Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Diabetes Therapy 2/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Original Research

Initial Experience and Evaluation of Reusable Insulin Pen Devices Among Patients with Diabetes in Emerging Countries

Authors: Balduino Tschiedel, Oscar Almeida, Jennifer Redfearn, Frank Flacke

Published in: Diabetes Therapy | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Many individuals with type 2 diabetes in emerging countries are transitioning from vial-and-syringe insulin delivery to that of insulin pens (disposable or reusable). As with all insulin delivery methods, patient preferences and comfort are of utmost importance to optimize adherence to treatment. Patient-preferred characteristics for reusable insulin pens and barriers to appropriate injection, particularly in these regions, have not been widely reported in the clinical literature, highlighting a key information gap for clinicians considering these methods as part of a comprehensive diabetes management approach.

Methods

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with people with type 1/2 diabetes, including insulin-naïve and established insulin users. After moderator demonstration, participants were evaluated on their ability to perform a six-step process to inject a 10-unit dose into a pad with the AllStar® (AS; Sanofi, Mumbai, India), HumaPen Ergo II® (HE2; Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, USA), and NovoPen 4® (NP4; Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark) pens. Local pens were also tested in India, China and Brazil.

Results

A total of 503 people from India, Malaysia, Brazil, Egypt, and China participated. Participants completed the six-step process in an average, 2–3 min per pen. Participants ranked ease of overall use and ease of self-injection and dialing/reading dose as most important features for new insulin pens. When using the pens, the most difficult step was priming/safety testing, with 7–12% failing and 28–40% having difficulty; 6%, 18%, and 22% failed to hold the injection button down for the required period of time using AS, NP4, and HE2, respectively. Participants ranked AS significantly higher for nine of 12 ease-of-use features including three of the top four features considered the most important for reusable pens, while HE2 was ranked higher for two features. Local pens were ranked lowest.

Conclusions

Priming the pen and injecting the dose imparted most difficulty for people with diabetes in emerging countries. Most participants found AS easiest to use overall, with differences noted between pens for individual steps of dose delivery. Identifying characteristics most preferred by patients may assist in improving adherence to insulin therapy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, Peters AL, Tsapas A, Wender R, Matthews DR, American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364–79.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, Peters AL, Tsapas A, Wender R, Matthews DR, American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35:1364–79.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Magwire ML. Addressing barriers to insulin therapy: the role of insulin pens. Am J Ther. 2011;18:392–402.PubMedCrossRef Magwire ML. Addressing barriers to insulin therapy: the role of insulin pens. Am J Ther. 2011;18:392–402.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Asakura T, Seino H. Assessment of dose selection attributes with audible notification in insulin pen devices. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:620–6.PubMedCrossRef Asakura T, Seino H. Assessment of dose selection attributes with audible notification in insulin pen devices. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:620–6.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Fox C, McKinnon C, Wall A, Lawton SA. Ability to handle, and patient preference for, insulin delivery devices in visually impaired patients with type 2 diabetes. Pract Diabetes Int. 2002;19:104–7.CrossRef Fox C, McKinnon C, Wall A, Lawton SA. Ability to handle, and patient preference for, insulin delivery devices in visually impaired patients with type 2 diabetes. Pract Diabetes Int. 2002;19:104–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, Lecointre B, Spollett G. Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clin Ther. 2007;29:650–60.PubMedCrossRef Haak T, Edelman S, Walter C, Lecointre B, Spollett G. Comparison of usability and patient preference for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus Flexpen, lilly disposable pen, and a prototype pen: an open-label study. Clin Ther. 2007;29:650–60.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference D’Eliseo P, Blaauw J, Milicevic Z, Wyatt J, Ignaut DA, Malone JK. Patient acceptability of a new 3.0 ml pre-filled insulin pen. Curr Med Res Opin. 2000;16:125–33.PubMedCrossRef D’Eliseo P, Blaauw J, Milicevic Z, Wyatt J, Ignaut DA, Malone JK. Patient acceptability of a new 3.0 ml pre-filled insulin pen. Curr Med Res Opin. 2000;16:125–33.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 1998;20:486–96.PubMedCrossRef Graff MR, McClanahan MA. Assessment by patients with diabetes mellitus of two insulin pen delivery systems versus a vial and syringe. Clin Ther. 1998;20:486–96.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2836–48.PubMedCrossRef Korytkowski M, Bell D, Jacobsen C, Suwannasari R. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, comparative, two-period crossover trial of preference, efficacy, and safety profiles of a prefilled, disposable pen and conventional vial/syringe for insulin injection in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2003;25:2836–48.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ristic S, Bates PC, Martin JM, Llewelyn JA. Acceptability of a reusable insulin pen, HumaPen Ergo, by patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002;18:68–71.PubMedCrossRef Ristic S, Bates PC, Martin JM, Llewelyn JA. Acceptability of a reusable insulin pen, HumaPen Ergo, by patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2002;18:68–71.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Stocks A. HumaPen Ergo: a new 3.0 mL reusable insulin pen. Clin Drug Invest. 2001;21:319–24.CrossRef Stocks A. HumaPen Ergo: a new 3.0 mL reusable insulin pen. Clin Drug Invest. 2001;21:319–24.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Perfetti R. Reusable and disposable insulin pens for the treatment of diabetes: understanding the global differences in user preference and an evaluation of inpatient insulin pen use. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S79–85.PubMed Perfetti R. Reusable and disposable insulin pens for the treatment of diabetes: understanding the global differences in user preference and an evaluation of inpatient insulin pen use. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S79–85.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Dang DK, Lee J. Analysis of symposium articles on insulin pen devices and alternative insulin delivery methods. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:558–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dang DK, Lee J. Analysis of symposium articles on insulin pen devices and alternative insulin delivery methods. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4:558–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Goldstein HH. Pen devices to improve patient adherence with insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med. 2008;120:172–9.PubMedCrossRef Goldstein HH. Pen devices to improve patient adherence with insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med. 2008;120:172–9.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Luijf YM, Devries JH. Dosing accuracy of insulin pens versus conventional syringes and vials. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S73–7.PubMed Luijf YM, Devries JH. Dosing accuracy of insulin pens versus conventional syringes and vials. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S73–7.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Pfutzner A, Asakura T, Sommavilla B, Lee W. Insulin delivery with FlexPen: dose accuracy, patient preference and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5:915–25.PubMedCrossRef Pfutzner A, Asakura T, Sommavilla B, Lee W. Insulin delivery with FlexPen: dose accuracy, patient preference and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2008;5:915–25.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
go back to reference Asche CV, Shane-McWhorter L, Raparla S. Health economics and compliance of vials/syringes versus pen devices: a review of the evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S101–8.PubMed Asche CV, Shane-McWhorter L, Raparla S. Health economics and compliance of vials/syringes versus pen devices: a review of the evidence. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(Suppl 1):S101–8.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Initial Experience and Evaluation of Reusable Insulin Pen Devices Among Patients with Diabetes in Emerging Countries
Authors
Balduino Tschiedel
Oscar Almeida
Jennifer Redfearn
Frank Flacke
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Published in
Diabetes Therapy / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1869-6953
Electronic ISSN: 1869-6961
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-014-0081-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Diabetes Therapy 2/2014 Go to the issue
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.