16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Insulin Degludec 200 Units/mL Is Associated With Lower Injection Frequency and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Insulin Glargine 100 Units/mL in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Requiring High-Dose Insulin

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          IN BRIEF Many patients with type 2 diabetes require high basal insulin doses, necessitating multiple injections, increasing patient burden, and resulting in reduced treatment adherence. This randomized, controlled, crossover trial compared the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes for a concentrated formulation of insulin degludec (200 units/mL) to those of insulin glargine in patients requiring high doses of basal insulin. By offering equivalent glycemic control while reducing the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia and the number of injections required for administration, insulin degludec 200 units/mL may be preferred by patients with type 2 diabetes who require high basal insulin doses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Correlates of Insulin Injection Omission

          OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess factors associated with patient frequency of intentionally skipping insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data were obtained through an Internet survey of 502 U.S. adults self-identified as taking insulin by injection to treat type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Multiple regression analysis assessed independent associations of various demographic, disease, and injection-specific factors with insulin omission. RESULTS Intentional insulin omission was reported by more than half of respondents; regular omission was reported by 20%. Significant independent risk factors for insulin omission were younger age, lower income and higher education, type 2 diabetes, not following a healthy diet, taking more daily injections, interference of injections with daily activities, and injection pain and embarrassment. Risk factors differed between type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, with diet nonadherence more prominent in type 1 diabetes and age, education, income, pain, and embarrassment more prominent in type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Whereas most patients did not report regular intentional omission of insulin injections, a substantial number did. Our findings suggest that it is important to identify patients who intentionally omit insulin and be aware of the potential risk factors identified here. For patients who report injection-related problems (interference with daily activities, injection pain, and embarrassment), providers should consider recommending strategies and tools for addressing these problems to increase adherence to prescribed insulin regimens. This could improve clinical outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Brief report: the burden of diabetes therapy: implications for the design of effective patient-centered treatment regimens.

            Management of diabetes, and in particular blood glucose, can be complex and burdensome. To evaluate patient views of the burdens of therapy and its impact on self-management. Veteran patients with type 2 diabetes. Mailed survey. Patients described their views of the burden of diabetes treatments, adherence, and clinical and demographic status. Factors associated with ratings of burden and adherence to therapy were examined using multivariate regression methods. The response rate was 67% (n=1,653). Patients viewed pills as the least burdensome treatment and insulin as the most burdensome. Ratings of the burden of insulin were lower if a patient had prior experience with therapy. Adherence to prescribed therapy varied substantially; for example, patients followed medication recommendations more closely than other areas of self-management. Multivariate analyses showed that the main predictor of adherence was patients' ratings of the burden of therapy. Injected insulin regimens are viewed as highly burdensome by patients, although this burden is attenuated by experience. Adherence to self-management is strongly and independently correlated with views of treatment burden. The burden of diabetes-related treatments may be a source of suboptimal glucose control seen in many care settings. Providers should consider the burden of treatment for a particular patient and its impact on adherence as part of a decision-making process to design effective treatment regimens.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device)

              Purpose Diabetes is a debilitating illness requiring lifelong management. Treatments can be varied in terms of mode of administration as well as type of agent. Unfortunately, most patient reported outcome measures currently available to assess the impact of treatment are specific to diabetes type, treatment modality or delivery systems and are designed to be either a HRQoL or treatment satisfaction measure. To address these gaps, the Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes and Device measures were developed. This paper presents the item development and validation of the TRIM Diabetes/Device. Methods Patient interviews were conducted to collect the patient perspective and ensure high content validity. Interviews were hand coded and qualitatively analyzed to identify common themes. A conceptual model of the impact of diabetes medication was developed and preliminary items for the TRIM-Diabetes/Device were generated and cognitively debriefed. Validation data was collected via an on-line survey and analyzed according to an a priori statistical analysis plan to validate the overall score as well as each domain. Item level criteria were used to reduce the preliminary item pool. Next, factor analysis to identify structural domains was performed. Reliability and validity testing was then performed. Results One hundred and five patients were interviewed in focus groups, individual interviews and for cognitive debriefing. Five hundred seven patients participated in the validation study. Factor analysis identified seven domains: Treatment Burden, Daily Life; Diabetes Management; Psychological Health; Compliance and Device Function and Bother. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device ranged from 0.80 and 0.94. Test-retest reliability of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device ranged from 0.71 to 0.89. All convergent and known groups validity hypotheses were met for the TRIM-Diabetes/Device total scores and sub-scales. Conclusion Validation is an ongoing and iterative process. These findings are the first step in that process and have shown that both the TRIM-Diabetes and the TRIM-Diabetes Device have acceptable psychometric properties. Future research is needed to continue the validation process and examine responsiveness and the validity of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device in a clinical trial population.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Diabetes
                Clin Diabetes
                diaclin
                Clinical Diabetes
                Clinical Diabetes : A Publication of the American Diabetes Association
                American Diabetes Association
                0891-8929
                1945-4953
                April 2017
                : 35
                : 2
                : 90-95
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Physicians East, Greenville, NC
                [2 ]Meridien Research, Bradenton, FL
                [3 ]Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA
                [4 ]University of Florida Health, Jacksonville, FL
                [5 ]Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark
                [6 ]Valley Research, Fresno, CA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Mark L. Warren, mwarren@ 123456physicianseast.com
                Article
                90
                10.2337/cd15-0058
                5391813
                28442823
                a52cf4ea-7b02-4736-a9d8-9787a9b65e3e
                © 2017 by the American Diabetes Association.

                Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0 for details.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Categories
                Feature Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article