Introduction: Concizumab is a once-daily prophylactic treatment developed for patients with hemophilia A or B (HA/HB) with or without inhibitors. It is the first treatment for hemophilia patients to be delivered subcutaneously using a pre-filled, multi-dose pen-injector with a 4 mm, 32 G needle. Aim: To investigate patient and caregiver handling and preference for the concizumab pen-injector compared with current injection systems used to treat hemophilia. Methods: This preference and handling study was conducted in accordance with authority guidelines for approval of new devices and included adults and adolescents with HA/HB with or without inhibitors and caregivers currently administering factor replacement therapy or factor VIII mimetic (emicizumab) therapy. All participants underwent a training session, followed by a test session during which participants independently administered a single pen-injection into an injection pad or manikin. Time to train, time to prepare and inject, and number of complete independent injections handling the pen were assessed. Participants evaluated handling and preference via the Hemophilia Device Handling and Preference Assessment Questionnaire. Results: 80 participants (44 adults, 21 adolescents, 15 caregivers) currently using factor replacement therapy (n=41, 51%) or emicizumab (n=39, 49%) participated. Average training time and time to complete an injection were 7 min 49s and 1 min 21s. In total, 98% of independent complete injections were achieved at first attempt. 98% (n=78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 91– 100%) of participants assessed the pen-injector as either “easy” or “very easy” to use. 88% of participants preferred the pen-injector (n=70; 95% CI 78– 94%) over their current injection system, and 9% (n=7) reported “no preference”. Conclusion: Participants found the concizumab pen-injector easy to learn and easy to use and preferred it over their current injection systems. Plain Language Summary: People with hemophilia lack clotting factors that help stop bleeding after an injury. If left untreated, it can lead to life-threatening bleeding episodes. Treatment such as replacement therapy with clotting factors needs to be administered at regular intervals to prevent bleeding. The administration of intravenous (inside the vein) medication can be challenging due to the required skills, injection pain and availability of a good vein to inject into. Factor VIII mimetic therapy now allows people to inject medication under the skin (subcutaneously). However, using vials and syringes still poses challenges with the time to prepare and inject medication. Pen-injectors have been developed to address these challenges and provide additional benefits, including increased dose accuracy, portability, reduced discomfort, and less administration time. Concizumab is a medication developed for once-daily subcutaneous injection for people with hemophilia A or hemophilia B, with or without inhibitors, using a pen-injector. The objective of this preference and handling study was to understand patient and caregiver pen-injector handling experiences, and device preferences compared to their existing devices. In this study, most participants found it easy to learn to use the pen-injector. 98% of participants reported that the pen-injector was easy or very easy to use compared with their current device. 88% of participants reported a preference for the concizumab pen-injector over their current device. This shows that the pen-injector can easily and effectively be used to inject concizumab, providing more control and independence in patients’ treatment while reducing the burden caused by intravenous modes of administration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.