The Needle Shield Size and Applied Force of Subcutaneous Autoinjectors Significantly Influence the Injection Depth.

BACKGROUND: This study examines how shield-triggered autoinjectors (AIs), for subcutaneous drug delivery, affect injection depth. It focuses on shield size and applied force, parameters that could potentially lead to inadvertent intramuscular (IM) injections due to tissue compression. METHOD: A blinded ex-vivo study was performed to assess the impact of shield size and applied force on injection depth. Shields of 15, 20, and 30 mm diameters and forces from 2 to 10 N were investigated. The study involved 55 injections in three Landrace, Yorkshire, and Duroc (LYD) pigs, with injection depths measured with computed tomography (CT). An in-vivo study, involving 20 injections in three LYD pigs, controlled the findings, using fluoroscopy (FS) videos for depth measurement. RESULTS: The CT study revealed that smaller shield sizes significantly increased injection depth. With a 15 mm diameter shield, 10 N applied force, and 5 mm needle protrusion, the injection depth exceeded the needle length by over 3 mm. Injection depth increased with higher applied forces until a plateau was reached around 8 N. Both applied force and size were significant factors for injection depth (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P < .05) in the CT study. The FS study confirmed the ex-vivo findings in an in-vivo setting. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that shield size has a greater impact on injection depth than the applied force. While conducted in porcine tissue, the study provides useful insights into the relative effects of shield size and applied force. Further investigations in humans are needed to confirm the predicted injection depths for AIs.

Development and Validation of the Diabetes Pen Experience Measure: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.

BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with insulin-delivery devices has been shown to improve treatment adherence, translating into better glycemic control. The Diabetes Pen Experience Measure (DPEM) is a new patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate patients' experience when using an injection device. METHODS: The DPEM was developed using literature review and concept elicitation interviews with clinical experts and patients. This led to a theoretical model and a draft measure of the diabetes pen experience, which was refined following cognitive debriefing. Validation entailed a web-based, noninterventional survey; psychometric analyses conducted according to a statistical analysis plan; and refinement and finalization of the DPEM and theoretical model. RESULTS: In total, 42 patients participated in concept elicitation interviews. Analysis of the qualitative interviews resulted in a preliminary theoretical model. Based on this model, DPEM items were generated; the preliminary version of the DPEM contained 30 items. Following cognitive debriefing, the validation-ready version comprised 28 items. These were later reduced to 7 higher-order items owing to ceiling/floor effects. In total, 300 patients participated in the web-based validation study. The item statistics were all adequate. Item-to-item correlations were good. Item-to-total correlations displayed acceptable associations between each item against the rest of the items, with correlations of 0.68 to 0.79. The internal consistency was adequate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. The DPEM is scored by summing the 7 item scores and transforming the sum onto a 100-point scale. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented supports the use of the DPEM in clinical trials to evaluate the patients' experience with diabetes injection devices.

Factors Affecting Performance of Insulin Pen Injector Technology: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Insulin treatment is an essential hormone replacement therapy for the survival of people with type 1 diabetes and is often used for treatment in type 2 diabetes, particularly as the disease progresses. Advances in insulin therapy have been made since its discovery, including production of human insulin and development of insulin analogs with improved efficacy and safety profiles. The different types of available insulin formulations allow health care professionals to personalize treatment to an individual's needs. Generally, insulin requires parenteral administration via subcutaneous injection owing to very low oral bioavailability. METHODS: This article reviews the human, technological, economical, and regulatory factors affecting the performance of insulin pens and the relationship between them. Opportunities and challenges that insulin pen injections may encounter in the future are also considered. RESULTS: Insulin delivery devices, together with other factors, influence dose accuracy, convenience, and quality of life, contributing to easier medication administration with high efficacy and safety. For patients, ease of use, fast and accurate drug delivery, and painless injection are the most valuable features of an insulin injection device. For manufacturers, technological feasibility and economic viability also need to be considered when developing injection devices. CONCLUSION: Insulin pen injectors are generally preferred over vial and syringe, although access may be limited in some health care systems. Insulin pen injectors can adapt to different insulin regimens and formulations and have the potential to acquire dosing data in real time.

Development of an Insulin Pen is a Patient-Centric Multidisciplinary Undertaking: A Commentary.

The goal of human-centered insulin pen design is to relieve the treatment burden of a chronic condition and help affected individuals to feel free of disease. The patient as well as their entire ecosystem should be considered. At Novo Nordisk A/S, we believe that embedding human-centered design at the heart of our development processes is best achieved with multidisciplinary experts in-house to work alongside product development teams and, importantly, the end user. Novo Nordisk introduced the first commercially available insulin pen in 1985 and has continued to develop reusable/durable and prefilled insulin pens to meet different patient needs, through to the latest NovoPen 6 and NovoPen Echo Plus with SMART technology. Human-centered design is essential for delivering meaningful and practical solutions for individuals with diabetes.

Semaglutide single-dose pen-injector: Post hoc analysis of summative usability testing for weight management.

Subcutaneous semaglutide, at a 2.4 mg once-weekly maintenance dose, is approved in the United States for weight management in individuals with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, or with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher and at least one obesity-related co-morbidity. To investigate the usability of the semaglutide pen-injector in individuals who met these criteria, we report post hoc analysis of the summative (human factors validation) usability testing and safety analysis involving patients with type 2 diabetes (an obesity-related co-morbidity) with the same pen-injector, limited to the 26 out of 30 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher (11 pen-injector-naïve, 15 pen-injector-experienced) and 15 non-pharmacist healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants performed two simulated injections into an injection pad. No potentially serious use errors occurred. Mean subjective ease-of-use rating on a seven-point scale, where 1 = difficult and 7 = easy, was 6.9 for the second injection in all three groups. These results suggest that the semaglutide pen-injector is easy to use and not associated with serious use errors when used by pen-injector-naïve or pen-injector-experienced patients meeting the requirement for weight management with semaglutide treatment, and by non-pharmacist HCPs.

Comparison of the injection-site experience of the starting doses with semaglutide and dulaglutide: A randomized, double-blind trial in healthy subjects.

This double-blind, randomized, single-site, crossover trial compared the injection-site experience with the starting doses of semaglutide and dulaglutide. Healthy subjects (aged 18-75 years; body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 ; n = 104) were randomized 1:1, using a pregenerated list, to semaglutide 0.25 mg as the first injection and dulaglutide 0.75 mg as the second injection or vice versa; each was administered using their proprietary pen-injectors, according to instructions for use. The primary endpoint was intensity of injection-site pain, measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 mm = no pain, 100 mm = unbearable pain). Exploratory endpoints included intensity category, duration and quality of injection-site pain, and comparative assessment of injection-site pain with the two injections. The point estimate of the VAS score for injection-site pain intensity was 11.5 mm with dulaglutide versus 5.6 mm with semaglutide; mean (95% confidence interval) estimated treatment difference 5.9 (3.6; 8.2) mm; p < .0001. Other endpoints corroborated a less painful injection experience with semaglutide versus dulaglutide. Safety was consistent with reported data for the drugs. In conclusion, the injection-site experience with semaglutide was rated as less painful than that with dulaglutide.

Evaluating the usability and safety of the semaglutide single-dose pen-injectors through summative (human factors) usability testing.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: A single-dose, shield-activated pen-injector for each of the three approved dose variants (0.25, 0.5 and 1 mg) of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide has been developed to improve usability. This analysis presents findings from the summative usability testing process for the single-dose semaglutide pen-injectors, including the pen-injector four-pack cartons and instructions for use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 adults representing four user groups were included: patients with/without pen-injector experience, non-pharmacist healthcare professionals and pharmacists (each n = 15). Participants carried out four tasks: (i) pen-injector carton retrieval; (ii) first simulated injection; (iii) pen-injector retrieval; and (iv) second simulated injection. All participants carried out task 1, and patients and non-pharmacist healthcare professionals took part in tasks 2-4 (n = 45). The number and types of use errors, close calls and operational difficulties were evaluated, and participants subjectively rated the ease of each task on a scale of 1 (difficult) to 7 (easy). RESULTS: No potentially serious use errors and only one non-serious use error were reported. Eight participants committed use errors with no potential for harm, one participant committed an unclassified use error, one participant encountered a close call with no potential for harm and one participant experienced an operational difficulty. Mean ease-of-use ratings were 6.7 (task 1), 5.9 (task 2), 6.6 (task 3) and 6.9 (task 4). CONCLUSIONS: All three dose variants of the semaglutide single-dose pen-injector were considered easy to use (subjective feedback scores near 7) and not associated with any serious use errors, even when participants received no training before study participation.

User Satisfaction and Insulin Pump Handling With a Prefilled Insulin Cartridge in Adults and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This comparative handling study investigated user satisfaction and insulin pump handling with a prefilled insulin cartridge versus a self-filled insulin reservoir in insulin pump users with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Adult (n = 105) and adolescent (n = 25) participants performed insulin pump preparations using a prefilled insulin cartridge and self-filled insulin reservoir. User satisfaction, insulin pump preparation time, and residual air in infusion set tubing were assessed for each insulin filling method. Post hoc analysis evaluated training time. RESULTS: User satisfaction scores were statistically significantly different in favor of the prefilled insulin cartridge versus the self-filled insulin reservoir (mean [SD]: overall, 4.0 [0.5] vs 3.3 [0.9]; burden on the user, 1.8 [0.6] vs 2.9 [1.0]; user inconvenience, 2.0 [0.7] vs 2.8 [1.1]; device effectiveness, 3.9 [0.7] vs 3.6 [0.9]; all P < .001). Insulin pump preparation time and residual air measurements were significantly different and numerically lower for the prefilled insulin cartridge versus the self-filled insulin reservoir (mean [SD]: preparation time, 124.4 [30.3] vs 237.8 [64.2] seconds, P < .001; residual air, 2.3 [26.3] vs 10.0 [63.3] mm, P = .007). Training time was shorter with the prefilled insulin cartridge versus the self-filled insulin reservoir (mean [min; max]: 193.1 [36; 453] vs 535.8 [124; 992] seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Adult and adolescent insulin pump users were more satisfied with the prefilled insulin cartridge versus the self-filled insulin reservoir when preparing an insulin pump. The prefilled insulin cartridge was associated with reduced insulin pump preparation time and reduced training time versus the self-filled insulin reservoir.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch1 versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar2 pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism.

AIMS: To evaluate the injection success and user perception of a shield-triggered pen-injector mechanism. METHODS: The trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02627287) was an exploratory, two-centre, one-visit, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany in 150 injection-experienced individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants self-administered subcutaneous injections of a placebo solution using a prototype shield-triggered pen-injector, DV3316 (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Injection success was evaluated on a yes/no basis by the investigator. Participant confidence, leakage of fluid and pain were evaluated after each injection. Pain and device experience were assessed after completion of all injections with each pen-injector. Overall preference was assessed after completion of all injections with both pen-injectors. RESULTS: Injection success was high with both pen-injectors (97.0%, DV3316 vs 99.7%, FlexPen). Participant confidence in dose delivery was similar for the two devices (88% of injections with DV3316 vs 81% with FlexPen were scored as "extremely confident"). The median injection pain score on a visual analogue scale (0-100) was 3 with DV3316 vs 4 with FlexPen after each injection, and 4 with DV3316 vs 5 with FlexPen after all injections with each device. After all injections were completed, 55% of participants reported an overall preference for DV3316 vs 21% for FlexPen. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that injection-experienced individuals can achieve a high injection success rate with a shield-triggered pen-injector, with similar patient confidence and injection pain compared with FlexPen.

FlexTouch: An Insulin Pen-Injector with a Low Activation Force Across Different Insulin Formulations, Needle Technologies, and Temperature Conditions.

FlexTouch® (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) is a pen-injector with a torque spring mechanism requiring a low activation force. This laboratory-based study compared the activation force of FlexTouch during the injection of insulin with different needles and at temperature conditions within the range at which the device is recommended for use. Using a tensile tester, activation force was measured at maximum dose settings for insulin detemir (100 U/mL) and insulin degludec (100 and 200 U/mL) at standard (23°C ± 5°C), cool (5°C ± 3°C), and warm (30°C ± 2°C) conditions. Activation force was measured with two 32-gauge needles differing in internal diameter at standard conditions. At standard, cool, and warm conditions, estimated mean activation forces with 95% confidence interval were 5.71 newtons (N) (5.63-5.79), 5.94 N (5.83-6.06), and 5.69 N (5.58-5.80) with insulin detemir, 5.53 N (5.45-5.62), 5.56 N (5.44-5.67), and 5.33 N (5.22-5.44) with 100 U/mL insulin degludec, and 5.53 N (5.45-5.61), 5.83 N (5.71-5.94), and 5.56 N (5.45-5.68) with 200 U/mL insulin degludec, respectively. Mean activation forces were observed to be low with very small variability between measurements; however, the differences between insulins and temperature conditions were statistically significant. The activation force required by FlexTouch remained low across all situations tested. The differences between activation force needed with different insulins and temperature conditions were small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful.

NovoPen Echo(®) insulin delivery device.

The introduction of insulin pen devices has provided easier, well-tolerated, and more convenient treatment regimens for patients with diabetes mellitus. When compared with vial and syringe regimens, insulin pens offer a greater clinical efficacy, improved quality of life, and increased dosing accuracy, particularly at low doses. The portable and discreet nature of pen devices reduces the burden on the patient, facilitates adherence, and subsequently contributes to the improvement in glycemic control. NovoPen Echo(®) is one of the latest members of the NovoPen(®) family that has been specifically designed for the pediatric population and is the first to combine half-unit increment (=0.5 U of insulin) dosing with a simple memory function. The half-unit increment dosing amendments and accurate injection of 0.5 U of insulin are particularly beneficial for children (and insulin-sensitive adults/elders), who often require small insulin doses. The memory function can be used to record the time and amount of the last dose, reducing the fear of double dosing or missing a dose. The memory function also provides parents with extra confidence and security that their child is taking insulin at the correct doses and times. NovoPen Echo is a lightweight, durable insulin delivery pen; it is available in two different colors, which may help to distinguish between different types of insulin, providing more confidence for both users and caregivers. Studies have demonstrated a high level of patient satisfaction, with 80% of users preferring NovoPen Echo to other pediatric insulin pens.

Injection Technique and Pen Needle Design Affect Leakage From Skin After Subcutaneous Injections.

BACKGROUND: After a subcutaneous injection fluid might leak out of the skin, commonly referred to as leakage or backflow. The objective was to examine the influence of needle design and injection technique on leakage after injections in the subcutaneous tissue of humans and pigs. METHOD: Leakage data were obtained from a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and from a pig study. Data from the clinical study were used to determine leakage as a function of injection volume, speed and region. Data from the pig study were used to determine leakage as a function of needle wall thickness, needle taper, injection angle, and wait time from end of injection to withdrawal of needle from skin. RESULTS: Leakage volume was positively related to injection volume. Injections in the abdomen caused less leakage than thigh injections. A 32G needle caused less leakage than a 31G and a 32G tip (tapered) needle, and a "straight in" 90° needle insertion angle caused less leakage than an angled (~45°) insertion. Wait times of minimum 3 seconds caused less leakage than immediate withdrawal of the needle after injection. Needle wall thickness and injection speed did not influence leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Leakage will be minimized using a thin needle, using 90° needle insertion in the abdomen, injecting maximum 800 µL at a time, and waiting at least 3 seconds after the injection until the needle is withdrawn from the skin.

Usability of the Novel Liraglutide 3.0 mg Pen Injector Among Overweight or Obese Adult Patients With or Without Prior Injection Experience.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with multiple comorbidities and increased mortality, making it an important target for treatment. However, achieving and maintaining weight loss by diet and physical activity remains challenging, and may often require pharmacotherapy. Liraglutide 3.0 mg has recently been approved for weight management in the United States, Canada, and EU. The current analysis used a summative usability test to assess safety and effectiveness, ease of use, and training requirements for the novel liraglutide 3.0 mg pen injector. METHODS: Of the 234 participants, half received instructions for use and video-based training and/or opportunity to handle the device. All participants (excluding pharmacists) performed 6 tasks followed by post- task interviews on task difficulty, device ease of use, and any use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties. Tasks included differentiation of correct box and pen injector, medication clarity assessment, normal, dose reversal, and end-of-content injection. Number/type of use errors, close calls, and operational difficulties were evaluated. RESULTS: All assessed participants interpreted the instructions for use correctly. No potentially serious use errors, and low numbers of nonserious errors, were reported. Overall, participants committed 105 use errors related to handling, with no potential for harm. A total of 25 close calls and 44 operational difficulties were reported without any pattern indicative of a design flaw. Marked differences in the incidence of events were observed for trained versus untrained participants regardless of prior injection experience. Participants rated ease of use as 6.4/7. CONCLUSIONS: The liraglutide 3.0 mg pen injector is safe and easy to use for liraglutide administration. New device features allow for safe use after brief training.

Injection force and dose accuracy of FlexTouch for the delivery of a new basal insulin.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the paper is to determine the dose accuracy and injection force of FlexTouch (FT) filled with insulin degludec 100 U/ml, insulin degludec 200 U/ml and insulin degludec/insulin aspart 100 U/ml, SoloStar (SS) filled with insulin glargine 100 U/ml and KwikPen (KP) filled with insulin lispro mix 75/25 100 U/ml. METHODS: Dose accuracy was measured at minimum, midpoint and maximum doses (FT 1, 2, 40, 80 and 160 U; SS 1, 40 and 80 U; KP 1, 30 and 60 U). Injection force was measured during the injection of the maximum dose. RESULTS: All doses delivered from FT were within ISO limits (ISO 11608-1:2012) for degludec 100 U/ml, degludec 200 U/ml and degludec/aspart 100 U/ml, and the pens delivered insulin accurately and consistently at all doses tested. Similarly, all tested doses from KP filled with insulin lispro mix 75/25 100 U/ml were within ISO limits, while some doses from SS filled with insulin glargine 100 U/ml were outside ISO limits. FT had a significantly lower injection force than SS and KP (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: FT filled with insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart, delivered insulin accurately and consistently within ISO limitations at all doses tested; similarly, KP delivered insulin within ISO limitations at all doses tested and SS delivered most doses within ISO limitations. The significantly lower injection force of FT compared to SS and KP is an important feature that has the potential to make the injection process easier for people with diabetes.

The effect of terbutaline on the absorption of pulmonary administered insulin in subjects with asthma.

AIM: To investigate the effect of prior administration of a bronchodilator on the absorption of inhaled insulin in people with asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: A single-centre, randomized, open-label, two-period cross-over trial was carried out in 41 nondiabetic subjects with asthma treated with inhaled steroids, with reversible bronchoconstriction (Rev+; n= 25) or without reversible bronchoconstriction (Rev-; n= 16). A dose of 0.10 U kg(-1) inhaled human insulin was administered on each dosing day with or without prior administration of the bronchodilator terbutaline (in random order). RESULTS: Prior administration of terbutaline led to a 44% increase in absorption of insulin over 6 h for the Rev+ group compared with no prior administration of bronchodilator [ratio (95% confidence interval) 1.44 (1.13, 1.82), P= 0.004], whereas no effect was seen for the Rev- or the whole group. The maximum insulin concentration (C(max)) increased by 34% for the Rev+ group (P = 0.018) and 17% for the whole group (P= 0.046), whereas no significant effect of prior terbutaline administration was seen for Rev-. The time to C(max) was not significantly different for the Rev+ group, whereas it was approximately 30% longer after bronchodilator administration for the Rev- group (P= 0.044) and the whole group (P= 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: In people with asthma and reversible bronchoconstriction, the administration of a bronchodilator prior to administration of inhaled insulin led to increased absorption of insulin, whereas no effect on insulin absorption in subjects without significant reversibility could be detected.

Proteomics of the photoneuroendocrine circadian system of the brain.

The photoneuroendocrine circadian system of the brain consists of (a) specialized photoreceptors in the retina, (b) a circadian generator located in the forebrain that contains "clock genes," (c) specialized nuclei in the forebrain involved in neuroendocrine secretion, and (d) the pineal gland. The circadian generator is a nucleus, called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). The neurons of this nucleus contain "clock genes," the transcription of which exhibits a circadian rhythm. Most circadian rhythms are generated by the neurons of this nucleus and, via neuronal and humoral connections, the SCN controls circadian activity of the brain and peripheral tissues. The endogenous oscillator of the SCN is each day entrained to the length of the daily photoperiod by light that reach the retina, and specialized photoreceptors transmit impulses to the SCN via the optic nerves. Mass screening for day/night variations in gene expression in the circadian system as well as in the whole brain and peripheral tissues have, during the last decade, been performed. However, studies of circadian changes in the proteome have been less investigated. In this survey, the anatomy and function of the circadian-generating system in mammals is described, and recent proteomic studies that investigate day/night changes in the retina, SCN, and pineal gland are reviewed. Further circadian changes controlled by the SCN in gene and protein expression in the liver are discussed.

The effect of exercise on the absorption of inhaled human insulin via the AERx insulin diabetes management system in people with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effect of moderate exercise on the absorption of inhaled insulin via the AERx insulin diabetes management system (iDMS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover, glucose clamp study 23 nonsmoking subjects with type 1 diabetes received a dose of 0.19 units/kg inhaled human insulin followed in random order by either 1) no exercise (NOEX group) or 30 min exercise starting, 2) 30 min after dosing (EX30), 3) 120 min after dosing (EX120), or 4) 240 min after dosing (EX240). RESULTS: Exercise changed the shape of the free plasma insulin curves, but compared with the NOEX group the area under the curve for free plasma insulin (AUC(ins)) for the first 2 h after the start of exercise was unchanged for EX30 and EX240, while it was 15% decreased for EX120 (P < 0.01). The overall insulin absorption during 6 and 10 h after dosing was 13% decreased for EX30 (P < 0.005), 11% decreased for EX120 (P < 0.01), and unchanged for EX240. Exercise did not influence the maximum insulin concentration (Cmax), while the time to Cmax was 22 min earlier for EX30 (P = 0.04). The AUC for the glucose infusion rate (AUC(GIR)) for 2 h after the start of exercise increased by 58% for EX30, 45% for EX120, and 71% for EX240 (all P < 0.02) compared with the NOEX group. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty minutes of moderate exercise led to unchanged or decreased absorption of inhaled insulin via AERx iDMS and faster Cmax for early exercise. Thus, patients using AERx iDMS can adjust insulin dose as usual independent of time of exercise, but they should be aware of the faster effect if exercising early after dosing.