Skip to main content
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
letter
. 2015 May 22;9(4):936–938. doi: 10.1177/1932296815586219

Usability of the Gla-300 Injection Device Compared With Three Other Commercialized Disposable Insulin Pens

Results of an Interview-Based Survey

David Klonoff 1,, Irina Nayberg 1, Frank Erbstein 2, Anna Cali 3, Claire Brulle-Wohlhueter 3, Thomas Haak 4
PMCID: PMC4525641  PMID: 26002837

New insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300; Toujeo®), recently approved for use in the United States and in Europe, has more stable and prolonged pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles compared with glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100; Lantus®).1 In clinical practice this translates into a comparable glucose-lowering effect and reduced risk of hypoglycemia.24 To deliver Gla-300, the well-known and widely used SoloSTAR® pen has been adapted, allowing accurate delivery of insulin units in one-third of the volume compared with Gla-100.

To evaluate the perceptions of people with diabetes (users; 26 with type 1 and 228 with type 2 diabetes) and health care professionals with experience in prescribing insulin pens and training insulin pen users (trainers; n = 190) about the usability of the Gla-300 SoloSTAR, we conducted an interview-based survey in France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan, comparing this device with three other commercialized disposable insulin pens: Gla-100 SoloSTAR (Sanofi, Paris, France), FlexPen® (Novo Nordisk A/S Bagsværd, Denmark), and KwikPen™ (Eli Lilly & Co, Indianapolis, IN).

Each 75-minute face-to-face interview was conducted by an independent moderator. First, participants ranked a predefined list of features in order of importance to them, before the moderator demonstrated how to use each pen. Participants then tested each pen and ranked them (first, second, third or fourth) for each predefined feature (Figure 1). Only the identity of Gla-300 SoloSTAR was masked as the survey included pen-experienced users; to avoid bias caused by familiarity with other insulin pens, ≤16% of users were experienced with any one device. Participants were not informed of the survey sponsor.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Percentage of users (n = 254) (A) and trainers (n = 190) (B) ranking each pen device in first place for each pen feature, in order of importance of pen features to the surveyed population (top is most important and bottom is least important). *P < .05 vs Gla-300 SoloSTAR. **P < .01 vs Gla-300 SoloSTAR. ***P < .001 vs Gla-300 SoloSTAR. Statistical significance estimated using two-tailed one-sample t test. Only trainers were asked to rank devices against the feature “Least time required to train in using the device.”

Both users and trainers selected the same three features as being most important (Figure 1). Of these, users and trainers ranked Gla-300 SoloSTAR first for “Easiest to inject yourself” and “Easiest to use overall” significantly more often than other pens. In addition, the percentage of users and trainers ranking Gla-300 SoloSTAR in first place for “Easiest to dial the right dose” was numerically higher than for any other pen, although these differences did not always reach statistical significance.

Gla-300 SoloSTAR was also ranked first significantly more often than the other pens when considering the feature “Least effort required to push plunger” (Figure 1). This suggests that Gla-300 SoloSTAR may benefit people with reduced hand strength, although supporting data from a laboratory-based injection-force study would be of interest. Of note, Gla-100 SoloSTAR was perceived to perform significantly better than Gla-300 SoloSTAR for “Easiest to see how much insulin is left in the pen,” as was FlexPen for “Easiest to feel and hear the dial turning.”

This interview-based survey has limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results, including the use of only a single personal interview, the unmasked nature of the survey with regards to three of the tested pens, and the use of newly developed questionnaires that have not been validated or undergone psychometric testing. Further investigation of the use of Gla-300 SoloSTAR in clinical practice, ideally by insulin-naïve people with diabetes who may be reluctant to initiate insulin therapy, would therefore be of interest.

In conclusion, these survey results are promising because an insulin device that is easy to use and inject may contribute to increased adherence to insulin therapy,5 and therefore improve glycemic management.

Acknowledgments

Editorial assistance was provided by Simon Rees of Fishawack Communications Ltd and was funded by Sanofi.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: Gla-300, insulin glargine 300 U/mL; Gla-100, insulin glargine 100 U/mL

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: DK has served on advisory panels for Google, Insuline, Lifecare, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, TempraMed, and Voluntis, has received research support from Eli Lilly, Halozyme, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk, and owns stocks/shares in TempraMed. IN has received honoraria for consultancy from Novo Nordisk. FE, AC, and CB-W are employees of Sanofi. TH has served on advisory panels for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi, Roche and Emperra, has received honoraria for consultancy from Boehringer Ingelheim, and has received research support from Sanofi, Nintamed, Eli Lilly, and Berlin Chemie AG.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This survey was sponsored by Sanofi. The Research Partnership Ltd undertook the quantitative research.

References

  • 1. Becker RHA, Dahmen R, Bergmann K, Lehmann A, Jax T, Heise T. New insulin glargine 300 units.mL−1 provides a more even activity profile and prolonged glycemic control at steady state compared with insulin glargine 100 units.mL−1. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:637-643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Riddle MC, Bolli GB, Ziemen M, Muehlen-Bartmer I, Bizet F, Home PD. New insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus glargine 100 units/mL in people with type 2 diabetes using basal and mealtime insulin: glucose control and hypoglycemia in a 6-month randomized controlled trial (EDITION 1). Diabetes Care. 2014;37:2755-2762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Yki-Järvinen H, Bergenstal RM, Ziemen M, Wardecki M, Muehlen-Bartmer I, Boelle E, Riddle MC. New insulin glargine 300 units/mL versus glargine 100 units/mL in people with type 2 diabetes using oral agents and basal insulin: glucose control and hypoglycemia in a 6-month randomized controlled trial (EDITION 2). Diabetes Care. 2014;37:3235-3243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Bolli GB, Riddle MC, Bergenstal RM, Ziemen M, Sestakauskas K, Goyeau H, et al. New insulin glargine 300 U/ml compared with glargine 100 U/ml in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes on oral glucose-lowering drugs: a randomized controlled trial (EDITION 3). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015;17:386-394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Anderson BJ, Redondo MJ. What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5:1563-1571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Diabetes Technology Society

RESOURCES