改用可重复使用的盒装胰岛素笔可以降低国民健康服务成本,同时带来环境效益。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Vincent Simpson, Angus Jones
{"title":"改用可重复使用的盒装胰岛素笔可以降低国民健康服务成本,同时带来环境效益。","authors":"Vincent Simpson,&nbsp;Angus Jones","doi":"10.1111/dme.15409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The climate crisis is a risk to health globally and reducing carbon emissions is a priority for the UK and other nations.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The NHS is the largest public sector contributor to England's national carbon footprint, accounting for 4% of England's total carbon footprint.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In response, the NHS committed to achieve net zero by 2045.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Within the NHS, pharmaceuticals account for an estimated 25% of emissions.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Despite pharmaceuticals' significant contributions, no national guidelines exist to help clinicians and patients make informed, sustainable decisions.</p><p>7% of England's population has been diagnosed with diabetes.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Insulin is the only licenced medication for individuals with type 1 diabetes and is often needed to control glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> Most of those administering insulin use an insulin pen, either a disposable pen that is fully replaced when insulin is exhausted, or a reusable cartridge pen that can last for several years. In the UK, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi currently offer recycling of their disposable insulin pens.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> However, the number of disposable insulin pens returned for recycling is unclear. Current guidelines do not advise on the insulin delivery system clinicians should use. We aimed to assess the current number of disposable insulin pens prescribed in England compared to cartridge insulin (requiring a reusable cartridge pen) and compare differences in plastic waste, carbon footprint (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) and prescribing cost to the NHS.</p><p>To compare the environmental impact of disposable and reusable insulin pens, we contacted all major manufacturers (Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company and Sanofi) of insulin in England for data on their products, including the quantity of plastic and life cycle assessments (LCA). Novo Nordisk provided plastic content data and LCA of their insulin products.<span><sup>8-10</sup></span> Sanofi provided data on plastic content only, therefore, carbon footprint could not be calculated. Eli Lilly and Company could not provide any data on their products, so only data on cost impacts are presented. LCA data provided by Novo Nordisk were calculated by adding the greenhouse gas contributions from the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), device, cartridge and needle.<span><sup>8-10</sup></span> Plastic weight is presented in kilograms (kg) and LCA as CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>eq). To assess the cost of disposable and reusable pens to England's National Health Service (NHS) we obtained NHS indicative prices (in pound sterling, £) of insulin products from the British National Formulary (BNF).<span><sup>11</sup></span> We used this information to calculate the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint difference per prescription between disposable and the equivalent cartridge insulin. To quantify the current impact and potential savings of switching to cartridge insulin, we averaged the frequency of disposable insulin prescriptions from OpenPrescribing over 36 months (January 2021 to December 2023) in England to give an average annual prescription frequency.<span><sup>12</sup></span> We used average annual prescription frequency data to calculate the potential difference in annual plastic waste and carbon footprint between switching all disposable insulin prescriptions to cartridge insulin in England.</p><p>To compare the cost difference of switching everyone in England who currently uses a disposable insulin pen to cartridge insulin, we used the average annual disposable insulin prescriptions' frequency multiplied by the cost. The total average annual disposable insulin price was subtracted by the equivalent cost of cartridge insulin to give a difference for switching. Lastly, to calculate the additional cost of the reusable pen, we multiplied the current prescription frequency of reusable pens by their cost and added the total to the switching difference. All analysis of NHS cost is presented with and without accounting for replacing reusable insulin pens as the manufacturer often supplies the reusable pens free of charge. To explore the impact of the average total daily dose, which will influence both the cost and environmental impact of switching from disposable to reusable insulin pens, we calculated the environmental and cost impact of switching from disposable pens to cartridges based on average total daily doses of 20, 40 and 100 units. We averaged the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint of the reusable cartridge pen over 3 years to analyse the total daily dose. We assumed pens were prescribed every 3 years based on manufacturer warranties.<span><sup>13-15</sup></span> Only disposable insulin pens with a cartridge pen equivalent were included in this analysis.</p><p>Over the 36 months from January 2021 to December 2023, 13,189,131 disposable insulin pens (72.5% (13,189,131/18,191,050) of total insulin prescriptions) were prescribed (total prescriptions cost to the NHS £28,614,282.75).</p><p>For Sanofi and Novo Nordisk products, 84–95% of plastic would be saved (annual average plastic saving 57.5 tonnes). Carbon footprint would be reduced by 40% for Novo Nordisk products (annual average carbon footprint saving 264.6 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>e). The NHS cost of rapid-acting insulin cartridges is £0.32–0.46 cheaper per cartridge than the equivalent disposable insulin pen. By switching every disposable insulin prescription to an equivalent reusable cartridge insulin pen, based on average prescribing frequency between 2021 and 2023 as described above, calculated annual NHS insulin cost would be reduced by 5.4% (average annual total saving £1.57 million) without accounting for the cost of reusable pens and 2.6% (annual total saving £0.75 million) if average annual reusable insulin pen prescription rates are included.</p><p>By switching an individual using a total daily dose of 40 units of rapid-acting (NovoRapid™, Fiasp™ or TruRapi™) via a disposable insulin pen to the equivalent cartridge insulin, annual insulin cost would be reduced by £15.58–22.30 and plastic waste per patient would be reduced by 0.73–0.83 kg (Table 1). Assuming the NHS purchases the pen, this would take 0.63–0.83 years of use to become cost-neutral and average cost savings annually, with three yearly pen replacements, would be £7.25–13.35. Every individual that switched NovoRapid™ and Fiasp™ FlexTouch™ or FlexPen™ to Penfil™ would reduce the carbon footprint by 4.5 kgCO<sub>2</sub>eq over the same period. Environmental benefits and cost reduction with reusable pens were substantially higher at higher insulin doses. However, costs for most insulin types were reduced even at a low total daily dose of 20 units (Table 1).</p><p>Our findings demonstrate that reusable cartridge insulin pens reduce plastic waste carbon footprint and are often cheaper than disposable insulin pens. Transitioning to reusable insulin pens as the default option could yield substantial benefits. Assuming that benefits are similar for manufacturers unable to provide information to those that do, the annual saving based on recent England NHS prescribing patterns would be 67.6 tonnes of plastic waste and 406.2 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>e. For patients, cartridge insulin offers the advantage of taking less fridge space, and reusable pens include additional functions such as recording dose timing and connecting to bolus calculators. However, individual dexterity and patient choice should be considered when prescribing insulin pen type. A limitation of our results is that we did not include insulin pumps, which are increasingly used in individuals living with T1D. However, most individuals will continue to use insulin pens. Another limitation is that we could not compare the environmental impact of switching to biosimilar insulins, which are often cheaper. Switching to a more sustainable model of diabetes care has significant challenges. However, in this case, changes to prescribing behaviour are likely to result in meaningfully reduced costs while having clear environmental benefits.</p><p>In conclusion, this study highlights the pressing need to shift towards reusable cartridge insulin pens within the NHS, emphasising their benefits of cost-efficiency and environmental sustainability.</p><p>This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":11251,"journal":{"name":"Diabetic Medicine","volume":"41 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dme.15409","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Switching to reusable cartridge insulin pens can reduce National Health Service costs while delivering environmental benefits\",\"authors\":\"Vincent Simpson,&nbsp;Angus Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dme.15409\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The climate crisis is a risk to health globally and reducing carbon emissions is a priority for the UK and other nations.<span><sup>1</sup></span> The NHS is the largest public sector contributor to England's national carbon footprint, accounting for 4% of England's total carbon footprint.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In response, the NHS committed to achieve net zero by 2045.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Within the NHS, pharmaceuticals account for an estimated 25% of emissions.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Despite pharmaceuticals' significant contributions, no national guidelines exist to help clinicians and patients make informed, sustainable decisions.</p><p>7% of England's population has been diagnosed with diabetes.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Insulin is the only licenced medication for individuals with type 1 diabetes and is often needed to control glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes.<span><sup>4, 5</sup></span> Most of those administering insulin use an insulin pen, either a disposable pen that is fully replaced when insulin is exhausted, or a reusable cartridge pen that can last for several years. In the UK, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi currently offer recycling of their disposable insulin pens.<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> However, the number of disposable insulin pens returned for recycling is unclear. Current guidelines do not advise on the insulin delivery system clinicians should use. We aimed to assess the current number of disposable insulin pens prescribed in England compared to cartridge insulin (requiring a reusable cartridge pen) and compare differences in plastic waste, carbon footprint (CO<sub>2</sub>eq) and prescribing cost to the NHS.</p><p>To compare the environmental impact of disposable and reusable insulin pens, we contacted all major manufacturers (Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company and Sanofi) of insulin in England for data on their products, including the quantity of plastic and life cycle assessments (LCA). Novo Nordisk provided plastic content data and LCA of their insulin products.<span><sup>8-10</sup></span> Sanofi provided data on plastic content only, therefore, carbon footprint could not be calculated. Eli Lilly and Company could not provide any data on their products, so only data on cost impacts are presented. LCA data provided by Novo Nordisk were calculated by adding the greenhouse gas contributions from the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), device, cartridge and needle.<span><sup>8-10</sup></span> Plastic weight is presented in kilograms (kg) and LCA as CO<sub>2</sub> equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>eq). To assess the cost of disposable and reusable pens to England's National Health Service (NHS) we obtained NHS indicative prices (in pound sterling, £) of insulin products from the British National Formulary (BNF).<span><sup>11</sup></span> We used this information to calculate the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint difference per prescription between disposable and the equivalent cartridge insulin. To quantify the current impact and potential savings of switching to cartridge insulin, we averaged the frequency of disposable insulin prescriptions from OpenPrescribing over 36 months (January 2021 to December 2023) in England to give an average annual prescription frequency.<span><sup>12</sup></span> We used average annual prescription frequency data to calculate the potential difference in annual plastic waste and carbon footprint between switching all disposable insulin prescriptions to cartridge insulin in England.</p><p>To compare the cost difference of switching everyone in England who currently uses a disposable insulin pen to cartridge insulin, we used the average annual disposable insulin prescriptions' frequency multiplied by the cost. The total average annual disposable insulin price was subtracted by the equivalent cost of cartridge insulin to give a difference for switching. Lastly, to calculate the additional cost of the reusable pen, we multiplied the current prescription frequency of reusable pens by their cost and added the total to the switching difference. All analysis of NHS cost is presented with and without accounting for replacing reusable insulin pens as the manufacturer often supplies the reusable pens free of charge. To explore the impact of the average total daily dose, which will influence both the cost and environmental impact of switching from disposable to reusable insulin pens, we calculated the environmental and cost impact of switching from disposable pens to cartridges based on average total daily doses of 20, 40 and 100 units. We averaged the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint of the reusable cartridge pen over 3 years to analyse the total daily dose. We assumed pens were prescribed every 3 years based on manufacturer warranties.<span><sup>13-15</sup></span> Only disposable insulin pens with a cartridge pen equivalent were included in this analysis.</p><p>Over the 36 months from January 2021 to December 2023, 13,189,131 disposable insulin pens (72.5% (13,189,131/18,191,050) of total insulin prescriptions) were prescribed (total prescriptions cost to the NHS £28,614,282.75).</p><p>For Sanofi and Novo Nordisk products, 84–95% of plastic would be saved (annual average plastic saving 57.5 tonnes). Carbon footprint would be reduced by 40% for Novo Nordisk products (annual average carbon footprint saving 264.6 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>e). The NHS cost of rapid-acting insulin cartridges is £0.32–0.46 cheaper per cartridge than the equivalent disposable insulin pen. By switching every disposable insulin prescription to an equivalent reusable cartridge insulin pen, based on average prescribing frequency between 2021 and 2023 as described above, calculated annual NHS insulin cost would be reduced by 5.4% (average annual total saving £1.57 million) without accounting for the cost of reusable pens and 2.6% (annual total saving £0.75 million) if average annual reusable insulin pen prescription rates are included.</p><p>By switching an individual using a total daily dose of 40 units of rapid-acting (NovoRapid™, Fiasp™ or TruRapi™) via a disposable insulin pen to the equivalent cartridge insulin, annual insulin cost would be reduced by £15.58–22.30 and plastic waste per patient would be reduced by 0.73–0.83 kg (Table 1). Assuming the NHS purchases the pen, this would take 0.63–0.83 years of use to become cost-neutral and average cost savings annually, with three yearly pen replacements, would be £7.25–13.35. Every individual that switched NovoRapid™ and Fiasp™ FlexTouch™ or FlexPen™ to Penfil™ would reduce the carbon footprint by 4.5 kgCO<sub>2</sub>eq over the same period. Environmental benefits and cost reduction with reusable pens were substantially higher at higher insulin doses. However, costs for most insulin types were reduced even at a low total daily dose of 20 units (Table 1).</p><p>Our findings demonstrate that reusable cartridge insulin pens reduce plastic waste carbon footprint and are often cheaper than disposable insulin pens. Transitioning to reusable insulin pens as the default option could yield substantial benefits. Assuming that benefits are similar for manufacturers unable to provide information to those that do, the annual saving based on recent England NHS prescribing patterns would be 67.6 tonnes of plastic waste and 406.2 Mt CO<sub>2</sub>e. For patients, cartridge insulin offers the advantage of taking less fridge space, and reusable pens include additional functions such as recording dose timing and connecting to bolus calculators. However, individual dexterity and patient choice should be considered when prescribing insulin pen type. A limitation of our results is that we did not include insulin pumps, which are increasingly used in individuals living with T1D. However, most individuals will continue to use insulin pens. Another limitation is that we could not compare the environmental impact of switching to biosimilar insulins, which are often cheaper. Switching to a more sustainable model of diabetes care has significant challenges. However, in this case, changes to prescribing behaviour are likely to result in meaningfully reduced costs while having clear environmental benefits.</p><p>In conclusion, this study highlights the pressing need to shift towards reusable cartridge insulin pens within the NHS, emphasising their benefits of cost-efficiency and environmental sustainability.</p><p>This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p><p>None.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"41 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dme.15409\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.15409\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.15409","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

诺和诺德产品的碳足迹将减少 40%(年平均碳足迹减少 264.6 Mt CO2e)。与同等的一次性胰岛素笔相比,国家医疗服务体系的速效胰岛素笔芯成本每支便宜 0.32-0.46 英镑。根据上述 2021 年至 2023 年期间的平均处方频率,如果将每张一次性胰岛素处方改用等效的可重复使用盒装胰岛素笔,在不考虑可重复使用笔成本的情况下,计算出的 NHS 胰岛素年成本将减少 5.4%(年均总节约额为 157 万英镑),如果将可重复使用笔的年均总节约额计算在内,则将减少 2.6%(年均总节约额为 75 万英镑)。如果将可重复使用胰岛素笔的年平均处方率计算在内,则胰岛素费用将减少 5.4 英镑(年平均总节约额为 157 万英镑);如果将可重复使用胰岛素笔的年平均处方率计算在内,则胰岛素费用将减少 2.6 英镑(年总节约额为 75 万英镑)。如果将使用一次性胰岛素笔的每日总剂量为 40 单位的速效胰岛素(NovoRapid™、Fiasp™ 或 TruRapi™)转换为等效的盒装胰岛素,则每年的胰岛素费用将减少 15.58-22.30 英镑,每位患者的塑料废物将减少 0.73-0.83 公斤(表 1)。假定国家医疗服务系统购买了这种笔,则需要使用 0.63-0.83 年才能实现成本中立,每年更换三次笔,平均每年可节约成本 7.25-13.35 英镑。每个人将 NovoRapid™ 和 Fiasp™ FlexTouch™ 或 FlexPen™ 换成 Penfil™,同期将减少 4.5 kgCO2eq 的碳足迹。胰岛素剂量越大,可重复使用笔带来的环境效益和成本降低幅度就越大。我们的研究结果表明,可重复使用的盒装胰岛素笔减少了塑料废物的碳足迹,而且通常比一次性胰岛素笔便宜。将可重复使用的胰岛素笔作为默认选项可产生巨大效益。假设无法提供信息的生产商与提供信息的生产商所获得的收益相似,那么根据英格兰国家医疗服务体系最近的处方模式,每年可节省 67.6 吨塑料垃圾和 4.062 亿吨二氧化碳当量。对患者而言,盒装胰岛素的优点是不占冰箱空间,可重复使用的胰岛素笔还具有记录剂量时间和连接胰岛素计算器等附加功能。不过,在处方胰岛素笔类型时,应考虑个人的灵活性和患者的选择。我们的研究结果有一个局限性,那就是我们没有将胰岛素泵包括在内,而胰岛素泵在 T1D 患者中的使用越来越多。然而,大多数患者仍将继续使用胰岛素笔。另一个限制因素是,我们无法比较改用生物仿制胰岛素对环境的影响,因为生物仿制胰岛素通常更便宜。向更可持续的糖尿病护理模式转变具有重大挑战。总之,本研究强调了在国家医疗服务体系中转向可重复使用的盒装胰岛素笔的迫切需要,并强调了其成本效益和环境可持续性的优势。本研究未获得任何公共、商业或非营利部门资助机构的特定资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Switching to reusable cartridge insulin pens can reduce National Health Service costs while delivering environmental benefits

The climate crisis is a risk to health globally and reducing carbon emissions is a priority for the UK and other nations.1 The NHS is the largest public sector contributor to England's national carbon footprint, accounting for 4% of England's total carbon footprint.2 In response, the NHS committed to achieve net zero by 2045.2 Within the NHS, pharmaceuticals account for an estimated 25% of emissions.2 Despite pharmaceuticals' significant contributions, no national guidelines exist to help clinicians and patients make informed, sustainable decisions.

7% of England's population has been diagnosed with diabetes.3 Insulin is the only licenced medication for individuals with type 1 diabetes and is often needed to control glucose levels in individuals with type 2 diabetes.4, 5 Most of those administering insulin use an insulin pen, either a disposable pen that is fully replaced when insulin is exhausted, or a reusable cartridge pen that can last for several years. In the UK, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi currently offer recycling of their disposable insulin pens.6, 7 However, the number of disposable insulin pens returned for recycling is unclear. Current guidelines do not advise on the insulin delivery system clinicians should use. We aimed to assess the current number of disposable insulin pens prescribed in England compared to cartridge insulin (requiring a reusable cartridge pen) and compare differences in plastic waste, carbon footprint (CO2eq) and prescribing cost to the NHS.

To compare the environmental impact of disposable and reusable insulin pens, we contacted all major manufacturers (Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company and Sanofi) of insulin in England for data on their products, including the quantity of plastic and life cycle assessments (LCA). Novo Nordisk provided plastic content data and LCA of their insulin products.8-10 Sanofi provided data on plastic content only, therefore, carbon footprint could not be calculated. Eli Lilly and Company could not provide any data on their products, so only data on cost impacts are presented. LCA data provided by Novo Nordisk were calculated by adding the greenhouse gas contributions from the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), device, cartridge and needle.8-10 Plastic weight is presented in kilograms (kg) and LCA as CO2 equivalent (CO2eq). To assess the cost of disposable and reusable pens to England's National Health Service (NHS) we obtained NHS indicative prices (in pound sterling, £) of insulin products from the British National Formulary (BNF).11 We used this information to calculate the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint difference per prescription between disposable and the equivalent cartridge insulin. To quantify the current impact and potential savings of switching to cartridge insulin, we averaged the frequency of disposable insulin prescriptions from OpenPrescribing over 36 months (January 2021 to December 2023) in England to give an average annual prescription frequency.12 We used average annual prescription frequency data to calculate the potential difference in annual plastic waste and carbon footprint between switching all disposable insulin prescriptions to cartridge insulin in England.

To compare the cost difference of switching everyone in England who currently uses a disposable insulin pen to cartridge insulin, we used the average annual disposable insulin prescriptions' frequency multiplied by the cost. The total average annual disposable insulin price was subtracted by the equivalent cost of cartridge insulin to give a difference for switching. Lastly, to calculate the additional cost of the reusable pen, we multiplied the current prescription frequency of reusable pens by their cost and added the total to the switching difference. All analysis of NHS cost is presented with and without accounting for replacing reusable insulin pens as the manufacturer often supplies the reusable pens free of charge. To explore the impact of the average total daily dose, which will influence both the cost and environmental impact of switching from disposable to reusable insulin pens, we calculated the environmental and cost impact of switching from disposable pens to cartridges based on average total daily doses of 20, 40 and 100 units. We averaged the cost, plastic waste and carbon footprint of the reusable cartridge pen over 3 years to analyse the total daily dose. We assumed pens were prescribed every 3 years based on manufacturer warranties.13-15 Only disposable insulin pens with a cartridge pen equivalent were included in this analysis.

Over the 36 months from January 2021 to December 2023, 13,189,131 disposable insulin pens (72.5% (13,189,131/18,191,050) of total insulin prescriptions) were prescribed (total prescriptions cost to the NHS £28,614,282.75).

For Sanofi and Novo Nordisk products, 84–95% of plastic would be saved (annual average plastic saving 57.5 tonnes). Carbon footprint would be reduced by 40% for Novo Nordisk products (annual average carbon footprint saving 264.6 Mt CO2e). The NHS cost of rapid-acting insulin cartridges is £0.32–0.46 cheaper per cartridge than the equivalent disposable insulin pen. By switching every disposable insulin prescription to an equivalent reusable cartridge insulin pen, based on average prescribing frequency between 2021 and 2023 as described above, calculated annual NHS insulin cost would be reduced by 5.4% (average annual total saving £1.57 million) without accounting for the cost of reusable pens and 2.6% (annual total saving £0.75 million) if average annual reusable insulin pen prescription rates are included.

By switching an individual using a total daily dose of 40 units of rapid-acting (NovoRapid™, Fiasp™ or TruRapi™) via a disposable insulin pen to the equivalent cartridge insulin, annual insulin cost would be reduced by £15.58–22.30 and plastic waste per patient would be reduced by 0.73–0.83 kg (Table 1). Assuming the NHS purchases the pen, this would take 0.63–0.83 years of use to become cost-neutral and average cost savings annually, with three yearly pen replacements, would be £7.25–13.35. Every individual that switched NovoRapid™ and Fiasp™ FlexTouch™ or FlexPen™ to Penfil™ would reduce the carbon footprint by 4.5 kgCO2eq over the same period. Environmental benefits and cost reduction with reusable pens were substantially higher at higher insulin doses. However, costs for most insulin types were reduced even at a low total daily dose of 20 units (Table 1).

Our findings demonstrate that reusable cartridge insulin pens reduce plastic waste carbon footprint and are often cheaper than disposable insulin pens. Transitioning to reusable insulin pens as the default option could yield substantial benefits. Assuming that benefits are similar for manufacturers unable to provide information to those that do, the annual saving based on recent England NHS prescribing patterns would be 67.6 tonnes of plastic waste and 406.2 Mt CO2e. For patients, cartridge insulin offers the advantage of taking less fridge space, and reusable pens include additional functions such as recording dose timing and connecting to bolus calculators. However, individual dexterity and patient choice should be considered when prescribing insulin pen type. A limitation of our results is that we did not include insulin pumps, which are increasingly used in individuals living with T1D. However, most individuals will continue to use insulin pens. Another limitation is that we could not compare the environmental impact of switching to biosimilar insulins, which are often cheaper. Switching to a more sustainable model of diabetes care has significant challenges. However, in this case, changes to prescribing behaviour are likely to result in meaningfully reduced costs while having clear environmental benefits.

In conclusion, this study highlights the pressing need to shift towards reusable cartridge insulin pens within the NHS, emphasising their benefits of cost-efficiency and environmental sustainability.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

None.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetic Medicine
Diabetic Medicine 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
229
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Diabetic Medicine, the official journal of Diabetes UK, is published monthly simultaneously, in print and online editions. The journal publishes a range of key information on all clinical aspects of diabetes mellitus, ranging from human genetic studies through clinical physiology and trials to diabetes epidemiology. We do not publish original animal or cell culture studies unless they are part of a study of clinical diabetes involving humans. Categories of publication include research articles, reviews, editorials, commentaries, and correspondence. All material is peer-reviewed. We aim to disseminate knowledge about diabetes research with the goal of improving the management of people with diabetes. The journal therefore seeks to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers worldwide. Topics covered are of importance to all healthcare professionals working with people with diabetes, whether in primary care or specialist services. Surplus generated from the sale of Diabetic Medicine is used by Diabetes UK to know diabetes better and fight diabetes more effectively on behalf of all people affected by and at risk of diabetes as well as their families and carers.”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信