• Michael A Gibney, David Fitz-Patrick, David C Klonoff, Shahista Whooley, Betty Lu, Wen Yue, and Stanislav Glezer.
• Diabetes Care, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Oct 1; 36 (10): 1591-1600.

ObjectiveTwo similarly designed studies compared user experiences with a second-generation extra-thin-wall, 5-bevel 32 G × 4 mm pen needle (PN) with redesigned hub versus four thinner commercially available PNs.MethodsAdults (18-75 years old) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and ≥3 months of experience with pen injectors qualified for single-visit, single-blinded randomized studies. The investigational 32 G PN was compared with three 33-34 G × 3.5-4 mm PNs in Study 1 and one 34 G × 4 mm PN in Study 2. Participants completed 12 abdominal injections of 0.3 mL sterile saline using insulin pens in 6 pairs, each comprising one investigational 32 G PN and one comparator PN in random order. After each injection pair, participants compared injection pain via relative 150 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and perceived dose delivery force via relative 5 point Likert scale. Adjusted models tested injection pain scores (primary endpoint) for noninferiority and, if met, then for superiority. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03878758 and NCT03878745.ResultsThe investigational 32 G PN met noninferiority as well as superiority criteria for less injection pain vs. each comparator (p < .01), with adjusted mean relative VAS scores 9.1-17.6 in Study 1 (n = 154) and 7.3 in Study 2 (n = 55). The investigational 32 G PN was also superior vs. each comparator PN in requiring less relative perceived force to deliver the dose (p < .01).ConclusionsThe investigational 32 G PN was associated with less participant-reported injection pain and less perceived dose delivery force compared with four thinner PNs, suggesting no additional pain reduction or force reduction benefit conferred by the thinner PNs.

28 keywords...

hide…