Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The global burden of diabetes continues to rise, resulting in a concomitant increase in the global demand for insulin replacement therapies. Subcutaneous insulin administration using pen injectors is one of the most common insulin delivery methods; these devices are often preferred over vial and syringe administration by individuals with diabetes owing to their convenience and ease of use, and by clinicians owing to enhanced user adherence and high dose accuracy. However, prefilled insulin pen injectors are commonly made of plastic and many are disposable; consequently, both their production and use are associated with a high carbon footprint and substantial medical waste through poor recycling infrastructures, posing a growing environmental concern. Historically, producing durable insulin pen injectors required high-quality metal components, which are more environmentally taxing despite being reusable. Conversely, plastic has a lower environmental footprint per unit but conventional plastic pen injectors have lacked durability, leading to greater consumption overall. Therefore, reusable insulin pen injectors that can be used repeatedly for several years, while also being easy to use and accurate, are essential for sustainable diabetes management. Novo Nordisk has developed several insulin pen injectors, such as NovoPen (NP) 4 (a reusable pen part of the NP family), FlexTouch (a disposable pen) and, more recently, DuraTouch (DT; a reusable pen). Here, we describe the technical attributes of DT using other pen injectors manufactured by Novo Nordisk as contextual comparators to illustrate how DT may meet users’ functional needs, while helping to reduce the environmental burden associated with the use of insulin pen injectors.

Keywords

injection device insulin type 1 diabetes type 2 diabetes

Introduction

Diabetes affects an estimated 540 million individuals worldwide as of 2025, with type 2 diabetes comprising more than 90% of cases.^1,2 By 2050, the global prevalence is projected to reach 853 million.¹ Globally, an estimated 150 to 200 million individuals with diabetes rely on insulin replacement therapy.³

Subcutaneous administration methods, including vials and syringes, pen injectors and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps remain the most widely used and effective methods for insulin delivery.^4-8 While alternative insulin administration routes, such as inhaled insulin, are available and have demonstrated clinical efficacy, their uptake remains limited.^6,9,10 Moreover, despite increasing use of CSII pumps over the years, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, insulin pen injectors are widely used owing to their affordability, ease of use and low technical burden, although access may vary depending on the health care system, insurance coverage and individual needs.¹¹ In some regions, limited affordability and access to appropriate delivery devices remain barriers to optimize diabetes care, highlighting the value of cost-effective, reusable options that accommodate the needs of diverse users.^12,13 Compared with vial and syringe administration, pen injectors offer greater dosing accuracy, reduced injection pain and improved ease of use, flexibility and convenience, all of which can contribute to better treatment adherence.^4,5,14,15 This is of clinical importance because suboptimal adherence to insulin therapy is associated with poorer glycemic outcomes, increased risk of developing diabetes-related complications and greater health care resource utilization.¹⁶ Improving insulin pen injector usability may help to alleviate comfort-related barriers and support better long-term clinical outcomes¹⁶; however, the need for multiple daily injections can still pose a burden, particularly for individuals who struggle with injection force or handling pen injector devices.¹⁷

To enhance usability and support adherence, insulin pen injectors have undergone continuous development, incorporating features such as non-extending dose buttons for easier handling, larger dose displays for improved readability and lower injection force requirements to reduce injection discomfort.^17,18 Ensuring that insulin pen injectors are intuitive, comfortable to use and adaptable to individuals with varying needs and different insulin regimens is essential for optimizing glycemic management and treatment outcomes.^8,14 Importantly, these insulin pen injector features may support treatment adherence among individuals with dexterity limitations, visual impairments or cognitive challenges, highlighting the role of insulin pen injector design in supporting inclusive diabetes care.^17,18

Beyond usability, the environmental impact of insulin pen injectors is an emerging concern, particularly regarding the waste generated by disposable pen injectors. Given the rising prevalence of diabetes, efforts to minimize the environmental burden of insulin pen injectors have become a global priority.¹² Insulin pen injectors can be broadly categorized as either disposable or reusable.¹⁹ Disposable pen injectors come prefilled with insulin and are used multiple times, typically over the course of a week, before being discarded, contributing to plastic waste and carbon emissions. In contrast, reusable pen injectors are designed for long-term use with replaceable insulin cartridges, reducing medical waste (eg, volume of discarded disposable pen injectors versus discarded cartridges) and the environmental impact.¹⁷ With the number of insulin users continuing to grow worldwide,^1,2 the increasing demand for insulin pen injectors poses a long-term sustainability challenge.^20,21

Novo Nordisk introduced its first insulin pen injector in 1985 and has since developed a range of reusable and prefilled disposable insulin pen injectors with various attributes designed to meet the diverse needs of users.¹⁸ Among these, the reusable NovoPen (NP) 4 and the disposable FlexTouch (FT) serve as key predecessors to DuraTouch (DT), a reusable insulin pen injector developed to balance usability with sustainability. In this commentary, we focus on these three Novo Nordisk insulin pen injectors, summarizing their key attributes and highlighting how DT compares with its predecessors in terms of usability while also describing its potential impact on sustainability.

Comparing Key Attributes of Insulin Pen Injectors

Design and functionality of insulin pen injectors play a critical role in ensuring ease of use, dosing accuracy and adherence to insulin therapy. The key attributes of insulin pen injectors and their clinical relevance are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Attributes of Insulin Pen Injectors and Their Clinical Relevance.

Attribute	Clinical relevance
Size and weight	Smaller size and weight improves portability, providing the flexibility and convenience of administering insulin at any time, irrespective of location.¹⁷
Prefilled (disposable) or reusable	Prefilled pen injectors may be more convenient, but they have a greater environmental impact.^12,20
Insulin type	Available insulin types vary according to the insulin pen injector.
Needle gauge, length and bevel angle	These features affect the amount of force required to depress the dose button, the duration of the injection and the degree of pain and skin trauma.^17,22 Longer needles may increase the risk of intramuscular injection, resulting in erratic absorption.²³
Dose-setting mechanism	The size of the dial and its torque affect ease of use; this is particularly important for individuals with visual and/or dexterity impairment.^17,24,25 A pen injector with a low dose-setting torque requires a relatively low amount of force to set the dose, making it easier for users to adjust their insulin dosage accurately.
Dial back facility	Less wastage of insulin when resetting the dose.⁴
Maximum dose	Important to ensure that the individual’s insulin requirements can be administered as a single injection.
Dose increments	Larger dose increments may contribute to hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia in those who are sensitive to insulin.¹⁷
Force required to administer dose	This force needs to be applied throughout the entire injection, which may be difficult for younger individuals who cannot reach over the extension of the dose button and for individuals who may have impaired manual dexterity, strength or nerve function.²⁶ If the activation force is too high, it may act as a barrier to insulin therapy in those who have weak grip strength.²⁶
Injection time	This is the time taken for the pen injector to deliver the insulin dose; if this is too fast, it may cause discomfort.²⁷
End-of-dose indicator	Helps to increase individuals’ confidence that the correct insulin dose has been administered.¹⁷
Dosing accuracy	Dose accuracy is of critical importance, given the narrow therapeutic index of insulin.¹⁷ Lack of precision contributes to reduced glycemic control and greater risk of hypoglycemia.⁵
Memory function (storage and display of information on insulin doses)	Particularly useful for people with cognitive impairment or those with a lack of engagement in diabetes management due to the complexity of dosing regimens.²⁸
Technology integration with smart phone apps	Integration with other data (eg, continuous glucose monitoring) may improve clinical decision-making and facilitate proactive, individualized management of diabetes.²⁹

Several surveys conducted among individuals with diabetes showed that insulin pen injectors should be simple to use, easy to learn and teach, and provide fast injections with minimal pain.^30-33 In addition, studies have highlighted the importance of accurate and reliable insulin delivery, as well as minimal physical effort during dose administration.^{17,24,25,28,30,33} The force required to administer a dose is another key factor because excessive force may discourage proper use of insulin pen injectors.²⁴ Furthermore, the dose-setting mechanism, dial torque and injection time influence usability, particularly for individuals requiring high-dose insulin regimens.^17,25 To ensure consistent insulin delivery and usability, international regulatory bodies have established strict performance criteria.²³ The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 11608-1 defines requirements for needle-based injection systems, including insulin pen injectors, covering aspects such as dose accuracy across different conditions and mechanical robustness.²³ Beyond usability, the choice of insulin pen injector should be tailored to individual needs, considering self-management capabilities, insulin type and dose requirements.¹⁷ A well-designed insulin pen injector should accommodate a range of user preferences, ensuring ease of use across diverse populations.¹⁷ For example, the Novo Nordisk insulin pen injectors differ in design and have varying attributes that influence their suitability for different users.¹⁸ Insulin pen injector design differences, when integrated as part of a tailored treatment approach, can influence clinical outcomes by affecting how confidently and consistently individuals administer their insulin doses.¹⁸ Choosing a device suited to an individual’s dexterity, vision and dosing needs may support individuals with achieving glycemic control.^34,35

In addition to the Novo Nordisk reusable pen injectors, other reusable insulin pen injectors are available, including AllStar (Sanofi, Paris, France), TouStar (Sanofi) and HumaPen (Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, USA), which offer alternative design features, for example, differing maximum doses, total capacity and device mass, and may meet different user needs.^4,36 While detailed data for comparative assessments with DT were not available for these devices at the time of writing, their availability highlights the range of reusable insulin pen injector options currently on the market.

NP 4

NP 4 (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), introduced in 2005, is a widely used reusable pen injector comprising a disposable insulin cartridge and a syringe in a single device, capable of administering insulin doses up to 60 U in 1 U increments (Figure 1a).^19,37 It was designed to incorporate a number of features intended to improve the user experience compared with that of earlier pen injectors in the NP family, including a larger (more than four times) dose scale to improve ease of reading, a reduced injection force (~50%), compatibility with a range of needles (eg, NovoFine [NF] and NovoTwist [NT] single-use needles) and an audible end-of-dose click.³⁸ The dosing accuracy of NP 4 was evaluated across a range of conditions, including different insulin doses, temperature extremes, high humidity and mechanical stress.³⁹ In addition, its long-term accuracy was tested over 5475 simulated injections, equivalent to three daily injections for five years.³⁹ Across all conditions, NP 4 fulfilled the ISO 11608-1 requirements for needle-based injection systems, demonstrating consistent dosing accuracy (Table 2),^23,39 and remains compliant with the current standard.

Figure 1.

(a) NP 4, (b) FT, and (c) DT pen injectors.

Table 2.

Key Attributes of DT, FT and NP 4.

Attributes	NP 4	FT	DT
Length (weight)	17 cm(47 g)	15.6 cm(33 g)^a	16.7 cm(29 g)^b
Composition materials	Metal and plastic	Metal and plastic	Metal and plastic
Prefilled (disposable) or reusable	Reusable³⁷	Disposable⁴⁰	Reusable
Insulin type	PF: aspart, degludec, degludec/aspart (70/30), detemir, faster aspart, NPH, Novomix 30	Aspart, degludec, degludec/aspart, degludec/liraglutide, icodec, faster aspart⁴⁰	PF: aspart, degludec, degludec/aspart (70/30), detemir, faster aspart, NPH, Novomix 30
Needle gauge, length and bevel angle	Compatible with PF cartridge (3 mL) and NF and NT single-use disposable needles up to 8 mm in length³⁷	Compatible with NF Plusand NT single-use disposable needles up to 8 mm in length	Compatible with PF cartridge (3 mL) and NF and NT single-use disposable needles up to 8 mm in length
Dose-setting mechanism^c	Dose-setting dial torque, 0.37 ± 0.02 kgf•cm,²⁵ which is approximately equal to 36.29 N/mm	Dose-dialing torque, up-dialing 75.7 N/mm, down-dialing 59.45 N/mm²⁴	Dose-setting torque, 44.4-49.3 N/mm⁴¹
Maximum dose	60 U³⁷	80 U⁴⁰	80 U
Dose increments	1 U³⁷	1 U⁴⁰	1 U
Type of injection mechanism	Manual injection by applying pressure to the extended push button; no battery required	Spring-loaded injection mechanism; no battery required	Spring-loaded injection mechanism; no battery required
Activation force required to administer dose	6.9 N⁴²	5.33-5.94 N²⁶	3.91-4.31 N⁴¹
End-of-dose indicator	Audible click³⁷	Audible click⁴⁰	No audible click
Dosing accuracy	Meets ISO requirements³⁹	Meets ISO requirements.^15,27,43	Meets ISO requirements

Weight includes the integrated PF cartridge (approximate weight 5-10 g). ^bWeight excludes the cartridge. ^cThe studies referenced use different units to define dose-setting torque; the correct unit depends on the context and/or preference of the manufacturer. Both units are valid and can be converted between each other (1 kgf•cm is approximately equal to 98.07 N•mm).

Abbreviations: aspart, insulin aspart; degludec, insulin degludec; detemir, insulin detemir; DT, DuraTouch; FT, FlexTouch; icodec, insulin icodec; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; NF, NovoFine; NP, NovoPen; NPH, neutral protamine hagedorn; NT, NovoTwist; PF, PenFill.

FT

FT (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (Figure 1b), introduced in 2011, is a disposable insulin pen injector designed to enhance user-friendliness. It delivers insulin doses up to 80 U in 1 U increments.⁴⁰ It shares several attributes with NP 4, such as ease of handling, compatibility with a range of needles (eg, NF and NT single-use needles) and accurate dosing, as well as an audible end-of-dose click. In addition, FT incorporates a non-extending dose button, reducing the required injection force, a design particularly beneficial for individuals who might struggle with the force needed to use traditional insulin pen injectors.^15,19,26 FT uses an internal spring mechanism to preload the activation force when the dose is set, which is released when the dose button is pressed.²⁶ Testing showed that the activation force remained low (5-6 N) across different insulin formulations, needle specifications and temperatures.²⁶ Dosing accuracy was evaluated under ISO 11608-1 guidelines, similar to NP 4, demonstrating precision across low (1 U), mid-range (40 U) and high (80 U) doses within the acceptable limits (Table 2).^15,23,27,43

DT

DT (Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) (Figure 1c) is a reusable insulin pen injector that was recently designed to combine and optimize several user-friendly design features from FT and NP 4. The key attributes of DT, NP 4 and FT are summarized and compared in Table 2.

DT can deliver insulin doses up to 80 U (in incremental steps of 1 U), which is in line with the dosing enabled by FT but in contrast to NP 4, which has an upper dose limit of 60 U.³⁷ This higher dosing capacity may help to address the need for higher insulin doses. DT is also compatible with a range of needles (eg, NF and NT single-use needles). The dosing accuracy and robustness of DT were evaluated in line with ISO 11608-1²³ across a range of insulin doses, environmental conditions and storage conditions demonstrating compliance with ISO-defined acceptance limits. Reported values were either better than or comparable to those previously obtained for NP 4³⁹ and FT.^15,27,41,43 The ability to accommodate higher insulin doses without the need for multiple injections or complex dose splitting may allow for more seamless integration into an individual’s daily routine, thereby potentially reducing treatment burden and supporting adherence.

Beyond offering consistently high dose accuracy, DT incorporates several design enhancements aimed at improving usability. Building upon the features of NP 4 and FT, DT incorporates an easy-to-read dose scale and a non-extending dose button that requires a lower activation force (mean activation force range: 3.9-4.3 N) than NP 4 (mean activation force 6.9 N).⁴² Further assessments were conducted to evaluate user handling after DT was exposed to various storage conditions. These assessments examined factors such as dose-setting torque, hold force and injection time to ensure consistent performance. Across all tested conditions, DT maintained stable operation, with no substantial deviations in performance parameters, suggesting that the device remains easy to use even after exposure to environmental stressors. The low activation force and stable dose-setting mechanism may be particularly beneficial for individuals with manual dexterity challenges. A handling and usability study that assessed 100 participants with and without prior injector pen experience reported that 85% of participants found DT very easy or extremely easy to use, and 87% of participants found DT easy or very easy to learn how to use.⁴⁴ These findings suggest that DT may be well accepted by users with varying levels of injector pen injector experience, potentially facilitating ease of adoption and supporting user confidence in insulin administration.

Affordability and accessibility are also considerations for global adoption of insulin pen injectors, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.¹³ While cost structures and prescribing practices vary across health care systems, UK-based research has shown that reusable pen injectors are generally cost-neutral or less expensive over time than prefilled pen injectors due to their cartridge-based design.^20,21 These features, along with the usability and sustainability benefits (discussed below) may support broader access and scalability across diverse health care settings.^12,21

Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Insulin Pen Injectors: Potential Role in Sustainability

The rising global prevalence of diabetes and growing use of disposable delivery devices for diabetes medications have contributed to the environmental burden of medical waste, particularly from insulin pen injectors.¹² It has been estimated that hundreds of millions of individuals with diabetes use disposable delivery devices daily, generating large volumes of medical waste globally.¹² For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina alone, an estimated 3.2 million insulin pen injectors were discarded in 2020, generating over 600 tons of waste.⁴⁵ As insulin pen injector use continues to rise, reducing medical waste is a growing priority, particularly because regulatory bodies in Europe and the United States are introducing sustainability policies for medical devices.¹² In the United Kingdom, health care contributes to approximately 5% of the national carbon footprint, with 20% of the footprint of the National Health Service (NHS) arising from medicines and chemicals, and 10% from medical equipment.²¹ From a clinical standpoint, choosing an insulin pen injector that balances usability with sustainability may support better adherence, reduce environmental burden and align with health care system priorities.

A key factor influencing the environmental impact of insulin pen injectors is device reusability. Reusable pen injectors help to reduce plastic waste and carbon emissions by limiting the disposal frequency of the device itself, although cartridges still require regular replacement.^17,20 Historically, the production of durable reusable insulin pen injectors has relied on high-quality metal components to ensure long-term performance, but this comes with a higher environmental cost due to the energy-intensive nature of metal manufacturing.⁴⁶ In contrast, while plastic has a lower environmental footprint per unit of material, conventional plastic insulin pen injectors have typically been less durable and used in much higher quantities.¹⁸ This is exemplified by the NP family, which has featured durable metal components since its introduction in 1985. DT was developed to overcome this trade-off by using recyclable plastic in a robust design that maintains long-term usability and offers the combined benefits of durability and reduced environmental impact.⁴¹

While some disposable pen injectors can be recycled, the success of such efforts depends on manufacturer-provided composition details and access to specialized recycling programs.¹² In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have introduced recycling initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of disposable pen injectors, but these efforts remain limited to a small number of countries.^47,48 Expanding these initiatives and transitioning to reusable insulin pen injectors are essential for reducing the environmental footprint of insulin therapy. This aligns with broader sustainability goals outlined by the NHS and supported by the Sustainable Markets Initiative, which highlight the importance of cross-industry collaboration and product-level interventions to decarbonize care pathways, including those for diabetes.²¹ Carbon emission reduction is important for both environmental sustainability and the protection of population health, including that of individuals with diabetes.²¹

An analysis of UK prescribing data from 2021 to 2023 investigated the potential waste reduction from switching to reusable insulin pen injectors.²⁰ In a life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis, reusable insulin pen injectors were assumed to be used for three years based on manufacturer warranties and environmental impacts were calculated across a range of daily insulin doses (20-100 U).²⁰ It was estimated that, as well as reducing annual NHS insulin prescribing costs, switching to reusable pen injectors would save 67.6 tons of plastic waste and 406.2 tons of CO₂ equivalent.²⁰ Growing awareness among individuals with diabetes regarding the environmental impact of insulin delivery devices may further accelerate the adoption of reusable pen injectors as a more sustainable alternative to disposable options.¹² Reusable insulin pen injector use, along with responsible prescribing and waste-reduction strategies, has been identified as a practical and impactful intervention for lowering carbon emissions in diabetes care.²⁰ Health care professionals and systems are increasingly encouraged to consider environmental sustainability when making prescribing decisions, with reusable insulin pen injectors recognized as an actionable step toward greener diabetes care.²¹

DT was designed with sustainability in mind, offering a longer in-use time (up to two years) compared with disposable alternatives, but a shorter in-use time than NP 4, which has an in-use time of up to five years.⁴⁹ Compared with NP 4, DT is primarily made from well-characterized plastic compounds, selected for their durability and recyclability, reflecting a trade-off between a shorter in-use time of DT versus NP 4 and a lower environmental impact. An LCA, conducted by Novo Nordisk using previously described methods,^20,41 was used to assess the environmental and carbon footprint of DT. The analysis was performed in accordance with ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006 guidance for pharmaceutical products and medical devices and was based on a defined daily dose of 40 U of insulin and an assumed device use time of two years. As DT was not in full-scale production at the time of assessment, proxy data from FT (collected in 2022) were used for energy consumption and distribution estimates.⁴¹ It should be noted that the environmental impact of reusable versus prefilled insulin pen injectors depends on contextual factors such as return rates, usage duration and disposal methods.²⁰ The LCA estimated that the total carbon footprint of DT is 0.538 kg of CO₂ equivalents per pen injector over its full life cycle in the European Union, 0.953 kg of CO₂ equivalents per device in the United States and 0.482 kg of CO₂ equivalents per device in Japan.⁴¹ The primary contributors to this footprint are raw materials and distribution, which together account for over 80% of total emissions.⁴¹ The plastic footprint for DT, including Penfill (PF) consumption with NF needles was 0.12 kg of plastic per year excluding packaging and 0.47 kg of plastic per year including packaging; the footprint for DT excluding PF consumption was 0.012 kg of plastic per year.⁴¹ This is lower than the plastic footprint for FT, which was 1.01 kg of plastic per year excluding packaging and 1.32 kg of plastic per year including packaging.

An LCA study assessed NP 4, including the PF cartridge and needle, estimating a carbon footprint of approximately 6 to 12 kg of CO₂ equivalents per year, or 0.017 to 0.033 kg of CO₂ equivalents per day.⁴⁹ The plastic footprint for NP 4 was approximately 0.14 kg of plastic per patient per year, increasing to 0.47 to 0.53 kg when packaging was included.⁴⁹ While NP 4 is a durable and reusable device with an in-use time of up to five years, its estimated full device life cycle carbon footprint (over five years) is approximately 12.5 to 16.5 kg of CO₂ equivalents per device,⁴⁹ which is higher than that of DT (0.482-0.953 kg of CO₂ equivalents per device).⁴¹ This higher footprint is likely attributable, in part, to the greater use of metal components in NP 4, which require more energy-intensive manufacturing processes than plastic. Therefore, DT may offer a more balanced solution in terms of both sustainability and usability. As the adoption of reusable insulin pen injectors increase, transitioning to sustainable insulin delivery solutions, such as DT, will likely be beneficial for reducing medical waste and carbon emissions.

Summary

Given the narrow therapeutic range of insulin, precise dosing is critical in terms of optimizing glycemic control and reducing the risk of hypoglycemia.¹⁷ DT has been designed to combine the key user-friendly attributes of FT with the high durability profile of NP 4. DT also delivers consistent and accurate insulin doses, meeting industry standards across its intended dose range under conditions that reflect and exceed those under which it is likely to be used. The pressure required to administer the insulin dose has been further reduced for DT in comparison to that reported for both NP 4 and FT, further increasing ease of use, demonstrated in usability testing, particularly for individuals with poor hand strength or low manual dexterity. As the prevalence of diabetes (and therefore insulin pen injector use) continues to increase worldwide and global environmental considerations become increasingly important, there is greater focus on reducing the environmental impact of devices used to manage diabetes.²¹ The introduction of DT may be an important advancement in insulin delivery by integrating usability and sustainability considerations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Medical writing support was provided by Samuel Bestall, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK.

Abbreviations

CSII, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; LCA, life cycle assessment; NHS, National Health Service.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: All authors are employees of and own shares in Novo Nordisk A/S.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Medical writing support was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

ORCID iDs

Anya Sonia Wernersson

Thomas Sparre

References

International Diabetes Federation. About diabetes 2024. https://idf.org/about-diabetes/. Accessed September, 2024.

Ong

Stafford

McLaughlin

, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2023;402(10397):203-234. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6

Garg

Rewers

Akturk

HK.

Ever-increasing insulin-requiring patients globally. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2018;20(S2):S21-S24. doi: 10.1089/dia.2018.0101

Kesavadev

Saboo

Krishna

Krishnan

Evolution of insulin delivery devices: from syringes, pens, and pumps to DIY artificial pancreas. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(6):1251-1269. doi: 10.1007/s13300-020-00831-z

Aanstoot

Rodriguez

Weinzimer

Vint

Koeneman

Precision dosing of rapid-acting insulin matters. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2020;22(5):346-351. doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0374

Shah

Patel

Maahs

Shah

VN.

Insulin delivery methods: past, present and future. Int J Pharm Investig. 2016;6(1):1-9. doi: 10.4103/2230-973x.176456

Donnor

Sarkar

. Insulin-pharmacology, therapeutic regimens and principles of intensive insulin therapy. In: Feingold

Anawalt

Blackman

, et al., eds. Endotext. South Dartmouth, MA: MDText.com, Inc.; 2000.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of care in diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2023;47(Suppl_1):S158-S178. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S009

Oleck

Kassam

Goldman

JD.

Commentary: why was inhaled insulin a failure in the market. Diabetes Spectr. 2016;29(3):180-184. doi: 10.2337/diaspect.29.3.180

10.

Hirsch

Beck

Marak

, et al. A randomized comparison of postprandial glucose excursion using inhaled insulin versus rapid-acting analog insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily injections of insulin or automated insulin delivery. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(9):1682-1687. doi: 10.2337/dc24-0838

11.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of care in diabetes—2025. Diabetes Care. 2024;48(Suppl_1):S146-S166. doi: 10.2337/dc25-S007

12.

Heinemann

Klonoff

DC.

Diabetes technology and waste: a complex story. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(6):1381-1384. doi: 10.1177/19322968211022321

13.

Klatman

Ogle

GD.

Access to insulin delivery devices and glycated haemoglobin in lower-income countries. World J Diabetes. 2020;11(8):358. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v11.i8.358

14.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of care in diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(Suppl. 1):S126-S144. doi: 10.2337/dc24-S007

15.

Wielandt

Niemeyer

Hansen

Bucher

Thomsen

NB.

FlexTouch: a prefilled insulin pen with a novel injection mechanism with consistent high accuracy at low- (1 U), medium- (40 U), and high- (80 U) dose settings. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(5):1195-1199. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500525

16.

Polonsky

Henry

RR.

Poor medication adherence in type 2 diabetes: recognizing the scope of the problem and its key contributors. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016;10:1299-1307. doi: 10.2147/ppa.S106821

17.

Sparre

Hammershøy

Steensgaard

Sturis

Vikkelsøe

Azzarello

Factors affecting performance of insulin pen injector technology: a narrative review. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2023;17(2):290-301. doi: 10.1177/19322968221145201

18.

Sparre

Hansen

Wernersson

Guarraia

Development of an insulin pen is a patient-centric multidisciplinary undertaking: a commentary. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16(3):617-622. doi: 10.1177/19322968211058707

19.

Masierek

Nabrdalik

Janota

Kwiendacz

Macherski

Gumprecht

The review of insulin pens—past, present, and look to the future. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.827484

20.

Simpson

Jones

Switching to reusable cartridge insulin pens can reduce National Health Service costs while delivering environmental benefits. Diabet Med. 2024;41(10):e15409. doi: 10.1111/dme.15409

21.

Puttanna

Sustainability in diabetes care: building an environment for change. British J Diabetes. 2024;24(2):147-151.

22.

Leonardi

Viganò

Nicolucci

Penetration force and cannula sliding profiles of different pen needles: the PICASSO study. Med Devices (Auckl). 2019;12:311-317. doi: 10.2147/mder.S218983

23.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11608-1:2022: Needle-based injection systems for medical use — requirements and test methods. Part 1: Needle-based injection systems 2022. https://www.iso.org/standard/70733.html. Accessed September, 2024.

24.

Friedrichs

Schmitz

Kamlot

Adler

Dialing torque preferences of people with diabetes when using insulin pens: a pilot study. Diabetes Ther. 2015;6(1):85-93. doi: 10.1007/s13300-015-0097-z

25.

Asakura

Comparison of clinically relevant technical attributes of five insulin injection pens. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(5):1203-1209. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500527

26.

Gudiksen

Hofstätter

Rønn

Sparre

FlexTouch: an insulin pen-injector with a low activation force across different insulin formulations, needle technologies, and temperature conditions. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(10):603-607. doi: 10.1089/dia.2017.0121

27.

Bohnet

Schmitz

Kamlot

Abdel-Tawab

Dosing accuracy and insulin flow rate characteristics of a new disposable insulin pen, FlexTouch, compared with SoloSTAR. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):1021-1026. doi: 10.1177/193229681300700426

28.

Daly

Hovorka

Technology in the management of type 2 diabetes: present status and future prospects. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(8):1722-1732. doi: 10.1111/dom.14418

29.

Cranston

Jamdade

Liao

Newson

RS.

Clinical, economic, and patient-reported benefits of connected insulin pen systems: a systematic literature review. Adv Ther. 2023;40(5):2015-2037. doi: 10.1007/s12325-023-02478-1

30.

Toscano

Brice

Alfaro

Usage and perceptions of pen injectors for diabetes management: a survey of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(3):686-694. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600325

31.

Matza

Boye

Stewart

, et al. Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: a crossover study (PREFER). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(3):355-364. doi: 10.1111/dom.13902

32.

Campos

Lajara

Deluzio

Usability and preference assessment of a new prefilled insulin pen versus vial and syringe in people with diabetes, physicians and nurses. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2012;13(13):1837-1846. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2012.713350

33.

Boye

Jordan

Malik

Currie

Matza

LS.

Patient perceptions of and preferences between characteristics of injectable diabetes treatments. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(9):2387-2403. doi: 10.1007/s13300-021-01097-9

34.

Yang

Chi

Zhu

Insulin delivery devices in diabetes management: applications and advancements. Intell Pharm. 2025;3(3);235-242. doi: 10.1016/j.ipha.2025.02.002

35.

Heinemann

Drossel

Freckmann

Kulzer

Usability of medical devices for patients with diabetes who are visually impaired or blind. J Diabetes Sci Techno. 2016;10(6):1382-1387. doi: 10.1177/1932296816666536

36.

Veasey

Ruf

Bogatirsky

, et al. A review of reusable insulin pens and features of TouStar-a new reusable pen with a dedicated cartridge. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2021;13(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s13098-021-00763-z

37.

Novo Nordisk. NovoPen^® 4 2024. https://www.novonordisk.com/our-products/pens-and-needles/novopen-4.html#. Accessed September, 2024.

38.

Sommavilla

Pietranera

A randomized, open-label, comparative crossover handling trial between two durable pens in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(5):1212-1221. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500529

39.

Kristensen

Donsmark

Dose accuracy and durability of the NovoPen 4 insulin delivery device before and after simulation of 5 years of use and under various stress conditions. Clin Ther. 2009;31(12):2819-2823. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.12.005

40.

Novo Nordisk. FlexTouch^® 2024. Available from: https://www.novonordisk.com/our-products/pens-and-needles/flextouch.html. Accessed October, 2024.

41.

Wernersson

Akhtar

Frøhling

, et al. Dosing accuracy characteristics of DuraTouch^®: a reusable insulin pen injector [published online ahead of print October 22, 2025]. Diabetes Tech Obes Med. doi: 10.1177/29986702251388645

42.

Friedrichs

Korger

Adler

Injection force of reusable insulin pens: Novopen 4, Lilly Luxura, Berlipen, and ClikSTAR. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(5):1185-1190. doi: 10.1177/193229681100500523

43.

Abdel-Tawab

Schmitz

Kamlot

Schubert-Zsilavecz

Dosing accuracy of two disposable insulin pens according to new ISO 11608-1: 2012 requirements. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015;10(1):157-161. doi: 10.1177/1932296815595983

44.

Akhtar

Wernersson

Berg

, et al. Ease of use of the reusable DuraTouch pen injector in individuals with diabetes with and without previous pen injector experience: a handling study [published online ahead of print July 29, 2025]. Diabetes Technol Ther. doi: 10.1177/15209156251363465

45.

Catic

Gojak

Djekic

Disposal of used pens and needles from diabetes patients perspective. Mater Sociomed. 2020;32(4):267-270. doi: 10.5455/msm.2020.32.267-270

46.

Strezov

Zhou

Evans

TJ.

Life cycle impact assessment of metal production industries in Australia. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):10116. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89567-9

47.

Novo Nordisk. Welcome to the home of PenCycle^®, the pre-filled Novo Nordisk pen recycling initiative 2024. https://www.pen-cycle.co.uk/. Accessed September, 2024.

48.

Sanofi. Pilot take-back programs for insulin pens launched in 2 European countries 2023. https://www.sanofi.com/en/investors/environment-social-governance/latest-news/pilot-take-back-programs-for-insulin-pens-launched-in-2-european-countries. Accessed September, 2024.

49.

Novo

Nordisk

. NovoPen^® 4 incl. Penfill^® and needle product carbon footprint version 3.2 2023. https://www.novonordisk.com/content/dam/nncorp/global/en/sustainable-business/pdfs/esg-portal/lca/product-carbon-footprint-novopen4.pdf. Accessed January, 2025.

Key Attributes of a Reusable Insulin Pen Injector That Balances Optimal Insulin Delivery With Sustainability

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Comparing Key Attributes of Insulin Pen Injectors

NP 4

FT

DT

Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Insulin Pen Injectors: Potential Role in Sustainability

Summary

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References