Role Of Injection Technique In Use Of Insulin Pens: Prospective Evaluation Of A 31-Gauge, 8-Mm Insulin Pen Needle

Efficacy, safety and acceptability of the new pen needle 34G × 3.5 mm: a crossover randomized non-inferiority trial; AGO 02 study

OBJECTIVE

Insulin injection aspects, such as fear of injection and pain, directly affect glycemic control, patient adherence and quality of life. Use of thinner and shorter needles could increase acceptance of injections. The aim of the study is to evaluate the non-inferiority of the new 34G × 3.5 mm needle compared to a 32G × 4 mm in patients with diabetes treated with insulin.

METHODS

This is an open, randomized, two-period crossover, non-inferiority trial. Every treatment period lasted 3 weeks. Patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, treated with multiple daily insulin injections, were randomly assigned to receive a 34G × 3.5 mm or a 32G × 4 mm pen needle. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of the 34G × 3.5 mm in comparison with the 32G × 4 mm pen needle in terms of percentage absolute change of blood fructosamine (% |ΔFru|), using a non-inferiority margin of 20%.

RESULTS

Overall 77 patients were randomized and 73 completed the study. Patients characteristics were: 52% male, 80.5% affected by type 1 diabetes, mean age 52 years (±14.6), mean BMI 24.5 kg/m² (±5.6), HbA1c 8% (±1.1) and baseline fructosamine level 350 µmol/l (±84). Mean fructosamine levels increased by 0.56 µmol/l with the 34G needle, while a reduction of 7.29 μmol/l was documented with the 32G needle. The difference between the two groups (7.84 μmol/l) was not statistically significant (p = .27). The % |ΔFru| between the two groups was 7.55% (95% CI 5.67-9.44), meeting the non-inferiority criterion. Glycemic variability, expressed as standard deviation of fasting blood glucose and post-prandial glucose, was not different between the two treatment groups (p = .63 and p = .77, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The 34G × 3.5 mm needle was non-inferior to the 32G × 4 mm needle regarding fructosamine levels and glycemic variability supporting the suitability of the 34G × 3.5 mm needle for insulin injection in patients with diabetes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02690467.

Turkish Insulin Injection Technique Study: Population Characteristics of Turkish Patients with Diabetes Who Inject Insulin and Details of Their Injection Practices as Assessed by Survey Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Over 7 million people in Turkey have diabetes. Of the 1 million who inject insulin little is known of their habits and injection techniques.

METHODS

We conducted an Injection Technique Questionnaire (ITQ) survey throughout Turkey that involved 1376 patients from 56 centers. Turkish values were compared with those from 41 other countries participating in the ITQ, known here as Rest of World (ROW).

RESULTS

The majority (50.4%) of Turkish insulin users give four injections/ day as opposed to ROW, where only 30.9% do. The abdomen is the most common injection site used by Turkish patients, but they also inject insulin in multiple body sites more often than do patients in ROW. Body mass index values in Turkey were 0.75 units higher than those in ROW as was the mean total daily dose (average daily dose [ADD]) of insulin (54.0 IU in Turkey vs. 47.4 IU in ROW). Mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Turkey was 9.1%, which is higher than in ROW and possibly related to the higher BMI and ADD. Turkish patients use insulin analogs (short and long-acting) more frequently than do patients in ROW. The shortest pen needles (4 mm) are used by about one-third of patients in Turkey, but the longer ones (8 mm) are equally common. Needles are reused in Turkey at a rate of 3.4 injections/single needle. However, needle reuse, whether with pens or syringes, is lower in Turkey than ROW, as is the number of times a reused needle is used. More than 75% of used sharps in Turkey go into the rubbish, with nearly 6% having no protection of the tip.

CONCLUSION

The continued use of 8-mm needles raises the risk of intramuscular injections in Turkish patients. Despite full reimbursement, needle reuse still remains an important issue. More focus needs to be given to dwell times under the skin, reconstitution of cloudy insulant, correct use of skin folds and safe disposal of sharps.

FUNDING

BD Diabetes Care.

Indian Injection Technique Study: Population Characteristics and Injection Practices

INTRODUCTION

It was estimated that 3.2 million Indians with diabetes injected insulin in 2010, but little is known about the techniques used.

METHODS

In 2015 we conducted an injection technique questionnaire (ITQ) survey throughout India involving 1011 patients. Indian values were compared with those from 41 other countries participating in the ITQ, known here as rest of world (ROW).

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c was 8.6. BMI values in India were 1.5-3 units lower than in ROW depending on patient group, meaning the risk of intramuscular (IM) injections is high in India. The mean total daily dose (TDD) of insulin was lower in every category of Indian patient than in ROW, perhaps reflecting the lower BMI. Needle reuse, whether with pens or syringes, is much higher in India than ROW and so is the number of times the needle is used. The majority (56.8%) of Indian insulin users performed only 2 injections/day as opposed to ROW where 45% of patients performed at least 4 injections/day. Indian patients inject insulin in the thighs more often than patients in ROW, a site where IM injections are more risky. Many patients do not have proper access to sharps containers or have other risk factors that could lead to blood-borne pathogen spread. More than 60% of used sharps in India go into the rubbish, with nearly 12% not even having the minimum protection of a cap.

DISCUSSION

The shortest needles are very common in India; however, the level of needle reuse is high. Multiple daily injections therapy is not as common in India as ROW. More focus needs to be given to dwell times under the skin, reconstitution of cloudy insulins, skinfolds, and safe sharps disposal.

Assessment of Insulin Injection Practice among Diabetes Patients in a Tertiary Healthcare Centre in Nepal: A Preliminary Study

INTRODUCTION

Proper insulin injection practice is essential for better diabetic control. This study aims to assess the insulin injection practice of patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital, Bharatpur, Nepal, from February 2017 to May 2017. Patients injecting insulin through insulin pens (n = 43) for a minimum of 4 weeks were consecutively recruited. Patients' baseline characteristics, current insulin injection technique, insulin transportation practice, complications of insulin injection, disposal practice of used needle, and acceptability of insulin were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed using IBM-SPSS 20.0.

RESULTS

The insulin injection technique of patients and their relatives was inadequate. The majority of patients and their relatives (25, 58.1%) mentioned that they transport their insulin cartridge without maintaining cold chain. Thirteen patients (30.2%, n = 43) reported complications of insulin injection and the most common complication among those patients was bruising (10, 76.9%, n = 13). Almost all patients disposed the used needle improperly, and the common method was disposing the needle in a dustbin and then transferring to municipal waste disposal vehicle. Insulin was accepted by just 16 (37.2%) patients.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant gap between the insulin delivery recommendation through insulin pen and current insulin injection practice.

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.

Administration Technique and Storage of Disposable Insulin Pens Reported by Patients With Diabetes

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to evaluate insulin injection technique and storage of insulin pens as reported by patients with diabetes and to compare correct pen use to initial education on injection technique, hemoglobin A1C, duration of insulin therapy, and duration of insulin pen.

Methods

Cross-sectional questionnaire orally administered to patients at a university-affiliated primary care practice. Subjects were patients with diabetes who were 18 years or older and prescribed a disposable insulin pen for at least 4 weeks. A correct usage score was calculated for each patient based on manufacturer recommendations for disposable insulin pen use. Associations were made between the correct usage score and certainty in technique, initial education, years of insulin therapy, duration of pen use, and hemoglobin A1C.

Results

Sixty-seven patients completed the questionnaire, reporting total use of 94 insulin pens. The 3 components most often neglected by patients were priming pen needle, holding for specific count time before withdrawal of pen needle from skin, and storing an in-use pen. For three-fourths of the insulin pens being used, users did not follow the manufacturer’s instructions for proper administration and storage of insulin pens. Correct usage scores were significantly higher if initial education on insulin pens was performed by a pharmacist or nurse.

Conclusions

The majority of patients may be ignoring or unaware of key components for consistent insulin dosing using disposable insulin pens; therefore, initial education and reeducation on correct use of disposable insulin pens by health care professionals are needed.

New injection recommendations for patients with diabetes

AIM

Injections administered by patients are one of the mainstays of diabetes management. Proper injection technique is vital to avoiding intramuscular injections, ensuring appropriate delivery to the subcutaneous tissues and avoiding common complications such as lipohypertrophy. Yet few formal guidelines have been published summarizing all that is known about best practice. We propose new injection guidelines which are thoroughly evidence-based, written and vetted by a large group of international injection experts.

METHODS

A systematic literature study was conducted for all peer-reviewed studies and publications which bear on injections in diabetes. An international group of experts met regularly over a two-year period to review this literature and draft the recommendations. These were then presented for review and revision to 127 experts from 27 countries at the TITAN workshop in September, 2009.

RESULTS

Of 292 articles reviewed, 157 were found to meet the criteria of relevance to the recommendations. Each recommendation was graded by the weight it should have in daily practice and by its degree of support in the medical literature. The topics covered include The Role of the Professional, Psychological Challenges, Education, Site Care, Storage, Suspension and Priming, Injecting Process, Proper Use of Pens and Syringes, Insulin analogues, Human and Pre-mixed Insulins, GLP-1 analogs, Needle Length, Skin Folds, Lipohypertrophy, Rotation, Bleeding and Bruising, Pregnancy, Safety and Disposal.

CONCLUSION

These injecting recommendations provide practical guidance and fill an important gap in diabetes management. If followed, they should help ensure comfortable, effective and largely complication-free injections.

Comparison of usability and patient preference for insulin pen needles produced with different production techniques: "thin-wall" needles compared to "regular-wall" needles: an open-label study

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus on insulin therapy increasingly prefer insulin pens over syringes and vials. Different types of pen needles are available for insulin pens, e.g., "thin-wall" needles, which have the same outer diameter but a relatively lager inner diameter compared to needles produced with a "regular-wall."

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter open-label, single-arm study in patients (n = 97) with diabetes mellitus using insulin pens. The aim of our study was to evaluate pen user habits as well as to assess patient's appraisals and ratings considering two different types of 31-gauge pen-needles, so-called "thin-wall" needles or "regular-wall" needles." Patients twice underwent a 2-week intervention period, starting with a "regular-wall period" followed by a "thin-wall-period." After each period patients filled in questionnaires.

RESULTS

In total, 97 diabetes patients (48% female; mean age, 56 years; range, 20-70 years) completed the study. Patients reported significantly less pain, less bleeding, less skin irritation, less injection strain, less residual insulin leakage from the needle tip after injection, and less needle occlusion when using "thin-wall needles" (P < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients expressed an overall preference for the "thin-wall" needles (78%) compared to the "regular-wall" needles (8%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pen and pen needle handling, preparation, and execution of injections should be a part of repeated diabetes education and be re-evaluated on a regular basis. The "thin-wall" 31-gauge needle was found to be more user-friendly and consequently preferred by the patients. Additional larger-scale trials using blinded and randomized study designs are needed to validate these findings.

A comparison of insulin injection needles on patients' perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptability: a randomized, open-label, crossover study in subjects with diabetes

BACKGROUND

For some diabetes patients, subcutaneous injections are associated with pain, discomfort, and anxiety. We compared overall preferences of two needle types: NovoFine((R)) 32-gauge tip x 6 mm and NovoFine 30-gauge x 8 mm, when used with the FlexPen((R)) injection device (all from Novo Nordisk A/S [Copenhagen, Denmark] and Novo Nordisk Ltd. [Crawley, UK]).

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover trial in 119 insulin-treated patients with type 1 (22%) or 2 diabetes, patients injected their usual insulin with one needle type followed by the alternative, each for 7-14 days. Needle preference and perceptions of pain, handling, and acceptance were assessed using a questionnaire after use of each needle.

RESULTS

Overall, 58% preferred the NovoFine 32-gauge tip, 26% preferred NovoFine 30-gauge tip, while 16% had no preference (P < 0.001 between needles). Subjects injecting </=40 or >40 (I)U/day and two or fewer or more than two injections/day all preferred NovoFine 32-gauge tip over NovoFine 30-gauge tip (all P < 0.05). Little or no pain (<5 mm on a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale) was experienced by 57% of subjects when using NovoFine 32-gauge tip and by 40% when using NovoFine 30-gauge tip. More subjects found the injection button easier to press with NovoFine 30-gauge tip (P < 0.01). Responses for ease of insertion, needle sharpness, and performance favored the NovoFine 32-gauge tip; ease of pushing insulin out through the needle favored NovoFine 30-gauge tip. One person for each needle type reported bleeding/bruising at the injection site.

CONCLUSIONS

NovoFine 32-gauge tip x 6 mm needles are a viable alternative to NovoFine 30-gauge tip x 8 mm needles for people administering daily insulin injections.

Insulin pen injection devices for management of patients with type 2 diabetes: considerations based on an endocrinologist's practical experience in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To review the features of several insulin pens currently available in the United States, discuss the validity of concerns about certain pen devices, and provide specific training information for clinicians to increase the accuracy of insulin administration and patient satisfaction with the use of insulin pens.

METHODS

The published literature on insulin pens and Internet-available, product-specific information are reviewed. In addition, special practical considerations regarding insulin pen selection based on personal experience in a high-volume endocrinology practice are high-lighted by presentation of case vignettes.

RESULTS

For some patients with diabetes, the need for performance of self-injection can be a barrier to acceptance of insulin therapy. Insulin pen devices provide a delivery option that may be more acceptable and more convenient to use in comparison with traditional vials and syringes and thus may promote patient compliance, which can enhance the ability to achieve and maintain glycemic control. When choosing a specific insulin pen for an individual patient, the clinician should consider the patient's insulin regimen, lifestyle, and factors that may affect the ability to use a particular device, such as motor dexterity and visual acuity.

CONCLUSION

Insulin pens offer convenience and can potentially increase patient satisfaction and compliance with therapy. Because certain characteristics of a given insulin pen may make it preferable for specific patients, it is important for clinicians to be aware of individual needs. Provision of thorough training for patients in the correct use of insulin pens is important because user error can affect pen performance and accuracy of the dose administered. Manufacturers should be notified of any recurring problems.