A Comparison of Insulin Pen Devices and Disposable Plastic Syringes - Simplicity, Safety, Convenience and Cost Differences

Optimising Insulin Injection Techniques to Improve Diabetes Outcomes

The effectiveness of therapy in patients with diabetes depends on the correct use of the insulin injection technique. However, despite many established recommendations and evidence that an effective insulin injection technique is essential to improve glycaemic control and minimise the risk associated with diabetes, there is still a need to identify impediments to the insulin injection technique among patients and create awareness among patients and healthcare professionals about the importance of the optimisation of insulin injection techniques. This review focuses on the recent advancements in delivery devices, insulin injection technique teaching methods, monitoring, and complication management and highlights regional best practices and recommendations for optimising injection techniques to improve diabetes outcomes.

Factors Affecting Performance of Insulin Pen Injector Technology: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Insulin treatment is an essential hormone replacement therapy for the survival of people with type 1 diabetes and is often used for treatment in type 2 diabetes, particularly as the disease progresses. Advances in insulin therapy have been made since its discovery, including production of human insulin and development of insulin analogs with improved efficacy and safety profiles. The different types of available insulin formulations allow health care professionals to personalize treatment to an individual's needs. Generally, insulin requires parenteral administration via subcutaneous injection owing to very low oral bioavailability.

METHODS

This article reviews the human, technological, economical, and regulatory factors affecting the performance of insulin pens and the relationship between them. Opportunities and challenges that insulin pen injections may encounter in the future are also considered.

RESULTS

Insulin delivery devices, together with other factors, influence dose accuracy, convenience, and quality of life, contributing to easier medication administration with high efficacy and safety. For patients, ease of use, fast and accurate drug delivery, and painless injection are the most valuable features of an insulin injection device. For manufacturers, technological feasibility and economic viability also need to be considered when developing injection devices.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pen injectors are generally preferred over vial and syringe, although access may be limited in some health care systems. Insulin pen injectors can adapt to different insulin regimens and formulations and have the potential to acquire dosing data in real time.

Comparison of simplicity, convenience, safety, and cost-effectiveness between use of insulin pen devices and disposable plastic syringes by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study from Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

Insulin pen devices and disposable plastic insulin syringes are two common tools for insulin administration. This study aims to compare the simplicity, convenience, safety, and cost-effectiveness of insulin pens versus syringe devices in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at 14 diabetes clinics throughout Bangladesh from November 2021 to April 2022 among adults with T2DM injecting insulin by pen devices or disposable insulin syringes at least once a day for at least one year by purposive sampling. The simplicity, convenience, and safety of insulin devices were assessed using a structured questionnaire, and the study subjects were scored based on their answers; higher scores indicated a poorer response. Total scores for simplicity, convenience, and safety were obtained by adding the scores for relevant components. Their average monthly medical expense and cost of insulin therapy were recorded. The median values of the total scores and monthly expenses were compared between pen devices and disposable syringe users.

RESULTS

737 subjects were evaluated; 406 were pen users, and 331 were vial syringe users. The pen users had lower median scores for simplicity [6.0 (5.0-8.0) vs. 7.0 (5.0-9.0), p = 0.002], convenience [4.0 (3.0-6.0) vs. 5.0 (4.0-6.0), p < 0.001], and safety [7.0 (6.0-8.0) vs. 7.0 (6.0-9.0), p = 0.008] than vial syringe users. Pen devices were more expensive than vial syringes in terms of average medical expense per month [BDT 5000 (3500-7000) vs. 3000 (2000-5000), p < 0.001], the total cost of insulin therapy per month [BDT 2000 (1500-3000) vs. 1200 (800-1700), p < 0.001] and cost per unit of insulin used [BDT 2.08 (1.39-2.78) vs. 0.96 (0.64-1.39), p < 0.001]. Non-significant differences in favor of pens were observed in HbA1c levels [8.7 (7.8-10) vs. 8.9 (7.9-10)%, p = 0.607] and proportions of subjects having HbA1c < 7% (6.9 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.991).

CONCLUSION

Insulin pens are simpler, more convenient, and safe but more expensive than vial syringes. Glycemic control is comparable between pen and syringe users. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine the clinical and economic impacts of such benefits of insulin pens.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

A review on artificial pancreas and regenerative medicine used in the management of Type 1 diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is one of the fastest-growing lifestyle disorders in the world. While numerous regimes have been developed to manage diabetes, there continue to be high numbers of diabetes-related deaths worldwide. The review gives a brief introduction to the pathology and aetiology of the disorder, different solutions developed over time with their advantages and disadvantages, and highlights the technological components and challenges of the latest technologies: artificial pancreas and regenerative medicine. The study is restricted to a set of high-quality publications from the last decade.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Leveraging advances in diabetes technologies in primary care: a narrative review

Primary care providers (PCPs) play an important role in providing medical care for patients with type 2 diabetes. Advancements in diabetes technologies can assist PCPs in providing personalised care that addresses each patient's individual needs. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Monitoring technologies encompass self-measured blood glucose (SMBG), where blood glucose is intermittently measured by a finger prick blood sample, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, which use an interstitial sensor and are capable of giving real-time information. Studies show people using real-time CGM have better glucose control compared to SMBG. CGM allows for new parameters including time in range (the time spent within the desired target glucose range), which is an increasingly relevant real-time metric of glycaemic control. Insulin pens have increased the ease of administration of insulin and connected pens that can calculate and capture data on dosing are becoming available. There are a number of websites, software programs, and applications that can help PCPs and patients to integrate diabetes technology into their diabetes management schedules. In this article, we summarise these technologies and provide practical information to inform PCPs about utility in their clinical practice. The guiding principle is that use of technology should be individualised based on a patient's needs, desires, and availability of devices. Diabetes technology can help patients improve their clinical outcomes and achieve the quality of life they desire by decreasing disease burden.KEY MESSAGESIt is important to understand the role that diabetes technologies can play in primary care to help deliver high-quality care, taking into account patient and community resources. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Modern self-measured blood glucose devices are simple to use and can help guide decision making for self-management plans to improve clinical outcomes, but cannot provide "live" data and may under- or overestimate blood glucose; patients' monitoring technique and compliance should be reviewed regularly. Importantly, before a patient is provided with monitoring technology, they must receive suitably structured education in its use and interpretation.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and people with type 2 diabetes on meal-time (prandial) insulin. Real-time CGM can tell both the patient and the healthcare provider when glucose is in the normal range, and when they are experiencing hyper- or hypoglycaemia. Using CGM data, changes in lifestyle, eating habits, and medications, including insulin, can help the patient to stay in a normal glycaemic range (70-180 mg/dL). Real-time CGM allows for creation of an ambulatory glucose profile and monitoring of time in range (the time spent within target blood glucose of 70-180 mg/dL), which ideally should be at least 70%; avoiding time above range (>180 mg/dL) is associated with reduced diabetes complications and avoiding time below range (<70 mg/dL) will prevent hypoglycaemia. Insulin pens are simpler to use than syringes, and connected pens capture information on insulin dose and injection timing.There are a number of websites, software programs and applications that can help primary care providers and patients to integrate diabetes technology into their diabetes management schedules. The guiding principle is that use of technology should be individualised based on a patient's needs, desires, skill level, and availability of devices.

Patient-Reported Preference and Clinical Efficacy of Insulin Pen Devices With Safety Needles in Adolescents and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Prospective Study

Purpose Current evidence indicates that diabetic patients' preference and medication adherence can be affected by the type of insulin pen needles. We aimed to assess the impact of insulin pen devices with safety needles (SPN) on the usability, behavioral, lifestyle, and emotional aspects of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in adolescents and young adults. Patients and methods We conducted a prospective single-center study on adolescent T1DM patients treated with multiple insulin doses using basal-bolus therapy for at least one year. Patients were followed for 12 weeks to compare the changes in the baseline usability and insulin fear of self-injection scales between SPN and conventional needles. Results In this 12-week study, we included 72 participants with a mean age of 15.5 ± 1.3 years. The mean disease duration was 5.1 ± 2.2 years. At 12 weeks, substantial improvement was evident in the SPN group, compared to the conventional group, in terms of the overall satisfaction score with a mean difference (MD) of 4.1 ± 1.9 (p < 0.01). Participants in the SPN group reported significant reduction in all aspect of fear from self-injection, such as being restless (MD = -1.4 ± 0.9), tense (MD = -1.8 ± 0.9), afraid (MD = -1.9 ± 0.9), worried (MD = -1.9 ± 0.9), nervous (MD = -1.7 ± 0.9), and brood using the SPN needles (MD = -1.6 ± 0.9), as compared to the conventional needles group. The glycemic control parameters, as determined by HbA1c and fasting blood glucose, exhibited significant improvements in the SPN group compared to the conventional group (p < 0.05). Conclusion SPN significantly improved usability, glycemic parameters, and reduced the fear of insulin self-injections amongst T1DM patients compared to conventional pen therapy.

Evolution of Insulin Delivery Devices: From Syringes, Pens, and Pumps to DIY Artificial Pancreas

The year 2021 will mark 100 years since the discovery of insulin. Insulin, the first medication to be discovered for diabetes, is still the safest and most potent glucose-lowering therapy. The major challenge of insulin despite its efficacy has been the occurrence of hypoglycemia, which has resulted in sub-optimal dosages being prescribed in the vast majority of patients. Popular devices used for insulin administration are syringes, pens, and pumps. An artificial pancreas (AP) with a closed-loop delivery system with > 95% time in range is believed to soon become a reality. The development of closed-loop delivery systems has gained momentum with recent advances in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and computer algorithms. This review discusses the evolution of syringes, disposable, durable pens and connected pens, needles, tethered and patch insulin pumps, bionic pancreas, alternate controller-enabled infusion (ACE) pumps, and do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY-APS).

Insulin Injection Practice and Injection Complications - Results from the Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is highly prevalent in Bangladesh and insulin is often needed for diabetes control. We lack sufficient data on the insulin injection technique and injection-related complications.

METHODS

The Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey (BIITS) was conducted in 2018 in 18 centres throughout Bangladesh, involving 847 patients taking insulin for at least 6 months. All of the study subjects were interviewed using a structured questionnaire focusing on key insulin injection parameters.

RESULTS

The mean duration of insulin use by the study subjects was 3.84 (± 4.05) years and the mean daily dose of insulin was 41 (± 25) units. A total of 71.6% participants performed ≤2 injections/day and premixed insulins were the most commonly used insulins. Mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was 9.5% (± 2%). The proportion of syringe users and pen-device users was 68.1% and 31.9%, respectively. Most of the participants injected in the abdomen and rotated the injection site(s). The majority lifted the skinfold correctly and inserted the needle at a 90-degree angle, but their dwell times after injections were not adequate. A total of 9.2% of the subjects had injection-site lipohypertrophy (LH) and among them, 38.5% injected into the lesion. Patients with LH had higher HbA1c. Higher duration of insulin use (≥5 years), reusing needles more often (>10 times), and injecting at angles other than 90 degrees were independent predictors of LH. The incidences of hypoglycaemia (36.7%) and hyperglycaemia (67.4%) were very high, and subjects with LH had higher chances of both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia. Though most (92.1%) of the patients received education about insulin injection initially, it was not repeated in the recent follow-up and was found to be ineffective.

CONCLUSION

A huge gap between the insulin administration guidelines and current practice was observed in this study. Complications of insulin injections were also common. Healthcare providers should pay more attention to insulin education and re-evaluate injection practices from time to time.

Insulin pen use and diabetes treatment goals: A study from Iran STEPS 2016 survey

Background

Frequency of insulin pen use, despite its higher costs, is increasing to substitute the traditional use of insulin vials. This study aims to report insulin pen use frequency and its associated factors among participants of the STEPS survey 2016 in Iran, which was conducted based on the World Health Organization (WHO) STEPS methodology.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 19,503 (mean age of 46.03±0.13) out of 30,541 participants of the Iran STEPS survey were included (Inclusion criteria: aged >25 years old and availability of their demographic, clinical, and laboratory results for serum glucose, HbA1c, and lipid profile). Clinical and demographic characteristics, a frequency of use of each diabetes mellitus treatment type, and the association of insulin pen use with health outcomes are reported using descriptive analysis and propensity score modeling.

Results

There were 1,999(10.85%) individuals diagnosed with diabetes in the population, while 1,160(56.87%) cases were taking antihyperglycemic treatments. In this subset, 240(21.14%) individuals administered insulin with or without using oral agents at the same time. 52.28% of participants who were under insulin therapy used insulin pens. None of the socioeconomic determinants, including gender (p-value = 0.11), type of residential areas (p-value = 0.52), years of schooling (p-value = 0.27), wealth index (p-value = 0.19), marital status (p-value = 0.37), and insurance types (p-value = 0.72) were significantly different among groups using insulin pens and insulin vials. Moreover, in the propensity score modeling, pen usage was not associated with a lower heart attack and ischemic stroke histories, systolic blood pressure, serum lipid profile, blood glucose, or HbA1c levels.

Conclusion

Results showed that the use of the higher-costing insulin pens compared to traditional vials and syringes is not associated with improved glycemic control and better lipid profile in our sample. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to compare other aspects of insulin pen use, including adherence to treatment and cost-effectiveness.