Regurgitation of blood into insulin cartridges in the pen-like injectors

Effect of needle-free injection on psychological insulin resistance and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes

Background and objective

Psychological insulin resistance (PIR), which refers to the reluctance of diabetic patients to use insulin, is a frequently encountered clinical issue. Needle-free injection (NFI) offers advantages in terms of expediting insulin absorption and mitigating adverse reactions related to injection. To evaluate the effects of subcutaneous injection of insulin aspart 30 with NFI on PIR and insulin dosage in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

Sixty-four patients with T2DM participated in this randomized, prospective, open, crossover study. Insulin aspart 30 was administered subcutaneously to each subject via QS-P NFI and Novo Pen 5 (NP) successively. The effects of NFI on PIR were analyzed. Differences in insulin dosage, glycemic variability, and injection safety were compared at similar levels of glycemic control.

Results

After the administration of NFI, the insulin treatment attitude scale score decreased (53.7 ± 7.3 vs. 58.9 ± 10.7, p<0.001), the insulin treatment adherence questionnaire score increased (46.3 ± 4.9 vs. 43.8 ± 7.1, p<0.001), and the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire score increased (66.6 ± 10.5 vs. 62.4 ± 16.5, p<0.001). At the same blood glucose level, NFI required a smaller dosage of insulin aspart 30 compared with that of NP (30.42 ± 8.70 vs. 33.66 ± 9.13 U/d, p<0.001). There were no differences in glycemic variability indices (standard deviation, mean amplitude of glycemic excursion or coefficient of variation) between the two injection methods. Compared with NP, NFI did not increase the incidence of hypoglycemia (17.2% vs. 14.1%, p=0.774), and it decreased the incidence of induration (4.7% vs. 23.4%, p=0.002) and leakage (6.3% vs. 20.3%, p=0.022) while decreasing the pain visual analog scale score (2.30 ± 1.58 vs. 3.11 ± 1.40, p<0.001).

Conclusion

NFI can improve PIR in patients with T2DM and be used with a smaller dose of insulin aspart 30 while maintaining the same hypoglycemic effect.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2400083658.

A Scientometric Analysis and Visualization of Scientific Research and Technology Innovation in Needle-free Insulin Injection From 1974 to 2022

PURPOSE

Needle-free jet injection has to some extent improved the quality of life of patients with diabetes, but it has not been widely used. Therefore, we analyzed articles, clinical trials, and patents of needle-free insulin injection to (1) perform a systematic and comprehensive analysis of scientific research and technology innovation in needle-free insulin injection during the past 49 years (1974 to 2022) and (2) identify the status of scientific research and technology innovation, their limitations, and future trends.

METHODS

With a new perspective, we use scientometric tools, including co-word and word frequency analyses, text mining, and cluster network analysis, to provide a scientometric analysis and visualization of articles, clinical trials, and patents related to needle-free insulin injection delivery applications.

FINDINGS

Patent innovation in this field was more active than clinical research, and clinical research prevailed over basic research. Basic research and clinical trials in this field mainly involved therapy, penetration, tolerability, absorption, and pharmacokinetic properties. Drive mechanisms and needle-free injection devices were the core patent technologies in this field.

IMPLICATIONS

Although needle-free insulin injection has been under development for decades, its full potential has not yet been reached; needle-free injection technology is still in the growth stage. The field of needleless insulin injection is dominated by patent technology innovation.

Addendum 1: Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy Expert Recommendations, India

With the emerging complexities in chronic diseases and people's lifestyles, healthcare professionals (HCPs) need to update their methods to manage and educate patients with chronic lifestyle disorders, particularly diabetes. The insulin injection technique (IIT), along with various parameters, must also be updated with newer methods. Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy Expert Recommendations (FITTER), India, has updated its recommendations to cover newer ways of detecting hypoglycaemia and lipohypertrophy, preventing needlestick injuries (NSIs), discouraging the reuse of insulin needles and encouraging good disposal. FITTER, India, is also introducing recommendations to calculate insulin bolus dose. These updated recommendations will help HCPs better manage patients with diabetes and achieve improved outcomes.

Transdermal Insulin Delivery and Microneedles-based Minimally Invasive Delivery Systems

Diabetes has become a serious threat to human health, causing death and pain to numerous patients. Transdermal insulin delivery is a substitute for traditional insulin injection to avoid pain from the injection. Transdermal methods include non-invasive and invasive methods. As the non-invasive methods could hardly get through the stratum corneum, minimally invasive devices, especially microneedles, could enhance the transappendageal route in transcutaneous insulin delivery, and could act as connectors between the tissue and outer environment or devices. Microneedle patches have been in quick development in recent years and with different types, materials and functions. In those patches, the smart microneedle patch could perform as a sensor and reactor responding to glucose to regulate the blood level. In the smart microneedles field, the phenylboronic acid system and the glucose oxidase system have been successfully applied on the microneedle platform. Insulin transdermal delivery strategy, microneedles technology and smart microneedles' development would be discussed in this review.

Far-red light-activated human islet-like designer cells enable sustained fine-tuned secretion of insulin for glucose control

Diabetes affects almost half a billion people, and all individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and a large portion of individuals with type 2 diabetes rely on self-administration of the peptide hormone insulin to achieve glucose control. However, this treatment modality has cumbersome storage and equipment requirements and is susceptible to fatal user error. Here, reasoning that a cell-based therapy could be coupled to an external induction circuit for blood glucose control, as a proof of concept we developed far-red light (FRL)-activated human islet-like designer (FAID) cells and demonstrated how FAID cell implants achieved safe and sustained glucose control in diabetic model mice. Specifically, by introducing a FRL-triggered optogenetic device into human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), which we encapsulated in poly-(l-lysine)-alginate and implanted subcutaneously under the dorsum of T1D model mice, we achieved FRL illumination-inducible secretion of insulin that yielded improvements in glucose tolerance and sustained blood glucose control over traditional insulin glargine treatment. Moreover, the FAID cell implants attenuated both oxidative stress and development of multiple diabetes-related complications in kidneys. This optogenetics-controlled "living cell factory" platform could be harnessed to develop multiple synthetic designer therapeutic cells to achieve long-term yet precisely controllable drug delivery.

Comparison of glucose variability in patients with type 2 diabetes administrated glargine with needle-free jet injector and conventional insulin pen

Background: The effects of insulin delivered by needle-free jet injector on glycemic variations (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) which remains largely unknown.Research design and methods: We aimed to compare the glucose variability in Chinese T2D patients administrated glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) with a needle-free jet injector and conventional insulin pen. This was a self-comparative, observational study of 26 patients who were subjected to a flash glucose monitoring system (FGM) for 14 consecutive days. During the study period, all subjects received Gla-100 daily before breakfast using a conventional insulin pen, with the exception of day 3 and day 7, when insulin was delivered by needle-free jet injection. We analyzed FGM data of day 3, day 5, day 7, and day 9 at the endpoint.Results: There were no differences in the glycemic variability between the jet injector group and the conventional pen group. However, patients with needle-free jet injection had a lower 24 hr mean glucose (MG) and lower incremental area under the curve (AUC) of 1 hr, 12 hr, and 24 hr, compared to the conventional pen group (p = 0.001).Conclusions: Gla-100 delivered by needle-free jet injection potentially lowered MG in patients with T2D in the Chinese population.

The Injection Technique Factor: What You Don't Know or Teach Can Make a Difference

IN BRIEF To be consistently effective, insulin must be delivered into subcutaneous tissue. If insulin is delivered intramuscularly, its uptake and action become variably faster, leading to suboptimal, inconsistent glucose control. The best strategy to avoid intramuscular injection is to use the shortest needles available. Injection sites should be rotated systematically to prevent lipohypertrophy, which also substantially affects insulin uptake and action. New evidence-based insulin delivery recommendations are available, and awareness of them should lead to more effective use of insulin therapy, improved clinical outcomes, and considerable cost savings.

Advances in transdermal insulin delivery

Insulin therapy is necessary to regulate blood glucose levels for people with type 1 diabetes and commonly used in advanced type 2 diabetes. Although subcutaneous insulin administration via hypodermic injection or pump-mediated infusion is the standard route of insulin delivery, it may be associated with pain, needle phobia, and decreased adherence, as well as the risk of infection. Therefore, transdermal insulin delivery has been widely investigated as an attractive alternative to subcutaneous approaches for diabetes management in recent years. Transdermal systems designed to prevent insulin degradation and offer controlled, sustained release of insulin may be desirable for patients and lead to increased adherence and glycemic outcomes. A challenge for transdermal insulin delivery is the inefficient passive insulin absorption through the skin due to the large molecular weight of the protein drug. In this review, we focus on the different transdermal insulin delivery techniques and their respective advantages and limitations, including chemical enhancers-promoted, electrically enhanced, mechanical force-triggered, and microneedle-assisted methods.

Development and Implementation of a Subcutaneous Insulin Pen Label Bar Code Scanning Protocol to Prevent Wrong-Patient Insulin Pen Errors

PROBLEM DEFINITION

Insulin, a high-alert medication, is regularly prescribed in the inpatient setting for hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus. Although convenient, insulin pens carry a risk of blood-borne pathogens if the same pen is used on multiple patients. At the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), a new nursing protocol for insulin pen administration was developed to ensure that insulin was quickly available and to identify and move to eliminate wrong-patient insulin pen errors. This protocol involved unit-based automated dispensing machines and an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient-specific bar code label work flow.

APPROACH

After piloting on three hospital units, this new patient-specific bar code label process was expanded hospitalwide. "Print Label For Insulin Pen" and "Scan Insulin Pen" buttons were programmed into the EHR to enable nurses to print patient-specific bar code labels. In addition, a "wrong-patient pen alert" was activated to prevent wrong-pen insulin pen administration.

OUTCOMES

For the 162,075 inpatient insulin pen administrations during the study period (April 2017-March 2018), monthly errors (rates) ranged from 13 (0.12%) to 36 (0.23%). In total, 296 near-miss events (0.18% of all insulin pen administrations) were observed and prevented.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pen work flow and EHR changes implemented at UCSF enable subcutaneous insulin to remain a time-critical medication and ensure patient safety. The wide adoption of EHRs offers an opportunity to integrate patient safety improvements directly into the electronic medication administration record systems to maximize patient safety.

Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy Expert Recommendations, India: The Indian Recommendations for Best Practice in Insulin Injection Technique, 2017

Health-care professionals in India frequently manage injection or infusion therapies in persons with diabetes (PWD). Patients taking insulin should know the importance of proper needle size, correct injection process, complication avoidance, and all other aspects of injection technique from the first visit onward. To assist health-care practitioners in their clinical practice, Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy Expert Recommendations, India, has updated the practical advice and made it more comprehensive evidence-based best practice information. Adherence to these updated recommendations, learning, and translating them into clinical practice should lead to effective therapies, improved outcomes, and lower costs for PWD.

Comparison of jet injector and insulin pen in controlling plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in type 2 diabetic patients

This study is conducted to investigate efficacy of an insulin jet injector and an insulin pen in treatment of type 2 diabetic patients. Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes were treated with rapid-acting insulin (regular insulin) and insulin analog (insulin aspart) using the jet injector and the pen in 4 successive test cycles. Postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations in blood were measured over time. Areas under curves of glucose and the insulin were calculated, and efficacy of 2 injection methods in treatment of the diabetes was compared. Regular insulin and insulin aspart administration by the jet injector showed significant decreases in plasma glucose levels as compared to the pen injection (P < 0.05). Postprandial plasma glucose excursions at the time points of 0.5 to 3 hours were obviously lower in the jet-treated patients than the pen-treated ones (P < 0.05). Postprandial plasma insulin levels were markedly higher in the jet-treated patients than the pen-treated ones (P < 0.05). Area under the glucose curve in the pen-treated patients was significantly increased as compared to the jet-treated ones (P < 0.01). Efficacy of the insulin jet injector in treatment of type 2 diabetic patients is obviously superior to the insulin pen in regulating plasma glucose and insulin levels.

Determining Current Insulin Pen Use Practices and Errors in the Inpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

The use of insulin pens in the inpatient setting has continued to be a controversial decision. Insulin pens provide several advantages, but given significant reports of medication errors, several organizations have issued alerts to caution users about safety concerns. A survey was conducted to assess the prevalence of insulin pen use and current utilization trends in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

The 31-question guided-logic survey was developed based on review of primary literature regarding insulin pen utilization and evaluated by a panel of medication safety experts from a variety of health care settings. The survey was sent electronically to subscribers of medication safety organizations.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 474 respondents. Approximately three fourths of respondents indicated insulin pens were on formulary at their institution (n = 332; 74%). Of those who have had insulin pens on formulary, 15% (n = 49) are no longer using them. The most common reasons for not utilizing pens were cost and safety concerns. Pens were reported to be stored in the pharmacy prior to administration (n = 230; 78%) and in a patient's bin (n = 202; 69%) afterward. More than half of respondents use two patient identifiers on the pen and label with a bar code. Approximately 30% reported that an insulin pen has been used on more than one patient at least once in their institution, while 6% were not sure.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pens are widely being used in the inpatient setting. Various mitigation strategies are employed to reduce the risk of harm associated with insulin pen use. Health care professionals believe insulin pens are clinically useful and can be used safely in the inpatient setting. Many organizations and expert panels disseminate best practices in an effort to help ensure their safety. Further studies are needed to assess and validate the risk mitigation strategies identified through this research.

Facilitating the safe use of insulin pens in hospitals through a mentored quality-improvement program

PURPOSE

Results of the MENTORED QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IMPACT PROGRAM℠ (MQIIP) on Ensuring Insulin Pen Safety in Hospitals, which was part of an ASHP educational initiative aimed at ensuring the safe use of insulin pens in hospitals, are described.

METHODS

During this ASHP initiative, which also included continuing-education activities and Web-based resources, distance mentoring by pharmacists with expertise in the safe use of insulin pens was provided to interprofessional teams at 14 hospitals between September 2014 and May 2015. The results of baseline assessments of nursing staff knowledge of insulin pen use, insulin pen storage and labeling audits, and insulin pen injection observations conducted in September and October 2014 were the basis for insulin pen quality-improvement plans. Postintervention data were collected in April and May 2015.

RESULTS

Compared with the baseline period, significant improvements in nurses' knowledge of insulin pen use, insulin pen labeling and storage, and insulin pen administration were observed in the postintervention period despite the relatively short time frame for implementation of quality-improvement plans. Program participants are committed to sustaining and building on improvements achieved during the program. The outcome measures described in this report could be adapted by other health systems to identify opportunities to improve the safety of insulin pen use.

CONCLUSION

Focused attention on insulin pen safety through an interprofessional team approach during the MQIIP enabled participating sites to detect potential safety issues based on collected data, develop targeted process changes, document improvements, and identify areas requiring further intervention. A sustained organizational commitment is required to ensure the safe use of insulin pen devices in hospitals.

Participation in a mentored quality-improvement program for insulin pen safety: Opportunity to augment internal evaluation and share with peers

PURPOSE

UF Health's participation in a mentored quality-improvement impact program for health professionals as part of an ASHP initiative-"Strategies for Ensuring the Safe Use of Insulin Pens in the Hospital"-is described.

SUMMARY

ASHP invited hospitals to participate in its initiative at a time when UF Health was evaluating the risks and benefits of insulin pen use due to external reports of safety concerns and making a commitment to continue insulin pen use and optimize safeguards. Improvement opportunities in insulin pen best practices and staff education on insulin pen preparation and injection technique were identified and implemented. The storage of insulin pens for patients with contact isolation precautions was identified as a problem in certain patient care areas, and a practical solution was devised. Other process improvements included implementation of barcode medication administration, with scanning of insulin pens designated for specific patients to avoid inadvertent and intentional sharing of pens among multiple patients. Mentored calls with teams at other hospitals conducted as part of the program provided the opportunity to share experiences and solutions to improve insulin pen use.

CONCLUSION

Participating with a knowledgeable mentor and other hospital teams struggling with the same issues and concerns related to safe insulin pen use facilitated problem solving. Discussing challenges and sharing ideas for solutions to safety concerns with other hospitals identified new process enhancements, which have the potential to improve the safety of insulin pen use at UF Health.

New Insulin Delivery Recommendations

Many primary care professionals manage injection or infusion therapies in patients with diabetes. Few published guidelines have been available to help such professionals and their patients manage these therapies. Herein, we present new, practical, and comprehensive recommendations for diabetes injections and infusions. These recommendations were informed by a large international survey of current practice and were written and vetted by 183 diabetes experts from 54 countries at the Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy: Expert Recommendations (FITTER) workshop held in Rome, Italy, in 2015. Recommendations are organized around the themes of anatomy, physiology, pathology, psychology, and technology. Key among the recommendations are that the shortest needles (currently the 4-mm pen and 6-mm syringe needles) are safe, effective, and less painful and should be the first-line choice in all patient categories; intramuscular injections should be avoided, especially with long-acting insulins, because severe hypoglycemia may result; lipohypertrophy is a frequent complication of therapy that distorts insulin absorption, and, therefore, injections and infusions should not be given into these lesions and correct site rotation will help prevent them; effective long-term therapy with insulin is critically dependent on addressing psychological hurdles upstream, even before insulin has been started; inappropriate disposal of used sharps poses a risk of infection with blood-borne pathogens; and mitigation is possible with proper training, effective disposal strategies, and the use of safety devices. Adherence to these new recommendations should lead to more effective therapies, improved outcomes, and lower costs for patients with diabetes.

Quality Improvement Initiative and Safety of Insulin Pen Usage in a Small Hospital

Background

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has stressed the need for hospitals to re-evaluate their methods of insulin delivery in an effort to minimize complications of insulin pen use. Improper use of insulin pens can lead to adverse effects, such as hypoglycemia or blood-borne infections.

Objective

This study was an American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) quality improvement activity focused on insulin pen safety in the hospital. The objective of this study was to improve insulin pen delivery and patient health and to reduce adverse effects related to insulin pen use. The purpose of the impact activity was to utilize pharmacist experts to evaluate processes related to the use of insulin pens within the hospital and then implement quality improvement efforts to address potential safety concerns.

Methods

Baseline and postintervention questionnaires were administered to all nursing personnel ( N = 400) to assess their analytical and procedural knowledge regarding insulin pen use and administration. Insulin administration observations and insulin pen storage and labeling audits were also conducted at the same time points in 3 patient care areas where insulin administration was common. Process improvements were made after the baseline data were collected.

Results

An overall improvement in insulin pen use was determined after implementation of the quality improvement plan. The greatest improvements were seen for insulin pen administration. The proper storage of insulin pens had 69% compliance at baseline that rose to 98% compliance post intervention, an improvement of 29% ( P < .01). Similarly, compliance with the return of insulin pens to proper storage areas increased by 16%, from 78% at baseline to 94% post intervention ( P < .05).

Conclusion

An improvement in insulin pen usage was promoted by a quality initiative in a small hospital setting. Periodic education about safety procedures along with yearly reviews for all nurses will improve the ongoing safety of insulin pen usage within the hospital.

Comparison of Inpatient Glycemic Control with Insulin Vials Versus Insulin Pens in General Medicine Patients

BACKGROUND

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices has recommended against routine use of insulin pen devices for inpatients, but the quality of inpatient glycemic control that is achieved with insulin pens versus insulin vials and syringes has not been compared.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of glycemic control achieved with insulin vials versus insulin pens in type 2 diabetic general medicine patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared glycemic control between 2 groups of patients on rapid-acting insulin protocols: those receiving insulin via patient-specific pen devices and those receiving insulin from patient-specific vials. Patients on a prespecified subacute care floor with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and at least 24 hours of glucose monitoring while on an insulin protocol with insulin lispro were included. Glycemic control was compared by area under the curve (AUC) estimations of average overall glucose and average glucose above, below, and within goal range (70-180 mg/dL). Percentages of time above, below, and within goal range were also compared.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD AUC-estimated average glucose for pens was 160 ± 39 mg/dL compared to 158 ± 45 mg/dL for vials (P = .752). The mean ± SD percentage time within goal range was 68.2% ± 28.1% in the pen group versus 69.4% ± 31.8% percent in the vial group (P = .825). No statistically significant differences were detected between those receiving pens or vials for any outcome before and after adjusting for baseline differences and significant covariates.

CONCLUSION

Glycemic control did not differ based on insulin delivery system.

Reuse of insulin pens among multiple patients at 2 Veterans Affairs medical centers

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether reuse of insulin pens among multiple patients resulted in transmission of bloodborne pathogens (BBP).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two Veterans Affairs medical centers.

PATIENTS

Veterans who received insulin via insulin pens from 2010 to 2013. METHODS Patients were identified through electronic health records, notified of possible exposure, and serotested for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus. Newly discovered case patients were assessed in relation to potential proximate patients to determine viral strain relatedness by HCV envelope (env) gene sequencing.

RESULTS

Of 1,791 hospitalized veterans who received insulin via insulin pen, 1,155 were tested for at least 1 viral infection after exposure. Of these, 67 patients were newly diagnosed with 1 or more viral BBPs. For human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus no additional strain testing of case or proximate patients was possible; 8 HCV cases and 45 proximates (40 unique patients; 5 patients were positive for 2 genotypes) were identified as needing strain testing. Only 3 cases and their 19 proximates had samples available for further testing. None of the 26 remaining proximate patients had blood available for further testing. Median genetic distance between the HCV env sequences of those available for additional testing ranged from 14% to 24%, indicating nonrelatedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation revealed that exposure to insulin pen reuse did not result in HCV transmission among patients who had viral genetic analysis performed. Analysis for any additional potential transmission of blood-borne pathogens was limited by the available samples.

Reducing harm in patients using insulin

Controlling blood sugars with insulin is an important part of managing hyperglycemia in diabetic patients. However, the literature has shown that the use of insulin has been associated with more medication errors than any other type or class of drug. This article will highlight medication errors that may arise during the use of insulin in the long-term facility and provide risk-reduction recommendations to address the potential for error and patient harm.

US outbreak investigations highlight the need for safe injection practices and basic infection control

Current understanding of viral hepatitis transmission in United States health care settings indicates progress over the past several decades with respect to the risks from transfusions or blood products. Likewise, risks to health care providers from sharps injuries and other blood and body fluid exposures have been reduced as a consequence of widespread hepatitis B vaccination and the adoption of safer work practices. Increasing recognition of outbreaks involving patient-to-patient spread of hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infections, however, has uncovered a disturbing trend. This article highlights the importance of basic infection control and the need for increased awareness of safe injection practices.

Revatio = Sildenafil = Viagra Vital Initiative by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices Can Keep Patients Safe Lyrica-Lopressor Mix-up Cell Phones and E-mail Could Prevent Harm Reuse of Insulin Pen for Multiple Patients Risks Transmission of Blood-Borne Disease

These medication errors have occurred in health care facilities at least once. They will happen again—perhaps where you work. Through education and alertness of personnel and procedural safeguards, they can be avoided. You should consider publishing accounts of errors in your newsletters and/or presenting them at your inservice training programs.

Your assistance is required to continue this feature. The reports described here were received through the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Medication Errors Reporting Program. Any reports published by ISMP will be anonymous. Comments are also invited; the writers' names will be published if desired. ISMP may be contacted at the address shown below.

Errors, close calls, or hazardous conditions may be reported directly to ISMP through the ISMP Web site ( www.ismp.org ), by calling 800-FAIL-SAFE, or via e-mail at ismpinfo@ismp.org . ISMP guarantees the confidentiality and security of the information received and respects reporters' wishes as to the level of detail included in publications.

Risk of needlestick injuries by injection pens

Injection pens are used by patients when auto-administering medication (insulin, interferon, apokinon etc.) by the subcutaneous route. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of injection pen use by healthcare workers (HCWs) and the associated risk of needlestick injuries to document and compare injury rates between injection pens and subcutaneous syringes. A one-year retrospective study was conducted in 24 sentinel French public hospitals. All needlestick injuries linked to subcutaneous injection procedures, which were voluntarily reported to occupational medicine departments by HCWs between October 1999 and September 2000, were documented using a standardized questionnaire. Additional data (total number of needlestick injuries reported, number of subcutaneous injection devices purchased) were collected over the same period. A total of 144 needlestick injuries associated with subcutaneous injection were reported. The needlestick injury rate for injection pens was six times the rate for disposable syringes. Needlestick injuries with injection pens accounted for 39% of needlestick injuries linked with subcutaneous injection. In all, 60% of needlestick injuries with injection pens were related to disassembly. Injection pens are associated with needlestick injuries six times more often than syringes. Nevertheless, injection pens have been shown to improve the quality of treatment for patients and may improve treatment observance. This study points to the need for safety-engineered injection pens.