At 1 mg/mL a 0.25 mg draw is 25 units on a U-100 barrel and a 2.4 mg draw is 240. Those two numbers decide it, because the concentration is only sensible relative to the smallest and largest volumes you will actually measure with it. 240 units will not fit a 1 mL U-100 barrel in one draw, which makes the large end the constraint rather than the small one. The other consideration is time: a vial you will finish in a fortnight can be concentrated, and a vial you will draw from for months should be split at reconstitution instead.
Stated carefully, the relevant arithmetic is concentration equals vial content divided by diluent volume, and content is not the same as label claim.
For a dose that will change during titration, choose the volume for the largest intended dose rather than the first, so the whole schedule fits on one barrel without a mid-vial recalculation.
Concentration and unit conversion at a glance
| Vial | Diluent | Concentration | 0.25 mg | 0.5 mg | 1 mg | 2.5 mg |
|---|
| 5 mg | 1 mL | 5 mg/mL | 5 u | 10 u | 20 u | 50 u |
| 5 mg | 2 mL | 2.5 mg/mL | 10 u | 20 u | 40 u | 100 u |
| 10 mg | 1 mL | 10 mg/mL | 2.5 u | 5 u | 10 u | 25 u |
| 10 mg | 2 mL | 5 mg/mL | 5 u | 10 u | 20 u | 50 u |
| 10 mg | 3 mL | 3.33 mg/mL | 7.5 u | 15 u | 30 u | 75 u |
Units are U-100 insulin units, where 1 unit = 0.01 mL. Divide dose by concentration for millilitres, then multiply by 100.
Mechanically, vial headspace is the hard constraint. A nominal 2 mL vial typically holds a little over 2 mL to the shoulder; adding 3 mL is not an option and attempting it wastes the lot.
Published content assay results across the independent testing services show nominal and measured content differing by one to ten per cent, which makes content the dominant term in dose error.
Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use material is not approved for human use.
Check the vial can physically hold the volume before you draw it up.
edited 27 Jun 2024 by low_dead_space — added the citation requested in comments
Confirming: I did the wrong thing here once and got exactly the predicted result. – tabular_nums 8 months ago Two of us worked through this independently and arrived here, so at least it reproduces. – laminar_bench 10 months ago add a comment