BACKGROUND: Easy-to-use insulin devices are an important tool in the treatment of diabetes. In this study, injection force requirements and dosage scale displays were evaluated for NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 (both from Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). METHODS: To simulate 5 years of expected lifetime usage, 5,475 injections were performed automatically. Before and after lifetime testing, the force required to expel 60 U of insulin from NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 with 30-gauge or 31-gauge needles was measured. To compare dosage scale displays, digital images of multiple settings were made, and the total inked areas of digits were converted to mm(2). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean +/- SD injection force of NovoPen 4 was 9.14 +/- 0.87 N and 16.55 +/- 1.17 N, which was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than for NovoPen 3, at 18.36 +/- 1.06 N and 29.81 +/- 1.26 N, with the 30-gauge and 31-gauge needle, respectively. After simulated lifetime testing, mean +/- SD injection force was 10.93 +/- 0.77 N and 17.77 +/- 1.14 N for NovoPen 4, which was significantly lower than the injection force of 18.54 +/- 0.94 N and 31.69 +/- 1.98 N for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). The mean dosage scale digit size was 1.63 mm(2) for NovoPen 3 and 7.82 mm(2) for NovoPen 4, with a mean difference of 6.19 mm(2). The display for NovoPen 4 was 4.74 times larger (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The mean injection force required to operate NovoPen 4 was reduced up to 50% compared with NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001), and the mean dosage display for NovoPen 4 was over four times larger than for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). Based on these findings, patients with diabetes who have manual or visual impairment should find it easier to dose insulin with NovoPen 4.
BACKGROUND: Easy-to-use insulin devices are an important tool in the treatment of diabetes. In this study, injection force requirements and dosage scale displays were evaluated for NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 (both from Novo Nordisk A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). METHODS: To simulate 5 years of expected lifetime usage, 5,475 injections were performed automatically. Before and after lifetime testing, the force required to expel 60 U of insulin from NovoPen 3 and NovoPen 4 with 30-gauge or 31-gauge needles was measured. To compare dosage scale displays, digital images of multiple settings were made, and the total inked areas of digits were converted to mm(2). RESULTS: At baseline, the mean +/- SD injection force of NovoPen 4 was 9.14 +/- 0.87 N and 16.55 +/- 1.17 N, which was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than for NovoPen 3, at 18.36 +/- 1.06 N and 29.81 +/- 1.26 N, with the 30-gauge and 31-gauge needle, respectively. After simulated lifetime testing, mean +/- SD injection force was 10.93 +/- 0.77 N and 17.77 +/- 1.14 N for NovoPen 4, which was significantly lower than the injection force of 18.54 +/- 0.94 N and 31.69 +/- 1.98 N for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). The mean dosage scale digit size was 1.63 mm(2) for NovoPen 3 and 7.82 mm(2) for NovoPen 4, with a mean difference of 6.19 mm(2). The display for NovoPen 4 was 4.74 times larger (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The mean injection force required to operate NovoPen 4 was reduced up to 50% compared with NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001), and the mean dosage display for NovoPen 4 was over four times larger than for NovoPen 3 (P < 0.001). Based on these findings, patients with diabetes who have manual or visual impairment should find it easier to dose insulin with NovoPen 4.