Compatibility testing of two types of pen needles with a range of injection pens for diabetes medication

Compatibility of PiC Insupen Needles with a Broad Range of Pens for the Injection of Subcutaneously Administered Drugs for Diabetes

Purpose

To test the compatibility of PiC Insupen needles with a broad range of pens produced by different manufacturers for the injection of subcutaneously administered drugs.

Patients and Methods

The “extreme” products in PiC pen needles range were considered (G33x4 mm and G29x12 mm), to verify that the compatibility was not affected by the cannula diameter and length. Following the launch of the G34x3.5mm needle, additional tests were performed comparing G33x4 and G34x3.5 pen needles. A test medium with viscosity similar to insulin was used. Additional tests were performed with a liquid with a much higher viscosity. All the requirements of the technical standard ISO 11608-2 were satisfied, and the differences between G29, G33 and G34 were negligible. Therefore, the PiC Insupen needle G33x4mm was chosen as representative of the PiC pen needles. Dose accuracy and needle hub torque were assessed, according to the ISO 11608-2:2012 norms. For pens with variable volume, two different volumes were tested (Vlow and Vhigh) in random order, testing 60 needles with Vlow and 60 with Vhigh.

Results

Overall, 50 different pens were tested. Dose accuracy acceptance criteria were met for all the pens tested, with the only exception of Vhigh for Berlipen Precision pen. The removal torque was adequate for all pens, with the only exception of Berlipen 301 and Berlipen 302 pens.

Conclusion

We documented that Pikdare needles are compatible with a large array of different pens for the injection of insulin and other drugs administered subcutaneously.

Evaluation of a new durable insulin pen with memory function among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate durable insulin pens among people with diabetes (PwD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs), by comparing two durable insulin pens with memory function: NovoPen® 5 (NP5) and HumaPen® Memoir™ (HPM), and two durable insulin pens without memory function: HumaPen Luxura® (HPL) and ClikSTAR® (CS).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This cross-over, multicentre usability test was conducted in China, Germany and the UK. Participants evaluated all four pens in randomised order by performing handling and usability tasks related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens and preferences were rated by completing a questionnaire comprising of rating and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

NP5 was preferred by 51% of participants compared with HPM (22%, p < 0.01), HPL (12%, p < 0.01) and CS (15%, p < 0.01). Participants preferred the design of NP5 (in particular, appearance, length and robustness). Memory function for the two pens was rated equally by participants, but 54% of PwD rated NP5 as 'very easy' to learn to use versus 22% for HPM and significantly more HCPs found it 'very easy' to teach patients to use NP5 versus HPM (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01). Substantially, more PwD would be confident in using NP5 (64%) compared with HPM (43%), HPL (49%) and CS (45%) (6-point rating scale; difference in mean score, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

NP5 was preferred by > 50% of PwD and HCPs. NP5 was more highly rated for design, memory function and ease of learning/teaching compared with HPM. Most PwD would be confident in using NP5 for administering daily insulin injections.

Evaluation of preference for a novel durable insulin pen with memory function among patients with diabetes and health care professionals

BACKGROUND

Improving adherence to insulin treatment for better glycemic control remains a challenge in the management of diabetes. New technological aids are required to help support adherence. This study evaluated preference for the NovoPen(®) 5 (NP5), a durable insulin pen with memory function, compared with the HumaPen Luxura(®) (HPL) among patients with diabetes and health care professionals.

METHODS

This crossover, multicenter usability study included insulin pen-experienced patients with diabetes and health care professionals treating patients with diabetes in Canada, China, and Germany. Participants evaluated NP5 and HPL in a randomized order by performing handling tasks in a usability test related to everyday use during a face-to-face interview. Tasks, pens, and preferences were assessed by completing a questionnaire comprised of rating and open-ended questions relating to confidence in everyday diabetes management.

RESULTS

Overall, 300 patients with diabetes and 150 health care professionals participated in the study. Significantly more participants preferred NP5 (81%) to HPL (18%) (P < 0.001). Also, 82% of patients with diabetes had more confidence in NP5 for managing their daily injections versus 11% with HPL (P < 0.001), and 7% had no preference. Memory function was most helpful in giving patients with diabetes confidence about when they last injected (63%), how much insulin they last injected (62%) and improving diabetes management (55%). Participants gave higher ratings to NP5 than to HPL on all parameters relating to performing an injection (ease of handling, satisfaction when using the pen, convenience of using the pen day-to-day, quality of the pen, and the extent to which the pen meets their needs; P < 0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSION

NP5 was preferred to HPL by most participants. Significantly more patients with diabetes had more confidence for managing daily insulin injections when using NP5, the pen with a memory function.

Usability and preference evaluation of a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism by people with diabetes and healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVE

This cross-over usability study assessed the perceptions of, and preference for, FT (FlexTouch*), a new prefilled insulin pen, compared with KP (KwikPen†) another widely available prefilled insulin pen, among people with diabetes and healthcare professionals (physicians and nurses).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were randomly assigned to start with either FT or KP. Following instruction on how to operate the pen, the participant performed several injections at different doses into a foam cushion and then answered written questions on ease of use, confidence and preference.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine people with diabetes and 81 healthcare professionals (40 physicians and 41 nurses) took part. Overall, most respondents preferred using FT (86%) to KP (7%; p < 0.001), found FT (85%) the easier pen to use versus KP (4%; p < 0.001), and would recommend FT (88%) rather than KP (6%; p < 0.001). Ratings for FT were also significantly higher than for KP on questions relating to the injection process, including ease of depressing the push-button and ease of injecting at three dose levels (20 International Units [IU], 40 IU and 60 IU [p < 0.001 for all]). Significantly more respondents chose FT as the pen that gave them most confidence in correct and complete insulin delivery (73% vs. 6% for KP; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

FT was rated significantly higher (all p < 0.001) for ease of use and confidence, and was preferred over KP by people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. The features of FT may improve the insulin injection experience for a wide range of users. A limitation of the usability questionnaire employed in this study is that it did not assess the factors that influence preference. Additional analyses could be conducted using multivariate regression to help elucidate the features of FT that appeal to different users.