Search

The HumaPen Luxura HD insulin pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) was originally designed to deliver accurate doses in half-unit increments from 1 to 30 units. Laboratory testing examined the accuracy of the initial 0.5-unit dose within a 95/95% tolerance interval with respect to a specification of +/-0.5 unit (+/-0.005 ml).After priming, operators recorded the first 0.5 unit. Data were analyzed using k-value targets.While examining 577 half-unit doses per device lot, test temperature, operator, or test liquid, at least 95% of the doses were accurate with 95% confidence. All data points were within +/-0.5 unit (+/-0.005 ml).Dose accuracy of the initial half-unit is achieved with the HumaPen Luxura HD insulin pen.

This study compared injection force (measured by glide force [GF] and glide force variability [GFV]) and dosing accuracy of the Humalog KwikPen * (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog dagger] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) and the Next Generation FlexPen double dagger (prefilled insulin aspart [NovoRapid section sign] pen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). * Humalog KwikPen is a registered trademark of Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. dagger Humalog is a registered trademark of Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. double dagger FlexPen is a registered trademark of Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark. section sign NovoRapid is a registered trademark of Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark.A total of 100 prefilled insulin pens (50 insulin lispro pens, 50 insulin aspart pens) were tested using two dose sizes (30 U and 60 U). In all, 50 devices (25 of each type) were tested at 10 U/s dosing speed and 50 were tested at 6.6 U/s. Devices were used per manufacturer instructions. Dose accuracy (represented as absolute dose error %), maximum and average GF, and GFV data were automatically collected by the test system for all datasets (dose size/dosing speed/device type). The test system controlled for potential dosing errors.The insulin lispro pen demonstrated a significantly lower median maximum GF at both dosing speeds: (2.83 vs. 3.92 lbs [30 U] and 3.00 vs. 4.14 lbs [60 U]) at 10 U/s; (1.85 vs. 2.93 lbs [30 U] and 2.14 vs. 3.02 lbs [60 U]) at 6.6 U/s, all p0.0001. For all datasets, the median GFV was significantly lower for the insulin lispro pen, p0.0001. Median dose error was comparable between device types when tested at 10 U/s dosing speed; however, at 6.6 U/s, the median dose error was significantly lower for insulin lispro pen compared to insulin aspart pen (0.47 vs. 0.67% [30 U] and 0.50 vs. 0.78% [60 U], both p0.05).The insulin lispro pen had significantly lower median GF and GFV compared with insulin aspart pen when tested at two dose sizes and two dosing speeds. Median dose error was similar between the device types at the 10 U/s dosing speed, but median dose error was significantly lower for the insulin lispro pen at the 6.6 U/s dosing speed. A limitation of this study was that it was executed as an open label study.

To determine patient ease of use and preference for the Humalog KwikPen* (prefilled insulin lispro [Humalog dagger] pen, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) (insulin lispro pen) versus the Next Generation FlexPen double dagger (prefilled insulin aspart [NovoRapid section sign ] pen, Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (insulin aspart pen).This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 8-sequence crossover study in insulin pen-naïve patients with diabetes. Randomized patients (N = 367) received device training, then simulated low- (15 U) and high- (60 U) dose insulin injections with an appliance. Patients rated pens using an ease of use questionnaire and were asked separately for final pen preferences.The Insulin Device 'Ease of Use' Battery is a 10-item questionnaire with a 7-point scale (higher scores reflect greater ease of use). The primary objective was to determine pen preference for 'easy to press to inject my dose' (by comparing composite scores [low- plus high-dose]). Secondary objectives were to determine pen preference on select questionnaire items (from composite scores), final pen preference, and summary responses for all questionnaire items.On the primary endpoint, 'easy to press to inject my dose,' a statistically significant majority of patients with a preference chose the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen (68.4%, 95% CI = 62.7-73.6%). Statistically significant majorities of patients with a preference also favored the insulin lispro pen on secondary items: 'easy to hold in my hand when I inject' (64.9%, 95% CI = 58.8-70.7%), 'easy to use when I am in a public place' (67.5%, 95% CI = 61.0-73.6%), and 'overall easy to use' (69.9%, 95% CI = 63.9-75.4%). A statistically significant majority of patients had a final preference for the insulin lispro pen (67.3%, 95% CI = 62.2-72.1%).Among pen-naïve patients with diabetes who had a preference, the majority preferred the insulin lispro pen over the insulin aspart pen with regard to ease of use. Study limitations included open-label design and injection simulation, use of an unvalidated questionnaire, and enrollment of mostly insulin-naïve patients.