Half-Unit Insulin Pens: Disease Management in Patients With Diabetes Who Are Sensitive to Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin pens represent a significant technological advancement in diabetes management. While the vast majority have been designed with 1U-dosing increments, improved accuracy and precision facilitated by half-unit increments may be particularly significant in specific patients who are sensitive to insulin. These include patients with low insulin requirements and in those requiring more precise dose adjustments, such as the pediatric patient population. This review summarized functional characteristics of insulin half-unit pens (HUPs) and their effect on user experience. METHODS: The literature search was restricted to articles published in English between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2015. A total of 17 publications met the set criteria and were included in the review. RESULTS: Overall, studies outlined characteristics for 4 insulin HUPs. Based on their functionality, the pens were generally similar and all met the ISO 11608-1 criteria for accuracy. However, some had specific advantageous features in terms of size, weight, design, dialing torque, and injection force. Although limited, the currently available user preference studies in children and adolescents with diabetes and their carers suggest that the selection of an HUP is likely to be influenced by a combination of factors such as these, in addition to the prescribed insulin and dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin HUPs are likely to be a key diabetes management tool for patients who are sensitive to insulin; specific pen features may further advance diabetes management in these populations.

Functional Evaluation of the Reusable JuniorSTAR® Half-Unit Insulin Pen.

BACKGROUND: The functional performance of the JuniorSTAR(®) (Sanofi, Paris, France) half-unit insulin pen was evaluated through a series of specific objective tests to assess the dose accuracy, pen weight, injection force, and dialing torque. METHOD: Pens (n = 60) were tested under standard atmospheric conditions with 3 different types of insulins manufactured by Sanofi (insulin glargine, insulin glulisine, and biphasic insulin isophane). The dose accuracy was tested according to the ISO 11608-1:2012 standards. Injection doses of 0.010, 0.155, and 0.300 ml were evaluated. For mean weight evaluation, the pens without the cartridge were weighed on precision balances. The injection force was measured using a texture analyzer and the dialing torque was measured using a torque meter. RESULTS: JuniorSTAR met the ISO 11608-1:2012 criteria for dose accuracy as all the delivered doses were within the predefined limits for all types of insulin tested. The mean weight of the JuniorSTAR pen was 33.4 g (SD = 0.075). The mean injection force was 6.0 N (SD = 0.8), 4.3 N (SD = 0.4), and 5.1 N (SD = 0.6) for insulin glargine, insulin glulisine, and biphasic insulin isophane, respectively. The mean dialing torque was 5.09 Ncm (SD = 0.29) and 5.88 Ncm (SD = 0.53) for setting and correcting a dose, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Together with results from a previously reported usability survey, these results show that the JuniorSTAR reusable, half-unit pen is a lightweight and accurate device for insulin delivery with a dialing torque and injection force suitable for young people with type 1 diabetes.

Comparative Assessment of Lixisenatide, Exenatide, and Liraglutide Pen Devices: A Pilot User-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a relatively recent addition to the treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and are administered using prefilled pen devices. METHOD: In this open-label task and interview-based pilot study, 3 GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices-exenatide (Byetta®, Bristol-Myers Squibb/AstraZeneca), liraglutide (Victoza®, Novo Nordisk), and lixisenatide (Lyxumia®, Sanofi-Aventis)-were comparatively assessed in a randomized order in 30 participants with T2DM for ease of use, using a series of key performance measures (time taken to complete a series of tasks, number of user errors [successful performance], and user satisfaction rating). Linear and logistic regression analysis was conducted for the lixisenatide and liraglutide pens versus the exenatide pen. Participants' mean age was 60 years; 27% and 20% of the participants had visual impairments and reduced manual dexterity, respectively. RESULTS: Tasks were completed faster (P < .001) and with higher successful performance (P = .001) with the lixisenatide pen than with the exenatide pen, whereas the liraglutide pen was not statistically significant versus the exenatide pen on these parameters. Overall, user satisfaction was statistically higher for the lixisenatide and liraglutide pens versus the exenatide pen (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Lixisenatide and liraglutide pens are associated with higher user satisfaction compared with the exenatide pen. In addition, the lixisenatide pen is faster and results in fewer errors than its comparator (exenatide). The lixisenatide pen may therefore be a suitable choice for patients with T2DM, including older and pen device-naïve patients, and those with visual impairments and reduced manual dexterity.