUSION

The article bridges literature on injection force measurement and simulated use. It reveals how users' perceived ease of injection is less sensitive to measured injection forces than prior research has assumed. Thus, future research should holistically integrate patient feedback in new device development. Key limitations of this work are the low number of participants in the simulated use study and the fact that the ease of injection was assessed indirectly.

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.

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.