User experiences with second-generation 32-gauge × 4 mm vs. thinner comparator pen needles: prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Two similarly designed studies compared user experiences with a second-generation extra-thin-wall, 5-bevel 32 G × 4 mm pen needle (PN) with redesigned hub versus four thinner commercially available PNs. METHODS: Adults (18-75 years old) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and ≥3 months of experience with pen injectors qualified for single-visit, single-blinded randomized studies. The investigational 32 G PN was compared with three 33-34 G × 3.5-4 mm PNs in Study 1 and one 34 G × 4 mm PN in Study 2. Participants completed 12 abdominal injections of 0.3 mL sterile saline using insulin pens in 6 pairs, each comprising one investigational 32 G PN and one comparator PN in random order. After each injection pair, participants compared injection pain via relative 150 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and perceived dose delivery force via relative 5 point Likert scale. Adjusted models tested injection pain scores (primary endpoint) for noninferiority and, if met, then for superiority. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03878758 and NCT03878745. RESULTS: The investigational 32 G PN met noninferiority as well as superiority criteria for less injection pain vs. each comparator (p < .01), with adjusted mean relative VAS scores 9.1-17.6 in Study 1 (n = 154) and 7.3 in Study 2 (n = 55). The investigational 32 G PN was also superior vs. each comparator PN in requiring less relative perceived force to deliver the dose (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The investigational 32 G PN was associated with less participant-reported injection pain and less perceived dose delivery force compared with four thinner PNs, suggesting no additional pain reduction or force reduction benefit conferred by the thinner PNs.

Correction to: Evaluating the User Performance and Experience with a Re-Engineered 4mm × 32G Pen Needle: A Randomized Trial with Similar Length/Gauge Needles.

In the original publication, Figure 7 legend was incorrectly published as "A breakdown of preference for the comparator PN (black), no preference (grey), and preference for the investigational PN (white), in all groups combined, in all VAS questions". The correct legend is given below.

Evaluating the User Performance and Experience with a Re-Engineered 4 mm × 32G Pen Needle: A Randomized Trial with Similar Length/Gauge Needles.

INTRODUCTION: Since insulin pens were first introduced in 1985, many advances have been made in pen needles (PNs). In this study we evaluated patient-reported outcomes of an investigational newly re-engineered 4 mm × 32G PN, the BD Nano™ 2nd Gen (also known by its "PRO" brand extension in many markets outside of the USA). In place of a conventional cylindrical posted hub, the investigational PN's hub is contoured with an expanded surface area. The investigational PN also includes a redesigned inner shield that includes tactile ridges and a remodeled outer cover with improved proportions and attachment grips. METHODS: This was a multi-site, prospective, open-label, two-period crossover trial. Individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes using 32G PNs of ≤ 6 mm in length for ≥ 4 months were eligible. Subjects using     31G PNs of a similar length were eligible after a 2-week wash-in period. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups, with each group using a commercially available PN to which the investigational PN was compared. Each of the two study periods were 15 days: one with the investigational PN and the other with a comparator PN. After completing both study periods, subjects compared experiences between the two PN types. A 150-mm comparative visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate overall preference (primary endpoint) and several secondary endpoints, including overall comfort, injection pain, and ease of use. Data from the four PN groups were combined after poolability was verified. Subgroup analyses were also conducted on each PN group. For VAS responses, a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for average rating. Threshold for non-inferiority or superiority was established at the lower bound CI of > - 10 mm or > 0 mm, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, average age of subjects was 55.6 years; 51.6% were female; and 85.1% has type 2 diabetes mellitus. Average diabetes duration was 14.2 years, and average duration of injecting was 7.8 years. The investigational PN demonstrated superiority for all outcomes, both primary and secondary, for all groups combined (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The investigational PN was rated as being overall preferred, more comfortable, less painful, and easier to use when compared to comparator PNs of similar gauge and length, in all groups combined. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03267264). FUNDING: BD (Becton, Dickinson, and Company).

Safety and efficacy of insulin therapy delivered via a 4mm pen needle in obese patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether insulin delivered via a 4-mm × 32-gauge pen needle (PN) provides equivalent glycemic control as 8-mm × 31-gauge and 12.7-mm × 29-gauge PNs in obese (body mass index ≥30) patients with diabetes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 2-period, crossover, equivalence, home-based study was conducted from October 26, 2010, through May 31, 2012. After a 3-week wash-in period, eligible patients aged 18 to 80 years with a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 5.5% to 9.5% (37-80 mmol/mol) were randomized to compare either 4- vs 8-mm PNs or 4- vs 12.7-mm PNs, using each of the 2 assigned PNs for 12 weeks in random order. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c level, with equivalence limits of ±0.4%. RESULTS: The 274 patients randomized (mean ± SD age, 56.7±11.0 years) had a mean ± SD body mass index of 37.0±6.1 (range, 29.1-59.9) and took up to 350 U of insulin daily; 226 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Mean (95% CI) changes in HbA1c levels with the 4-mm PN were -0.08% (-0.21 to 0.06) and -0.10% (-0.19 to 0.00) vs the 8- and 12.7-mm PNs, respectively, within equivalence margins. The 4-mm PN was less painful than the larger PNs (P<.05), with similar leakage rates reported (4.1%-4.3%). Patients preferred the 4-mm PN over the 12.7-mm PN (P<.05) but not significantly vs the 8-mm PN. There were no differences between PNs in insulin doses and hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic adverse event rates. CONCLUSION: The 4-mm × 32-gauge PN provides equivalent glycemic control as 8- and 12.7-mm PNs in obese patients with diabetes, with less pain and no increase in leakage. Shorter PNs should be considered in all insulin-requiring patients with diabetes, including those who are obese. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01231984.

Insulin pen needles: effects of extra-thin wall needle technology on preference, confidence, and other patient ratings.

BACKGROUND: Pen needles (PNs) are essential for insulin injections using pen devices. PN characteristics affect patients' injection experience. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of a new extra-thin wall (XTW) PN versus usual PNs on overall patient preference, ease of injection, perceived time to complete the full dose, thumb button force to deliver the injection, and dose delivery confidence in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Subjects injected insulin with the KwikPen(TM) (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana), SoloSTAR(®) (sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC, Bridgewater, New Jersey), and FlexPen(®) (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) insulin pens, and included some with impaired hand dexterity. METHODS: We first performed quantitative testing of XTW and comparable PNs with the 3 insulin pens for thumb force, flow rate, and time to deliver medication. A prospective, randomized, 2-period, open-label, crossover trial was then conducted in patients aged 35 to 80 years with type 1 or type 2 DM who injected insulin by pen for ≥2 months, with at least 1 daily dose ≥10 U. Patients who used 4- to 8-mm length PNs with 31- to 32-G diameter were randomly assigned to use their current PN or the same/similar size XTW PN at home for ~1 week and the other PN the second week. They completed several comparative 150-mm visual analog scales and direct questions at the end of period 2. RESULTS: XTW PNs had statistically significant better performance for each studied PN characteristic (thumb force, flow, and time to deliver medication) for all pens combined and each individual pen brand (all, P ≤ 0.05). Of 216 patients randomized to study groups (80, SoloSTAR; 77, FlexPen; 59, KwikPen), 209 completed both periods; 198 were evaluable. Baseline characteristics revealed a mean (SD) age of 60.8 (9.3) years, insulin pen use duration of 4.3 (4.1) years, and mean total daily dose of 75.1 (52.3) U (range, 10-420 U). Approximately 50% of patients were female; 81.5% were white and 14.8% were black; and 89.8% had type 2 DM. Nearly 99% used a single PN: 8 mm, 49.5%; 5 mm, 24.1%; 6 mm, 14.4%; and 4 mm, 12.0%. Patients rated the XTW PNs (mean [95% CI]) as preferable by a mean of 31.9 mm (27.2-36.6), P < 0.001; XTW PNs required less thumb force, less time to inject the dose, and were rated as providing greater confidence in full dose delivery by 28.4 mm (23.7-33.2), 21.7 mm (17.0-26.4), and 24.4 mm (19.7-29.1), respectively; all, P < 0.001. Results were similar for each of the 3 pens, those with impaired hand dexterity, and for all users of 4-mm PNs. Skin leakage and insulin dripping from the needle tip were rated as less frequent with the XTW PNs (P < 0.05). The most common adverse events were hypoglycemia in 8.3% and 6.0% of patients using XTW PNs and current PNs (P = NS), respectively; hyperglycemia occurred in 2.9% and 4.1% (P = NS). None of the adverse events was serious or considered device related. CONCLUSIONS: XTW PNs were preferred overall, rated as requiring less time and less thumb force to inject, and providing greater confidence in completing a full dose compared with usual PNs in this group of patients with type 1 or type 2 DM. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01852136.

Glycemic control, reported pain and leakage with a 4 mm × 32 G pen needle in obese and non-obese adults with diabetes: a post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The shortest pen needle (PN) for subcutaneous insulin therapy is 4 mm. Clinicians may hesitate to use it in obese patients. We report a post hoc analysis of a previously published study of the 4 mm × 32 G PN, evaluating responses in obese (≥30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese (<30 kg/m(2)). METHODS: Subjects (BMI 20 to 49 kg/m(2), 52% obese) with diabetes used 4 mm × 32 G PNs and either 5 mm or 8 mm PNs (both 31 G) in two, 3-week treatment periods in a randomized noninferiority cross-over trial. Percentage absolute change in fructosamine (%â”‚Δ Fru│) was the primary endpoint. Equivalent glycemic control was defined as %â”‚Δ Fru│ within 20% (including 95% CI). The impact of obesity on change in fructosamine, pain and reported insulin leakage from the skin is described. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov - identifier: NCT00928057. LIMITATIONS: This report is a post hoc analysis of two BMI subgroups resulting in smaller sample sizes. RESULTS: Of 168 who completed the study, 163 were included in the fructosamine analyses - 83 and 80 in the 4/5 mm and 4/8 mm groups, respectively. For the 4/5 mm group, mean BMI ± SD in non-obese and obese groups were 25.9 ± 2.3 and 35.0 ± 4.9 kg/m(2), respectively; 4/8 mm group 25.2 ± 2.6 and 35.6 ± 4.2 kg/m(2). BMI group was not significant for %â”‚Δ Fru│ for either 4/5 mm or 4/8 mm. Between BMI groups, the difference of the means in %â”‚Δ Fru│ was 0.4% (4/5 mm) and 0.3% (4/8 mm). The 4 mm PN was significantly less painful in all subject groups, except non-obese in 4/5 mm. Regardless of needle size, obese subjects reported more leakage events. For both BMI groups, there were fewer total reported leakage events when using the 4 mm vs 5 mm and 8 mm needles. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 mm pen needle provided equivalent glycemic control in both obese and non-obese patients compared to 5 mm and 8 mm needles with no increase in reports of skin leakage, in this post-hoc analysis. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Comparative glycemic control, safety and patient ratings for a new 4 mm x 32G insulin pen needle in adults with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Pen needles (PN) for subcutaneous insulin therapy have become smaller; 5 mm PNs are now the shortest in use. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and patient ratings of a new 4 mm x 32 gauge (G) PN. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 5.5% to 9.5% participated in a randomized non-inferiority cross-over trial, at four U.S. centers. Subjects used 4 mm x 32G PNs and either 5 mm x 31G PNs (4/5 mm) or 8 mm x 31G PNs (4/8 mm) in two, 3-week treatment periods; order of needle use was controlled. Subjects were either 'low dose' or 'regular dose' users (highest single insulin dose

Skin and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness in adults with diabetes at sites used for insulin injections: implications for needle length recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: During subcutaneous insulin therapy, inadvertent intramuscular (IM) injections may increase pain and/or adversely affect glucose control. The most appropriate needle length for patients depends on skin thickness (ST) and the distance to muscle fascia. ST and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness (SCT) were measured in adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 388 US adults with diabetes (in three BMI subgroups: <25, 25-29.9, and >or=30 kg/m(2)) with diverse demographic features were evaluated. Each subject had ultrasound measurements of ST and SCT at four injection sites. RESULTS: Subjects had BMI 19.4-64.5 kg/m(2), age 18-85 years; 40% Caucasian, 25% Asian, 16% Black, 14% Hispanic; 28% type 1 diabetes. Mean ST (+/-95% CI) was: arm 2.2 mm (2.2, 2.3), thigh 1.9 mm (1.8, 1.9), abdomen 2.2 mm (2.1, 2.2) and buttocks 2.4 mm (2.4, 2.5). Multivariate analyses showed body site, gender, BMI, and race are statistically significant factors for ST but effects were small. Thigh ST was <0.6 mm thinner than the buttocks. Differences of 10 kg/m(2) account for 0.2 mm ST variation. Mean SCT was: arm 10.8 mm (10.2, 11.3), thigh 10.4 mm (9.8, 10.9), abdomen 13.9 mm (13.2, 17.7) and buttocks 15.4 mm (14.7, 16.2). Females had 5.1 mm greater SCT. Differences of 10 kg/m(2) account for 4 mm SCT variation. ADVERSE EVENTS: A few mild hypo- or hyperglycemia events, unrelated to study procedure, were detected and treated before subject discharge from study visits. LIMITATIONS: Only adults in the US were studied; some measurements could not be obtained on every subject, at every injection site. CONCLUSIONS: Injection site ST does not differ by clinically significant degrees in demographically diverse adults with diabetes; SCT has a wider range. Needles >or=8 mm, inserted perpendicularly, may frequently enter muscle in limbs of males and those with BMI <25 kg/m(2). With 90 degrees insertion, needles 4-5 mm enter the subcutaneous tissue with minimal risk of IM injection in virtually all adults. These data will assist recommending appropriate length needles for subcutaneous insulin injections in adults.