Patient characteristics of insulin lispro 200 units/mL users in real world setting in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: Insulin lispro 200 U/mL (IL200) is a treatment choice for people with diabetes who have daily mealtime insulin (MTI) requirements of >20 U/day. We report clinical characteristics of real world IL200 users in Germany to understand clinical settings and the type of patients who would benefit from IL200 treatment. METHODS: This retrospective database analysis used the patient-level data from "IMS Disease Analyzer" in Germany from February 2015 to June 2016. Clinical and demographic information were collected and analyzed for IL200 users alongside that of those who were using more than 20 U a day of 100 U/mL analog MTI. RESULTS: Of the 17,261 patients using insulin, 811 were identified in IL200 group. The IL200 group had 60% men, mean ± SD age of 63.6 ± 11.9 years, and BMI of 36.2 ± 6.7 kg/m2. Of these, 63.5% (n = 515) were seen by diabetologists, while 36.5% (n = 296) were seen by general practitioners (GPs). In the IL200 group, 77.7% used basal insulin concomitantly, >90% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 52% had ≥4 comorbidities; the most common being hypertension (75.2%), neuropathy (66.0%), and nephropathy (59.6%). Diabetologist-treated IL200 users were more likely to have multiple comorbidities as compared with those treated by GPs (15.0% vs. 12.9% for >5 comorbidities). CONCLUSIONS: IL200 is prescribed to people with diabetes who need more than 20 U/day of mealtime insulin and tend to be more obese, older, and with multiple comorbidities. Future research should explore how concentrated MTI can impact adherence and long-term glycemia.

Concentrated insulins: History and critical reappraisal.

The earliest marketed insulins were crude acidic formulations with concentrations of ≤10 units/mL. Since the early 1920s, insulins have improved continually, via bioengineering, process, and chemical modifications. Today, most insulin formulations have a concentration of 100 units/mL (U100). However, more concentrated insulin formulations (200, 300, and 500 units/mL; U200, U300, and U500, respectively) are also available. There is a tendency to assume that concentrated insulins are similar, both to each other and to their U100 counterparts, but this is not always the case: two concentrated insulins, namely insulin degludec U200 and insulin lispro U200, are bioequivalent to their U100 counterparts, whereas regular human insulin U500 and insulin glargine U300 are not. The advent of these concentrated insulins offers greater opportunities to provide tailored therapy for patients; it also introduces potential confusion, and highlights the need for prescriber and patient education. Precise and accurate dedicated insulin delivery devices are also necessary for the safe use of these concentrated insulins. Although some clinicians only use concentrated insulin with obese and severely insulin-resistant patients, other patients would also benefit from the reduced injection volume associated with concentrated insulins, or the modified time-action profile of some concentrated insulins. The aim of this review is to enhance understanding of the historic development and the safe and effective use of concentrated insulins in clinical practice.

Concentrated insulins in current clinical practice.

New concentrated insulins (exceeding 100 units/mL) and dedicated devices have recently become available, offering new treatment options for people with diabetes, for basal and prandial insulin supplementation. The concentrated insulin formulations range from 2-fold concentration (insulin lispro 200 units/mL) with rapid-acting prandial action to 5-fold concentration (human regular insulin, 500 units/mL) with basal and short-acting prandial actions. Long-acting basal insulins include degludec 200 units/mL and glargine 300 units/mL. Concentrated insulins have been developed with the goal of easing insulin therapy by reducing the volume and number of injections and in some cases making use of altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. This review summarizes the unique characteristics of each concentrated insulin to help healthcare providers and people with diabetes understand how to best use them.

Dose Accuracy, Injection Force, and Usability Assessment of a New Half-Unit, Prefilled Insulin Pen.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the utility of the first prefilled, rapid-acting insulin pen that can be dialed in half-unit increments. Dose accuracy and injection force were examined through a series of design-verification tests, and usability was established by human factors validation testing. METHODS: Devices were tested for dose accuracy at 3 different doses and temperatures and under free fall, vibration, and cold storage conditioning. Injection force was measured at the maximum dose (30 units). Both experiments used the same semiautomated testing system. Usability was validated in a human factors simulated-use study that included 60 participants (patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes [aged 10-79 years], adult caregivers, and health care providers). RESULTS: The pen met the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11608-1:2014 requirements for dose accuracy at all settings and conditions tested. Furthermore, all individual results were within the ISO specification limits. Mean injection force across temperature settings ranged from 9.25 to 10.85 N at the highest dose. The usability validation study confirmed that use-related risks were reduced to the extent possible and that additional modifications were not likely to afford further reductions. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies demonstrated accurate dosing over the dose range (0.5-30 units) at different temperatures and conditions with an injection force that should accommodate the intended users. Use safety and usability in patients with diabetes, caregivers, and health care professionals were validated. The added convenience of this new half-unit, prefilled pen may ease the burden of diabetes management for patients who require smaller incremental dosing.

Behaviours, thoughts and perceptions around mealtime insulin usage and wastage among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional survey study.

AIMS: People with diabetes who use mealtime insulin (MTI) were surveyed about insulin wastage and injection habits when insufficient insulin remains in a disposable prefilled pen/cartridge to administer a full dose in a single injection. METHODS: Cross-sectional, online, self-reported survey of MTI usage/wastage behaviour in 400 adults with type 1 (n=120) or type 2 (n=280) diabetes mellitus administering >20units/day of MTI via 100units/ml prefilled pens/cartridges for ⩾1month, conducted in France, Germany, Italy and UK. RESULTS: Participants' mean±standard deviation age was 54.5±12.2years, body mass index was 29.9±7.2kg/m2 and duration of MTI therapy was 8.6±7.8years. They administered 3.7±5.9 injections/day with meals, using 11.3±18.0 prefilled pens/cartridges per month. Overall, 63.5% split the dose across two prefilled pens/cartridges (i.e. administered two injections to obtain a full dose), 15.0% used just what remained in their current pen (i.e. took a lower-than-prescribed dose) and 36.3% discarded prefilled pens/cartridges still containing insulin (i.e. took full dose with new pen). The latter participants discarded a mean 5.5±8.2 prefilled pens/cartridges monthly still containing insulin, each containing 8.6±8.7 units of insulin. Participants who wasted insulin considered it frustrating, time-consuming and painful to inject twice. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking >20units/day MTI can find transitions between insulin pens challenging. This study highlights the need to identify ways of improving transitions between pens to make transitions easier for insulin users, which could potentially improve adherence to prescribed doses and reduce waste.

Comparison of utilization, cost, adherence, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n = 239) and vial/syringe (n = 590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p < 0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (-$235 vs. +$61, p = 0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (-1.3 vs. -0.7, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention. CONCLUSION: Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.

Predictors of initiating rapid-acting insulin analog using vial/syringe, prefilled pen, and reusable pen devices in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the predictors of insulin delivery device choice. This study assessed the patient- and health-care-system-related factors that predict the initiation of one rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) delivery system over another. METHODS: A retrospective analysis using a claims database (January 1, 2007, through March 31, 2009) was conducted. Patients were required to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and have >or=12 months of continuous eligibility prior to their first prescription of a RAIA on or after January 1, 2008. The three cohorts in the study were vial/syringe (n = 6820), prefilled pen (n = 5840), and reusable pen (n = 2052). Multiple factors were examined using stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Factors that increased the likelihood of initiating RAIA using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe included endocrinologist visit [odds ratio (OR) = 3.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.56, 3.82], prior basal insulin use with pen (OR = 4.85, 95% CI = 4.21, 5.59), and use of >or=1 oral antihyperglycemic agents (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.20, 1.45). Factors that decreased the likelihood included inpatient admission (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.70, 0.83), nursing home visit (OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.27), and obesity (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.53, 0.83). There were fewer differences between prefilled and reusable pen initiators. Factors that increased the likelihood of initiating with prefilled versus reusable pen included endocrinologist visit (OR = 1.87, CI = 1.50, 2.34) and inpatient admission (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.30, 1.64). CONCLUSION: Significant differences in predictors were observed between prefilled pen and vial/syringe initiators. The differences were fewer between prefilled and reusable pen initiators. These differences should be taken into consideration when evaluating outcomes associated with specific insulin delivery systems.