To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7655606.
A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0623-5.
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.
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.
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).
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.
BD (Becton, Dickinson, and Company).
Reaney M, Elash CA, Litcher-Kelly L. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) used in recent Phase 3 trials for Type 2 diabetes: a review of concepts assessed by these PROs and factors to consider when choosing a PRO for future trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016;116:54–67. CrossRef
Lteif AN, Schwenk WF. Accuracy of pen injectors versus insulin syringes in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(1):137–40. CrossRef
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(11):2836–48. CrossRef
Hirsch LJ, Gibney MA, Albanese J, Qu S, Kassler-Taub K, Klaff L, Bailey T. Comparative glycemic control, safety and patient ratings for a new 4 mm × 32G insulin pen needle in adults with diabetes. CMRO. 2010;26(6):1531–41.
Bergenstal RM, Strock ES, Peremislov D, Gibney MA, Parvu V, Hirsch LJ. Safety and efficacy of insulin therapy delivered via a 4 mm pen needle in obese patients with diabetes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90(3):329–38. CrossRef
Schwartz S, Hassman D, Shelmet J, Sievers R, Weinstein R, Liang J, Lyness W. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossovertrial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge × 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge × 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2004;26(10):1663–78. CrossRef
Aronson R, Gibney MA, Oza K, Berube J, Kassler-Taub K, Hirsch L. Extra-thin-wall pen needles: impact on thumb force, insulin flow, time-to-deliver, patient preference and confidence in dosing. Diabetologia. 2013;56:923–37.
Hirsch L, Gibney M, Berube J, Manocchio J. Impact of a modified needle tip geometry on penetration force as well as acceptability, preference, and perceived pain in subjects with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(2):328–35. CrossRef
Miyakoshi M, Kamoi K, Iwanaga M, Hoshiyama A, Yamada A. Comparison of patient’s preference, pain perception, and usability between Micro Fine Plus ® 31-gauge needle and microtapered NanoPass® 33-gauge needle for insulin therapy. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2007;1(5):718–24. CrossRef
Valentini M, Scardapane M, Bondanini F, Bossi A, Colatrella A, Girelli A, Ciucci A, Leotta S, Minotti E, Pasotti F, Pesenti A. Efficacy, safety and acceptability of the new pen needle 33G × 4 mm. AGO 01 study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(3):487–92. CrossRef
Gibney MA, Arce CH, Byron KJ, Hirsch LJ. Skin and subcutaneous adipose layer thickness in adults with diabetes at sites used for insulin injections: implications for needle length recommendations. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(6):1519–30. CrossRef
Lo Presti D, Ingegnosi C, Strauss K. Skin and subcutaneous thickness at injecting sites in children with diabetes: ultrasound findings and recommendations for giving injection. Pediatr Diabetes. 2012;13(7):525–33. CrossRef
Wang W, Guo X, Shen G, et al. Skin and subcutaneous tissue thickness at insulin injection sites in Chinese diabetes patients: clinical implications. Diabetes Metab. 2016;42(5):374–7. CrossRef
Catambing I, Villa M. Ultrasonographic measurement of skin and subcutaneous thickness at insulin injection sites among adult Filipinos with diabetes. J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc. 2014;29(1):24.
Frid A, Gunnarsson R, Güntner P, Linde B. Effects of accidental intramuscular injection on insulin absorption in IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1988;11(1):41–5. CrossRef
Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MIJ. The reliability of a linear analogue scale for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976;31:1191–8. CrossRef
Rini CJ, Klug R, Morel D, Kassam S, Sutter D, Pettis R. Observation and quantification of injection technique variability. San Diego: American Diabetes Association; 2017.
Rini CJ, Roberts B, Morel D, Klug R, Selvage B, Pettis R. Evaluating human factors and design variables on pen injection technique. Orlando: American Diabetes Association; 2018.
Vaag A, Handberg A, Lauritzen M, Henriksen JE, Pedersen KD, Beck-Nielsen H. Variation in absorption of NPH insulin due to intramuscular injection. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(1):74–6. CrossRef
Frid A, Östman J, Linde B. Hypoglycemia risk during exercise after intramuscular injection of insulin in thigh in IDDM. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(5):473–7. CrossRef
Frid AH, Kreugel G, Grassi G, et al. New insulin delivery recommendations. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(9):1231–55. CrossRef
Polonsky WH, Henry RR. Poor medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: recognizing the scope of the problem and its key contributors. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1299. CrossRef
- Evaluating the User Performance and Experience with a Re-Engineered 4 mm × 32G Pen Needle: A Randomized Trial with Similar Length/Gauge Needles
Michael A. Gibney
Lydia R. Blank
Brian K. Pflug
- Springer Healthcare
Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Inneren Medizin
Mail Icon II