A Comparison of Insulin Pen Devices and Disposable Plastic Syringes – Simplicity, Safety, Convenience and Cost Differences

Singh, Ripudaman; Samuel, Clarence; Jacob, Jubbin Jagan

doi:10.17925/ee.2018.14.1.47

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20 Subjects injecting insulin with pen devices demonstrated better glycaemic control in the previous studies, moreover, insulin analogues are more commonly used with pens, which provide better glycaemic efficacy in comparison to human insulin. 27,28 Subjects using smaller needles had less chance of hyperglycaemia in our study; this may be due to using smaller needles in pen devices, which were associated with lower hyperglycaemia risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Insulin Injection Practice and Injection Complications – Results from the Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey

Kamrul-Hasan

Paul

Amin

et al. 2020

European Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Insulin Injection Practice and Injection Complications – Results from the Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey

Kamrul-Hasan

Paul

Amin

et al. 2020

European Endocrinology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several studies reported that persistence and adherence to insulin therapy were higher in those subjects who used insulin pens and showed that both all-cause healthcare costs and annual treatment costs were lower in this group of patient with diabetes [7, 21–23] and reports on use of insulin pens among Indian and Lebanese populations showed that insulin pens are simpler, safer, and more convenient to use. [24, 25] However, there is a growing body of evidence showing that different insulin delivery forms are not associated with health-related outcomes among patients with diabetes; a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of pen devices and insulin vials showed that there were no significant differences in the number of patients achieving HbA1c treatment goal (<7%) among those who used insulin pens or vials (though the study reported improvements in the number of hypoglycemic events and mean but not clinically significant change of HbA1c in the group of adult patients treated with insulin pens). [12] Moreover, a multi-center study in the United States showed a negligible difference in glycemic control between patients taking prefilled, disposable pens and syringes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insulin pen use and diabetes treatment goals: A study from Iran STEPS 2016 survey

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Frequency of insulin pen use, despite its higher costs, is increasing to substitute the traditional use of insulin vials. This study aims to report insulin pen use frequency and its associated factors among participants of the STEPS survey 2016 in Iran, which was conducted based on the World Health Organization (WHO) STEPS methodology. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 19,503 (mean age of 46.03±0.13) out of 30,541 participants of the Iran STEPS survey were included (Inclusion criteria: aged >25 years old and availability of their demographic, clinical, and laboratory results for serum glucose, HbA1c, and lipid profile). Clinical and demographic characteristics, a frequency of use of each diabetes mellitus treatment type, and the association of insulin pen use with health outcomes are reported using descriptive analysis and propensity score modeling. Results There were 1,999(10.85%) individuals diagnosed with diabetes in the population, while 1,160(56.87%) cases were taking antihyperglycemic treatments. In this subset, 240(21.14%) individuals administered insulin with or without using oral agents at the same time. 52.28% of participants who were under insulin therapy used insulin pens. None of the socioeconomic determinants, including gender (p-value = 0.11), type of residential areas (p-value = 0.52), years of schooling (p-value = 0.27), wealth index (p-value = 0.19), marital status (p-value = 0.37), and insurance types (p-value = 0.72) were significantly different among groups using insulin pens and insulin vials. Moreover, in the propensity score modeling, pen usage was not associated with a lower heart attack and ischemic stroke histories, systolic blood pressure, serum lipid profile, blood glucose, or HbA1c levels. Conclusion Results showed that the use of the higher-costing insulin pens compared to traditional vials and syringes is not associated with improved glycemic control and better lipid profile in our sample. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to compare other aspects of insulin pen use, including adherence to treatment and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Insulin pen devices comprise an insulin cartridge and syringe combined in a single device for insulin administration [4,44]. The advantages of disposable insulin pens over vials/syringes include increased simplicity and convenience, as well as potential efficacy and safety improvements [44][45][46]. Disposable insulin pens do not capture data (although some reusable pens include a memory function, capturing dosages and timing).…”

Section: Insulin Pensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Attributes of diabetes technologies approved for insulin delivery[4,11,12,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging advances in diabetes technologies in primary care: a narrative review

Bode

King²,

Russell‐Jones

et al. 2021

Annals of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary care providers (PCPs) play an important role in providing medical care for patients with type 2 diabetes. Advancements in diabetes technologies can assist PCPs in providing personalised care that addresses each patient's individual needs. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Monitoring technologies encompass self-measured blood glucose (SMBG), where blood glucose is intermittently measured by a finger prick blood sample, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices, which use an interstitial sensor and are capable of giving real-time information. Studies show people using real-time CGM have better glucose control compared to SMBG. CGM allows for new parameters including time in range (the time spent within the desired target glucose range), which is an increasingly relevant real-time metric of glycaemic control. Insulin pens have increased the ease of administration of insulin and connected pens that can calculate and capture data on dosing are becoming available. There are a number of websites, software programs, and applications that can help PCPs and patients to integrate diabetes technology into their diabetes management schedules. In this article, we summarise these technologies and provide practical information to inform PCPs about utility in their clinical practice. The guiding principle is that use of technology should be individualised based on a patient's needs, desires, and availability of devices. Diabetes technology can help patients improve their clinical outcomes and achieve the quality of life they desire by decreasing disease burden. KEY MESSAGESIt is important to understand the role that diabetes technologies can play in primary care to help deliver high-quality care, taking into account patient and community resources. Diabetes technologies fall into two major categories: devices for glycaemic self-monitoring and insulin delivery systems. Modern self-measured blood glucose devices are simple to use and can help guide decision making for self-management plans to improve clinical outcomes, but cannot provide "live" data and may under-or overestimate blood glucose; patients' monitoring technique and compliance should be reviewed regularly. Importantly, before a patient is provided with monitoring technology, they must receive suitably structured education in its use and interpretation. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is now standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and people with type 2 diabetes on meal-time (prandial) insulin. Real-time CGM can tell both the patient and the healthcare provider when glucose is in the normal range, and when they are experiencing hyper-or hypoglycaemia. Using CGM data, changes in lifestyle, eating habits, and medications, including insulin, can help the patient to stay in a normal glycaemic range (70-180 mg/dL). Real-time CGM allows for creation of an ambulatory glucose profile and monitoring of time in range (the time spent within target blood glucose of 70-1...

show abstract

A Comparison of Insulin Pen Devices and Disposable Plastic Syringes – Simplicity, Safety, Convenience and Cost Differences

Cited by 14 publications

References 12 publications

Insulin Injection Practice and Injection Complications – Results from the Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey

Insulin Injection Practice and Injection Complications – Results from the Bangladesh Insulin Injection Technique Survey

Insulin pen use and diabetes treatment goals: A study from Iran STEPS 2016 survey

Leveraging advances in diabetes technologies in primary care: a narrative review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About