Skip to main content
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
. 2015 Feb 27;9(2):316–319. doi: 10.1177/1932296814567533

A Comparison of Glide Force Characteristics Between 2 Prefilled Insulin Lispro Pens

Tina M Rees 1,, Amanda H Lennartz 1, Debra A Ignaut 1
PMCID: PMC4604579  PMID: 25591858

Abstract

Background:

Glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability of the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) were compared to the Humalog® KwikPen® 100 units/mL pen (hereafter, KwikPen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Methods:

Data were collected on 2 doses, 2 injection speeds, and 2 needle types.

Results:

Insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen showed significantly lower maximum glide force, average glide force, and glide force variability than the KwikPen across all combinations of dose size, dose speed, and needle type.

Conclusions:

The lower glide force observed with the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen offers another treatment option for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who require greater than 20 units of mealtime insulin daily.

Keywords: average glide force, glide force, glide force variability, Humalog® KwikPen® 100 units/mL, insulin lispro 200 units/mL, insulin pen


Increasing insulin doses in patients with diabetes,1 based on rising obesity-related diseases2 and insulin resistance,3 have influenced development of concentrated insulins where the unit dose is delivered in a smaller amount of liquid. Insulin lispro 200 units/mL, presently under development, delivers an insulin dose in half the liquid volume of 100 units/mL Humalog® and if approved, will be available only in a prefilled pen containing 600 units, which dials from 1 to 60 units in single-unit increments.

Patients with diabetes often have concomitant hand impairments4-8 that can make injecting insulin challenging. As diabetes progresses, the likelihood of restricted hand joint mobility and reduced dexterity increases.7,9,10 Larger insulin doses and impaired hand joint mobility and dexterity are 2 of many factors influencing innovation in insulin pens.11,12

Glide force, the measure of effort required to depress the pen’s injection button, is influenced by the injection mechanism design,13 the inner needle diameter,14,15 temperature,16 and injection speed (hydraulic flow through the needle).17 A pen with lower glide force requiring reduced patient effort may be helpful when injecting a large dose of insulin.

The insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen has been redesigned where the internal injection screw travel is half that of the Humalog KwikPen® 100 units/mL (hereafter KwikPen; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA) pen, resulting in half the volume and volumetric flow rate for the same insulin flow rate and equivalent dose based on the concentration difference. This gives the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen twice the mechanical advantage of the KwikPen, which should reduce glide force.

We compared the glide force characteristics of the new insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen to that of the currently marketed KwikPen.

Methods

Glide force was calculated as maximum and average values. Glide force variability was defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum values of glide force in the plateau region of the force graph of a delivered dose. The maximum and average glide force and glide force variability were measured by a Zwick Linear Test System (Zwick TestXpert II Version 3.4; Ulm, Germany) with a calibrated load cell for injection force characteristics (glide force and glide force variability).

Glide force characteristics were assessed by comparing 100 insulin lispro 200 units/mL pens with 100 KwikPens at injection speeds of 9 or 6 units/s with 2 different pen needles at standard temperature (23±5°C) in accordance with International Standards Organization (ISO)11608-1:2012.18 Each pen delivered three 30-unit doses and three 60-unit doses for a total of 600 doses from each pen type. The selected injection speeds are similar to those used previously.11,13,17,19,20 Both pens were fitted with Becton Dickinson (BD) 31G/5 mm Pen Needles (Franklin Lakes, NJ). Two variations of the pen needle were used: BD Ultra-Fine 31G/5 mm Pen Needles with PentaPoint Comfort (31G, 5 mm; marketed under various brand names worldwide) and BD 31G/5 mm Pen Needles with PentaPoint Comfort & EasyFlow Technology (31G extra thin wall [XTW], 5 mm; not currently marketed in this needle gauge and length). BD pen needles with thin wall (TW) technology are marketed worldwide. XTW EasyFlow Technology is currently available on a limited set of BD pen needles but is anticipated to replace TW technology on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis. Both pen needles used in this study have the same outer diameter (ie, gauge), but 1 has a thinner inner wall and larger internal diameter, associated with significantly lower injection force characteristics.15 Based on the anticipated replacement, both pen needle types were used in this study.

During testing, a new needle was attached to each pen. The pen was primed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, then placed into the Zwick Linear Test System with a calibrated load cell. The dose was then manually dialed and ejected by the test system in accordance with written protocols. Glide force data were collected by a calibrated load cell for the injection stroke duration, and force curves were generated.

Measurements were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA) and JMP statistical software (Cary, NC). Normal quantile plots were used to evaluate data for normality. Not all data sets met the conditions for normality; therefore, all data sets were treated as nonnormal and were compared using the nonparametric, 2-sample, normal approximation median test. Summarized data are reported as medians. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

Results

The median glide force values for the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen were significantly lower than those for KwikPen across all combinations of dose size, dose speed, and needle size (P < .05; Table 1). All representative force curves in the plateau region for the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen were lower and less variable than the KwikPen across all combinations of dose size and speed (Figure 1, Supplemental Figures 1-3). The percentage decrease in the median maximum glide force from the KwikPen to the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen was similar at both dose sizes for the TW needle, ranging from 25% to 53% (6 and 9 units/s at 30 units, respectively) and 25% to 52% (6 and 9 units/s at 60 units, respectively; data not shown). The percentage decrease in the median maximum glide force for the XTW needle ranged from 4% to 30% (6 and 9 units/s at 30 units, respectively) and 3% to 30% (6 and 9 units/s at 60 units, respectively).

Table 1.

Comparison of Insulin Lispro 200 Units/mL Pen Device and Humalog KwikPen 100 Units/mL Pen Glide Force Characteristics.

6 U/s
9 U/s
Insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL Insulin lispro 200 units/mL Pen Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL
31G, 5 mm TW
30-unit maximum GF, lb 1.27a 1.69 1.26a 2.68
30-unit average GF, lb 1.21a 1.49 1.22a 2.36
30-unit GFV at plateau curve, lb 0.11a 0.58 0.09a 1.39
60-unit maximum GF, lb 1.26a 1.69 1.26a 2.65
60-unit average GF, lb 1.2a 1.51 1.21a 2.38
60-unit GFV at plateau curve, lb 0.12a 0.6 0.1a 1.43
31G, 5 mm XTW
30-unit maximum GF, lb 1.25b 1.3 1.24a 1.76
30-unit average GF, lb 1.2b 1.23 1.2a 1.6
30-unit GFV at plateau curve, lb 0.11a 0.15 0.07a 0.59
60-unit maximum GF, lb 1.26b 1.3 1.24a 1.78
60-unit average GF, lb 1.19b 1.21 1.19a 1.62
60-unit GFV at plateau curve, lb 0.13a 0.18 0.09a 0.61

GF, glide force; GFV, glide force variability; lb, pounds; TW, thin wall; U/s, units per second; XTW, extra thin wall. Insulin Lispro 200 units/mL pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA). Humalog KwikPen 100 units/mL pen (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA).

a

P < .0001.

b

P < .05.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Representative glide force plateaus for the 30-unit dose size at 9 units/s (thin wall and extra thin wall needles). lbf, pound force; TW, thin wall; XTW, extra thin wall. A standard travel of 2.0 mm to 15.0 mm was used for the 30-unit dose size glide force plateau.

Discussion

The lower volumetric flow rate of insulin delivered with the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen contributed to the observed lower glide force relative to the KwikPen.

We also observed a trend toward lower glide force based on increased internal needle diameter. The glide force of the KwikPen was numerically lower for the XTW needle than the TW needle, and a similar, but less pronounced trend was observed for the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen. As this was not a study objective, no statistical comparisons were made between needles. Needle gauge, as a function of the increased inner diameter, enables additional reductions in glide force for the same volumetric flow rate.15 While these forces are substantially below the maximal thumb push force published for various age groups (ranging from 6 to 45 pounds),21 the significant reductions may be perceivable and desirable in a device used multiple times per day.

During data analysis, we found only 74 of 75 data points were collected for the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen 60-unit dose size at 9 units/s with the TW needle. However, sufficient data existed to compare both designs.

The insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen offers another treatment option for patients with diabetes who require >20 units/day of mealtime insulin. When used as directed, taking >20 units of mealtime insulin per day ensures that the pen will be used within the in-use dating of 28 days, preventing insulin wastage or use of expired insulin. In addition, use of <20 units per day is associated with smaller doses where glide force reduction is likely to be far less perceptible to patients. As of 2012, over 60% of the US population on rapid acting insulin injects ≥20 rapid acting units a day.22

Conclusions

The insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen exhibited significantly lower glide force and less glide force variability than the KwikPen. At 30 units, the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen reduced maximum glide force by 53% with the TW needle and 30% with the XTW needle, respectively, at 9 units/s compared to the KwikPen. The 9 unit/s injection speed, considered a representative injection speed for patients, is consistent with those used in previous studies.11,13,17,19,20 The glide force characteristics of the insulin lispro 200 units/mL pen may be helpful for patients who require >20 units/day of mealtime insulin, with a particular benefit for those patients with hand impairments.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Daneen T. Angwin (Eli Lilly and Company) for reviewing the protocols, providing technical approval, and programming the test system for data collection and Eileen Girten (inVentiv Health Clinical) for writing assistance.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: BD, Becton Dickinson; ISO, International Standards Organization; TW, thin wall; XTW, extra thin wall.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TMR and DAI are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. AHL is a former employee of Eli Lilly and Company.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

References

  • 1. Rodbard H, Gough S, Lane W, Korsholm L, Bretler D-M, Handelsman Y. Reduced risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes requiring high doses of basal insulin: a meta-analysis of 5 randomized BEGIN trials. Endocr Pract. 2014;20(4):285-292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Maps of diagnosed diabetes and obesity in 1994, 2000, and 2010. Atlanta, GA: CDC’s Division of Diabetes Translation, National Diabetes Surveillance System; 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/maps_diabetesobesity94.pdf. (accessed May 8, 2014) [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kahn BB, Flier JS. Obesity and insulin resistance. J Clin Invest. 2000;106(4):473-481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Kameyama M, Meguro S, Funae O, Atsumi Y, Ikegami H. The presence of limited joint mobility is significantly associated with multiple digit involvement by stenosing flexor tenosynovitis in diabetics. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(8):1686-1690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Papanas N, Maltezos E. The diabetic hand: a forgotten complication? J Diabetes Complications. 2010;24(3):154-162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Pfützner J, Hellhammer J, Musholt P, et al. Evaluation of dexterity in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(1):158-165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Larkin ME, Barnie A, Braffett BH, et al. Musculoskeletal complications in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):1863-1869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Arkkila PE, Kantola IM, Viikar JS. Limited joint mobility in non-insulin-dependent diabetic (NIDDM) patients: correlation to control of diabetes, atherosclerotic vascular disease, and other diabetic complications. J Diabetes Complications. 1997;11(4):208-217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Lewko J, Polityńska B, Kochanowicz J, et al. Median nerve conduction impairment in patients with diabetes and its impact on patients’ perception of health condition: a quantitative study. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2013;5(1):5-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Al-Matubsi HY, Hamdan F, AlHanbali OA, Oriquat GA, Salim M. Diabetic hand syndromes as a clinical and diagnostic tool for diabetes mellitus patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2011;94(2):225-229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Pfützner A, Reimer T, Hohberg C, Frøkjær LP, Jørgensen C. Prefilled insulin device with reduced injection force: patient perception and accuracy. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(9):2545-2549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Davis EM, Sexson EL, Spangler ML, Foral PA. An evaluation of prefilled insulin pens: a focus on the Next Generation FlexPen®. Med Devices (Auckl). 2010;3:41-50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Ignaut DA, Opincar MR, Clark PE, Palaisa MK, Lenox SM. Engineering study comparing injection force and dose accuracy between two prefilled insulin injection pens. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(12):2829-2833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Pfitzner J. Poiseuille and his law. Anaesthesia. 1976;31(2):273-275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Aronson R, Gibney MA, Oza K, Bérubé J, Kassler-Taub K, Hirsch L. Insulin pen needles: effects of extra-thin wall needle technology on preference, confidence, and other patient ratings. Clin Ther. 2013;35(7):923.e4-933.e4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Alison Rohde. Demand media. Available at: http://classroom.synonym.com/changing-temperature-affect-viscosity-surface-tension-liquid-16797.html. Accessed August 1, 2014.
  • 17. van der Burg T. Injection force of SoloSTAR® compared with other disposable insulin pen devices at constant volume flow rates. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(1):150-155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. International Organization for Standardization. Needle-based injection systems for medical use—requirements and test methods—part 1: needle-based injection systems. ISO 11608-1:2012, version 1. [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Ignaut DA, Opincar M, Lenox S. FlexPen and KwikPen prefilled insulin devices: a laboratory evaluation of ergonomic and injection force characteristics. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2008;2(3):533-537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Friedrichs A, Korker V, Adler S. Injection force of reusable insulin pens: Novopen 4, Lilly Luxura, Berlipen, and ClikSTAR. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(5):1185-1190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Peebles L, Norris B. Filling “gaps” in strength data for design. Appl Ergon. 2003;34(1):73-88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. GfKs 2012 US Roper Diabetes Patient Study.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

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

RESOURCES