How does treatment satisfaction work?: Modeling determinants of treatment satisfaction and preference

Patient Satisfaction With a Coach-Guided, Technology-Based Mental Health Treatment: Qualitative Interview Study and Theme Analysis

BACKGROUND

Technology-based mental health interventions address barriers rural veterans face in accessing care, including provider scarcity and distance from the hospital or clinic. webSTAIR is a 10-module, web-based treatment based on Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation, designed to treat posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in individuals exposed to trauma. Previous work has demonstrated that webSTAIR is acceptable to participants and effective at reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression when delivered synchronously or asynchronously (over 5 or 10 sessions).

OBJECTIVE

This study explored factors that lead to greater patient satisfaction with webSTAIR, a web-based, coach-guided intervention.

METHODS

We analyzed qualitative interview data to identify themes related to patient satisfaction with webSTAIR delivered with synchronous video-based coaching.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the data: (1) coaching provides accountability and support, (2) self-pacing offers value that meets individual needs, (3) participants like the comfort and convenience of the web-based format, and (4) technical issues were common but not insurmountable.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that participants valued the accountability, flexibility, and convenience of tech-based interventions with video-delivered coaching.

Effects of Metabolic Medicine and Metabolic Surgery on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The assessment and management of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is considered secondary to that of cardiometabolic outcomes. When assessed, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), a PRO, can yield pertinent information that cannot be obtained from cardiometabolic assessments. For instance, physical and mental distress can be quantified and treated. Moreover, treatment convenience and satisfaction can be gaged. Behavioral modification, bariatric surgery, and pharmacotherapy can improve PROs. Typically, HRQOL is responsive to changes in weight. Specifically, weight loss and weight gain are associated with positive and negative changes in quality of life, respectively. In addition, patient satisfaction can be influenced by glycemic control. Therefore, hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic episodes can negatively affect patient satisfaction. When managing type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider how therapies impact PROs. Generally, changes in clinical outcomes mirror changes in PROs. To best manage T2D, integrating the assessment of PROs with clinical outcomes is needed.

The effect of choice interventions on retention-related, behavioural and mood outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

The provision of choice within interventions has been associated with increased motivation, engagement and interest, as well as improved clinical outcomes. Existing reviews are limited by their wide inclusion criteria or by not assessing behaviour change and mood outcomes. This review examines whether participant-driven choice-based interventions specifically are more likely to be enjoyed and accepted by participants compared to no-choice interventions, and whether this impacts on intervention outcomes in terms of behaviour change or mood. Forty-four randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for retention-related outcomes (drop-out, adherence and satisfaction), and aggregate behaviour change and mood outcomes. Choice-based interventions resulted in significantly less participant drop-out and increased adherence compared to interventions not offering choice. Results for the behaviour change and mood analyses were mixed. This meta-analytic review demonstrates that choice-based interventions may enhance participant retention and adherence, thus researchers and clinicians alike should consider the provision of choice when designing research and interventions. The evidence for the role of choice in behaviour change and mood is less convincing, and there is a need for more, higher quality research in this area.

Brazilian version of "The Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire": translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) for Brazilian users. Validation and reliability analysis of measures were also performed.

METHODS

Methodological study comprising the following stages: forward translation, synthesis, back-translation, assessment by Expert Committee, pre-test and validation. International guidelines for translation and cross-cultural adaptation of measurement tools were followed. Validation data provided information about reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) and construct validity of the IDSRQ.

RESULTS

Content validation by Experts' assessment was successful, with a mean Content Validity Index of 0.87 (±0.2). The IDSRQ validation study involved 113 T1DM patients, 46% male, mean age 32.61 (±12.59) years and mean age at diagnosis of diabetes of 17.51 (±12.41). The scale presented good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha =0.786). The reliability analysis of the instrument was conducted by calculating the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient 0.885 (0.834-0.921), which indicated adequate concordance in all measures.

CONCLUSION

The translated and cross-culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese version of the IDSRQ may be used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment preferences for insulin delivery systems in T1DM Brazilian patients.

Clinical Characteristics and Satisfaction of Liraglutide Treatment among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Study

Background

Evaluation of patient-reported results, treatment satisfaction, in particular, is popularly gaining recognition as crucial to the assessment of the efficiency of new therapies. The aim of this study is to examine the clinical features and treatment satisfaction with liraglutide in insulin-dependent obese patients having uncontrolled diabetes.

Methods

A prospective study was performed for 12 weeks using 64 type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients, 30 to 70 years of age, who came in for treatment to the Diabetes Treatment Center in Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from November 2017 to July 2018. All the patients enrolled in this study were given liraglutide in addition to their existing treatment. For the first week, they were subcutaneously administered 0.6 mg once per day, which was gradually raised to 1.2 mg after 1 week, and the final given dose went up to 1.8 mg per day until the study period was completed. Purposive and suitable selection of the respondents was performed at their convenience. They were interviewed adopting the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (Arabic version) at baseline and after 12 weeks. Besides, the clinical variables like hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS), total daily insulin dose (TDD), number of injections, and hypoglycemia/weeks were also recorded at baseline and at the end of the study.

Results

In comparison with the baseline values, notable positive differences were identified in the domains of treatment satisfaction, namely, satisfied with current treatment (P = .0001), frequency of perceived hyperglycemia (P = .0001), frequency of perceived hypoglycemia (P = .0001), convenience of current treatment (P = .0001), understanding diabetes (P = .0001), recommend the current treatment (P = .018), and continue the present treatment (P = .0001) when the study is completed. After 12 weeks, the addition of liraglutide to the existing treatment showed significant positive changes on FBS (P = .0001), HbA_1c (P = .001), TDD (P = .0001), number of injections (P = .0001), documented hypoglycemia/weeks (P = .0005), and body weight (P = .0001) in comparison with the baseline values.

Conclusions

The addition of liraglutide to the existing treatment raised the level of treatment satisfaction and minimized the frequency of hypoglycemic/hyperglycemic events apart from the other clinical variables.

Strategies for implementing effective mealtime insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is a growing global epidemic. Due to the progressive nature of the disease, many people with T2D require insulin at some point, most commonly a long-acting (basal) insulin to assist with 24-h control of glucose levels.

OBJECTIVE

This opinion paper provides an overview of considerations for primary care providers (PCPs) in intensifying the treatment regimen when basal insulin therapy is inadequate.

RESULTS

Control of mealtime hyperglycemia, in addition to fasting hyperglycemia, has been shown to be crucial in reaching A1c goals of <7.0%. However, initiating and optimizing mealtime insulin therapy can be challenging for both people with T2D and PCPs, due to a perceived lack of efficacy and burden of insulin treatment, causing "psychological insulin resistance" in people with T2D and clinical inertia among PCPs. Successful implementation of mealtime insulin therapy requires not only choosing appropriate treatment strategies, but also addressing patient-related behavioral and emotional barriers. Simplified treatment algorithms, combined with the use of advanced technology (devices such as insulin pens, pumps, and patches), and collaborative decision-making can help decrease barriers to effective mealtime insulin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to implement an effective basal-bolus insulin regimen in people with T2D in a way that improves glucose control while minimizing negative effects on quality-of-life, treatment satisfaction, and psychological well-being.

Psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimensional measure of satisfaction with behavioral interventions

Treatment satisfaction is recognized as an essential aspect in the evaluation of an intervention's effectiveness, but there is no measure that provides for its comprehensive assessment with regard to behavioral interventions. Informed by a conceptualization generated from a literature review, we developed a measure that covers several domains of satisfaction with behavioral interventions. In this paper, we briefly review its conceptualization and describe the Multi-Dimensional Treatment Satisfaction Measure (MDTSM) subscales. Satisfaction refers to the appraisal of the treatment's process and outcome attributes. The MDTSM has 11 subscales assessing treatment process and outcome attributes: treatment components' suitability and utility, attitude toward treatment, desire for continued treatment use, therapist competence and interpersonal style, format and dose, perceived benefits of the health problem and everyday functioning, discomfort, and attribution of outcomes to treatment. The MDTSM was completed by persons (N = 213) in the intervention group in a large trial of a multi-component behavioral intervention for insomnia within 1 week following treatment completion. The MDTSM's subscales demonstrated internal consistency reliability (α: .65 - .93) and validity (correlated with self-reported adherence and perceived insomnia severity at post-test). The MDTSM subscales can be used to assess satisfaction with behavioral interventions and point to aspects of treatments that are viewed favorably or unfavorably.

Type 2 Diabetes Patients Reach Target Glycemic Control Faster Using IDegLira than Either Insulin Degludec or Liraglutide Given Alone

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The time-course when changes in glycemic control and body weight were first manifest in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with a combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) was assessed, comparing IDegLira to its individual components.

METHODS

Data from weeks 0-12 from two studies were analyzed, one comparing IDegLira to each component (DUAL I), and one comparing IDegLira to insulin degludec titrated to a maximum 50 units (DUAL II). Efficacy endpoints included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reduction, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c [<7.0 % (<53.0 mmol/mol)] and FPG (≤7.2 mmol/L) targets, and proportion achieving HbA1c target without hypoglycemia and without hypoglycemia and weight gain.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c was lower, and the proportion of patients reaching target HbA1c greater, with IDegLira versus comparators (both studies) at weeks 8 and 12. Proportions of patients reaching target HbA1c without hypoglycemia and without hypoglycemia and weight gain were higher for IDegLira versus insulin degludec, though not versus liraglutide. Mean FPG was lower with IDegLira, and the proportion achieving target FPG higher, versus components (both studies) from weeks 4-12. IDegLira was associated with mean weight reduction from weeks 4-12, although less than with liraglutide alone. Hypoglycemia occurred infrequently in weeks 0-12, with no difference in incidence between IDegLira and insulin degludec in either study.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira reduces plasma glucose to a greater extent than its components, measurable within the first 12 weeks of therapy, and without weight gain or an increased hypoglycemia risk versus insulin degludec.

Toward a Conceptualization and Operationalization of Satisfaction With Nonpharmacological Interventions

BACKGROUND

Although satisfaction is recognized as an essential aspect in the evaluation of interventions' effectiveness, there is lack of clarity on its conceptualization and operationalization. In this article, we present conceptual and operational definitions that specify the domains and attributes of satisfaction with nonpharmacological interventions.

METHODS

An integrative review of conceptual and empirical literature was conducted to generate the conceptual and operational definitions of satisfaction with interventions. Fifty-six publications were included in the review. The definitions of satisfaction and the content of instruments measuring satisfaction were reviewed, compared, and contrasted to identify the domains and attributes of the concept.

RESULTS

Satisfaction is defined as the appraisal of the interventions' process and outcome. It is operationalized in 4 domains of process: (a) suitability and utility of the intervention's components, (b) attitude toward and desire to continue with the intervention, (c) competence and interpersonal style of interventionist, and (d) implementation (format and dose) of the intervention. The outcome domain includes improvement in the health problem and in everyday functions, discomfort, and attribution of the outcomes to the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The conceptual and operational definitions can guide the development of instruments to assess satisfaction with nonpharmacological interventions, which can point to aspects of interventions that are viewed favorably or unfavorably.

Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients taking empagliflozin compared with patients taking glimepiride

Purpose

This exploratory analysis assessed and compared patients’ treatment satisfaction with empagliflozin plus metformin versus glimepiride plus metformin, using data obtained from the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, status version (DTSQs) collected in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial.

Methods

Observed values for DTSQs scale score and each of its eight items were summarized by visit and treatment arm. Changes from baseline in these scores were analyzed using linear mixed models for repeated measures.

Results

The baseline scale score and item scores were comparable between empagliflozin plus metformin (n = 765) and glimepiride plus metformin (n = 780). Compared with baseline, patients reported significant treatment satisfaction increases and significant decreases in perceived hyperglycemia with both treatments at all visits. Also, compared with baseline, a significant increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycemia was observed in the glimepiride treatment group at all visits. No statistically significant treatment difference was observed in DTSQs scale score and its items at week 104. The difference between the treatment groups was significant and in favor of empagliflozin from week 28 onward for perceived frequency of hyperglycemia (P ≤ 0.006) and perceived frequency of hypoglycemia (P ≤ 0.011).

Conclusions

Despite positive trends in favor of empagliflozin, there was no significant difference in DTSQs scale score between empagliflozin and glimepiride at 104 weeks. However, when compared with glimepiride, empagliflozin demonstrated significantly lower perceived frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia at all visits from week 28 onward. This finding is consistent with the clinical results reported for the EMPA-REG H2H-SU trial.

Vildagliptin vs liraglutide as a second-line therapy switched from sitagliptin-based regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, parallel-group study

Introduction

A step-up strategy for dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor-based regimens has not yet been established. In addition, similarities and differences between DPP-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists remain to be elucidated in humans. We investigated the pleiotropic effects of vildagliptin vs liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes on sitagliptin-based regimens in an open-label, randomized, clinical trial.

Materials and Methods

A total of 122 patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled by sitagliptin-based regimens were randomly assigned to either vildagliptin (50 mg, twice daily) or liraglutide treatment (0.9 mg, once daily) for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and body mass index.

Results

Both vildagliptin and liraglutide significantly lowered glycated hemoglobin within 12 weeks after switching from sitagliptin, but liraglutide produced a greater reduction (−0.67 ± 0.12% vs −0.36 ± 0.53%). Liraglutide lowered body mass index, whereas vildagliptin did not affect body mass index. Vildagliptin lowered fasting C-peptide immunoreactivity, but liraglutide did not. Vildagliptin increased serum levels of adiponectin, arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, whereas liraglutide had no effect on these levels. Quality of life, assessed using the diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire, was not impaired in either group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms, which occurred with similar frequencies in both groups.

Conclusions

Vildagliptin-mediated improvements in glycemic control did not correlate with indices for insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity. Switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide is useful in managing hyperglycemia and weight. Each agent exerts unique pleiotropic effects. This trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (no. 000004953).

A randomized controlled trial comparing the GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide to a sulphonylurea as add on to metformin in patients with established type 2 diabetes during Ramadan: the Treat 4 Ramadan Trial

AIMS

To compare a sulphonylurea with the glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide in combination with metformin in patients on mono/dual oral therapy with established type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.

METHODS

Ninety-nine adults intending to fast during Ramadan [50% male, mean age 52 years, body mass index (BMI) 32 kg/m(2)] were randomized from two UK sites. Baseline data were collected ≥14 days prior to Ramadan and at 3 and 12 weeks after Ramadan.

RESULTS

At 12 weeks, more patients in the liraglutide compared with the sulphonylurea group achieved a composite endpoint of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7%, no weight gain and no severe hypoglycaemia but this did not reach statistical significance [odds ratio (OR) 4.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97, 17.22, p = 0.06]. From a baseline of 7.7% there was no change in HbA1c at 12 weeks in the sulphonylurea (+0.02%) compared with a 0.3% reduction in the liraglutide group (adjusted coefficient -0.41, 95% CI -0.83, 0.01, p = 0.05). Significant reductions were also observed in weight and diastolic blood pressure (BP) in the liraglutide compared with the sulphonylurea group. Treatment satisfaction was comparable across the treatment groups. There were no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia in either group, however, self-recorded episodes of blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l were significantly lower with liraglutide (incidence rate ratio 0.29, 95% CI 0.19, 0.41, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide compared with sulphonylurea is well tolerated and maybe an effective therapy in combination with metformin during Ramadan with more patients able to achieve target HbA1c, lose or maintain weight with no severe hypoglycaemia. This was achieved with a high level of treatment satisfaction.

Options for prandial glucose management in type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin: addition of a short-acting GLP-1 analogue versus progression to basal-bolus therapy

Integrating patient-centered diabetes care and algorithmic medicine poses particular challenges when optimized basal insulin fails to maintain glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Multiple entwined physiological, psychosocial and systems barriers to insulin adherence are not easily studied and are not adequately considered in most treatment algorithms. Moreover, the limited number of alternatives to add-on prandial insulin therapy has hindered shared decision-making, a central feature of patient-centered care. This article considers how the addition of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue to basal insulin may provide new opportunities at this stage of treatment, especially for patients concerned about weight gain and risk of hypoglycaemia. A flexible framework for patient-clinician discussions is presented to encourage development of decision-support tools applicable to both specialty and primary care practice.

Liraglutide achieves A1C targets more often than sitagliptin or exenatide when added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and a baseline A1C <8.0%

OBJECTIVE

Compare the safety and efficacy of liraglutide to that of sitagliptin or exenatide as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and glycated hemoglobin (A1C) <8.0%.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of 26-week data from liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (OD) versus exenatide 10 μg twice daily (LEAD-6) and liraglutide 1.8 mg OD versus sitagliptin 100 mg OD (LIRA-DPP-4); only patients treated as add-on to metformin with baseline A1C <8.0% were included. Efficacy analysis was performed on the intention-to-treat population with missing values imputed by last observation carried forward.

RESULTS

More patients achieved A1C targets (<7.0% and ≤6.5%) with liraglutide versus exenatide or sitagliptin; the difference was greatest for A1C ≤6.5% (LEAD-6: 65% versus 35%; odds ratio [OR]=3.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-8.63; P = .01 or LIRA-DPP-4: 53% versus 19%; OR = 4.78, 95% CI 2.10 to 10.87; P = .0002). Significantly more patients achieved a composite endpoint of A1C <7.0% with no weight gain or hypoglycemia with liraglutide compared with exenatide (78% versus 42%; OR = 4.99, 95% CI: 1.77 to 14.04; P = .0023) or sitagliptin (61% versus 21%; OR = 5.95, 95% CI: 2.66 to 13.29; P<.0001). All treatments were well tolerated, there was no major hypoglycemia and few patients (8 to 10%) experienced minor hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

When added to metformin in patients with an A1C <8.0%, more patients using liraglutide 1.8 mg reached A1C targets than with exenatide or sitagliptin. Sitagliptin had particularly low efficacy in this analysis. These data support the use of liraglutide 1.8 mg as a safe and effective alternative to sitagliptin or exenatide following metformin failure in patients with an A1C <8.0%.

Satisfaction with glucose-lowering treatment and well-being in patients with type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction: a DIGAMI2 QoL sub-study

The second Diabetes Glucose and Myocardial Infarction (DIGAMI 2) study randomised patients with diabetes and myocardial infarction to insulin or oral-based treatment. To determine the effects of insulin-based treatment, the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index were administered at baseline and 12 months. Insulin-treated patients (n = 197) had a worse risk profile and more co-morbidity at baseline than patients on oral glucose-lowering agents (n = 127). The treatment satisfaction and psychological well-being was similar between insulin and oral groups at baseline [DTSQ: median (first-third quartile) 30 (24-34) vs 31 (27-34), NS; PGWB: 77 (73-82) vs 79 (76-82), NS] and at 12 months [DTSQ: 32 (28-35) vs 34 (30-36), NS; PGWB: 81 (78-84) vs 82 (78-84), NS]. Improvement was significant in both groups. Insulin-based therapy was well accepted and did not decrease treatment satisfaction or psychological well-being compared to oral glucose-lowering treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes and myocardial infarction.

GLP-1R agonist therapy for diabetes: benefits and potential risks

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists provide good glycemic control combined with low hypoglycemia risk and weight loss. Here, we summarize the recently published data for this therapy class, focusing on sustainability of action, use in combination with basal insulin, and the efficacy of longer acting agents currently in development. The safety profile of GLP-1R agonists is also examined.

RECENT FINDINGS

GLP-1R agonists provide sustained efficacy and their combination with basal insulin is well tolerated, providing additional glycemic control and weight benefits compared with basal insulin alone. Data suggest that the convenience of longer acting agents may be at the expense of efficacy. Despite the initial concerns, most evidence indicates that GLP-1R agonists do not increase the risk of pancreatitis or thyroid cancer. However, the extremely low incidence of these events means further investigations are required before a causal link can be eliminated. Large-scale clinical trials investigating the long-term cardiovascular safety of this therapy class are ongoing and may also provide important insights into pancreatic and thyroid safety.

SUMMARY

GLP-1R agonists offer sustained glycemic efficacy, weight loss benefits, and a low risk of hypoglycemia. The results of ongoing trials should help to clarify the safety of this therapy class.

Treatment satisfaction in the sensor-augmented pump therapy for A1C reduction 3 (STAR 3) trial

AIM

To identify insulin delivery system perceptions that contributed to improvements in overall satisfaction with insulin therapy (treatment satisfaction) that were larger in those using sensor-augmented pump therapy than those using multiple daily injections with self monitoring of blood glucose.

METHODS

The Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction 3 (STAR 3), a randomized 12-month clinical trial, compared sensor-augmented pump therapy to multiple daily injections + self monitoring of blood glucose in adult and paediatric patients. The Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire measured perceptions of convenience, problems, interference with daily activities, blood glucose monitoring burden, social burden, clinical efficacy, diabetes worries and psychological well-being, as well as treatment satisfaction. We conducted separate multiple regression analyses for the 334 adult patients and 147 paediatric patients and their caregivers to assess the independent associations (P < 0.05) between change from baseline to follow-up in user perceptions and treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

Increased convenience was associated with improved treatment satisfaction in all user groups. Reduced interference with daily activities (caregivers), reduced social burden (adults) and increased efficacy (both) also were associated with improved treatment satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment satisfaction among children was primarily a function of convenience, while perceived clinical efficacy was also a primary determinant among adults, reflecting different emphases on the treatment process itself vs. treatment consequences. Among adult patients and caregivers, improved treatment satisfaction was also a function of reductions in social burden and interference with daily activities (respectively), reflecting concern with the broader psychosocial impact of sensor-augmented pump therapy on their lives.

Comparison of efficacy between incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is widely prevalent and is often coexistent with obesity. Many of the available treatment options have side effects such as weight gain which often affect patient's willingness to continue the treatment. Effective weight loss, lack of significant hypoglycaemia, and favourable cardiometabolic profile make Incretin based therapies an attractive treatment option for type 2 diabetes. Incretin based therapies are available as either incretin mimetics (also called GLP-1 agonists) or incretin enhancers (DPP-4 inhibitors). Although agents in both these classes of incretin based therapy are effective through a common GLP-1 pathway, there are many differences amongst them including the route of administration, frequency of administration, effects on body weight, extent of glycaemic improvement. There are several trials evaluating these individual incretin based agents either as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic agents, however very few have looked into direct comparison amongst the agents in these two classes. This review is aimed to look at important mechanistic differences between incretin mimetics and enhancers through direct comparison trials and impact of these differences on biochemical, metabolic and patient satisfaction parameters.

Pramlintide: profile of an amylin analog

Amylin is a naturally occurring hormone that regulates food intake and postprandial glucose excursions. Amylin is synthesized in the β cell and cosecreted with insulin. Type 1 diabetes and insulin-requiring Type 2 diabetes are amylin-deficient as well as insulin-deficient states. Pramlintide is a synthetic amylin analog that is used for replacement therapy. Pramlintide therapy slows diabetes-mediated accelerated gastric emptying and restores meal-mediated suppression of glucagon secretion in patients with diabetes. Amylin receptors are primarily located in the CNS, which mediates all of its effects including decreases in food intake. In patients with diabetes, pramlintide treatment reduces hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) 0.3-0.7% and decreases bodyweight. Side effects include nausea and hypoglycemia. Both can be minimized by an appropriate titration program. Recent pramlintide studies address improvements in delivery systems, use in pediatric and Type 2 diabetic populations, patient treatment satisfaction and new insights into its mechanisms of action.

Development and validation of the self-management profile for type 2 diabetes (SMP-T2D)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the measurement properties of a newly developed instrument - the Self-Management Profile for Type 2 Diabetes (SMP-T2D).

METHODS

The 18-item SMP-T2D assesses 12 constructs: level and perceived ease of performance in five self-care domains (blood glucose monitoring, medication-taking, healthy eating, being physically active, and coping), and two global constructs (ease of weight management, confidence with ability to manage diabetes). Validation analyses were based on two studies involving 240 patients with T2D, Study 1 (Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00637273) with SMP-T2D administration supplemented by SMP-T2D retest one week later, and Study 2 (Clinical trials.gov #NCT00877890) with SMP-T2D administration supplemented by 24-week SMP-T2D follow-up after medication change. Validation included clinical indicators and measures of patient reported quality of life, psychological well-being and treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

All multi-item SMP-T2D measures showed acceptable internal consistency (alphas = 0.71 to 0.87); ten measures had test-retest reliability >0.75. Correlations among SMP-T2D measures and between SMP-T2D measures and validation measures, which were as hypothesized, provided evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Scores for six SMP-T2D measures improved significantly during Study 2. Multiple regression analysis showed independent associations between change in SMP-T2D measures and change in trial outcomes from baseline to end-of-study.

CONCLUSIONS

Two studies provide preliminary evidence regarding the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the SMP-T2D. Further research on the utility of the instrument is needed.

Efficacy and safety of switching from the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin to the human GLP-1 analog liraglutide after 52 weeks in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, open-label trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in metformin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In an open-label trial, participants randomized to receive either liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg/day) or sitagliptin (100 mg/day), each added to metformin, continued treatment for 52 weeks. In a 26-week extension, sitagliptin-treated participants were randomly allocated to receive instead liraglutide at either 1.2 or 1.8 mg/day, while participants originally randomized to receive liraglutide continued unchanged.

RESULTS

Although 52 weeks of sitagliptin changed glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) by -0.9% from baseline, additional decreases occurred after switching to liraglutide (1.2 mg/day, -0.2%, P = 0.006; 1.8 mg/day, -0.5%, P = 0.0001). Conversion to liraglutide was associated with reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (1.2 mg/day, -0.8 mmol/L, P = 0.0004; 1.8 mg/day, -1.4 mmol/L, P < 0.0001) and body weight (1.2 mg/day, -1.6 kg; 1.8 mg/day, -2.5 kg; both P < 0.0001) and with an increased proportion of patients reaching HbA(1c) <7% (from ∼30% to ∼50%). Overall treatment satisfaction, assessed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, improved after switching to liraglutide (pooled 1.2 and 1.8 mg/day, 1.3; P = 0.0189). After switching, mostly transient nausea occurred in 21% of participants, and minor hypoglycemia remained low (3-4% of participants). Continuing liraglutide treatment at 1.2 mg/day and 1.8 mg/day for 78 weeks reduced HbA(1c) (baseline 8.3 and 8.4%, respectively) by -0.9 and -1.3%, respectively; FPG by -1.3 and -1.7 mmol/L, respectively; and weight by -2.6 and -3.1 kg, respectively, with 9-10% of participants reporting minor hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control, weight, and treatment satisfaction improved after switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide, albeit with a transient increase in gastrointestinal reactions.

Glycaemia and correlates of patient-reported outcomes in ACCORD trial participants

AIMS

Post-hoc evaluation of relationships between first-year change in glycaemic control (HbA(1c) ) and change in patient-reported outcomes among ACCORD health-related quality of life (HRQoL) substudy participants.

METHODS

Data from 2053 glycaemia-trial subjects were analysed. We assessed physical and mental health status (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Version-2), symptom count and severity (Diabetes Symptoms Distress Checklist) and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire). Linear mixed models were used to test relationships between 1-year changes in HbA(1c) and patient reported outcomes sequentially adjusting for correlates (baseline characteristics, baseline patient reported outcomes, treatment assignment, frequency of clinical contact and post-randomization weight change plus new complications).

RESULTS

Poorer baseline control of HbA(1c) and cardiovascular disease risk factors predicted greater one-year improvements in treatment satisfaction. Similarly, poorer baseline patient reported outcome scores all individually predicted greater 1-year improvement in that same outcome. Accounting for baseline and post-randomization characteristics and treatment arm, 1-year change in HbA(1c) was unrelated to changes in overall physical or mental health; however, every one percentage-point (10.9 mmol/mol) reduction in HbA(1c) was associated with lower symptom count (β = 0.599; P = 0.012), lower symptom distress (β = 0.051; P = 0.001), and higher treatment satisfaction (β = -2.514; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of all relevant covariates, better glycaemic control over 1 year was associated with reduced patient-reported diabetes symptoms and symptom distress, and increased treatment satisfaction, but not overall physical and mental health. Further investigation is required to understand the specific psychosocial mechanisms that affect how patients value health and treatments.

Liraglutide: from clinical trials to clinical practice

Liraglutide, a once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved for use as monotherapy in the USA and Japan (but not in Europe or Canada) and in combination with selected oral agents (all regions) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Guidance from local advisory bodies is emerging on the most appropriate place for liraglutide in the treatment pathway. It is apparent from its phase 3 clinical trial programme that liraglutide provides superior glycaemic control compared with that achieved with other antidiabetic agents used early in the treatment pathway (e.g. glimepiride and sitagliptin). Key additional benefits include a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and clinically relevant weight loss, although these benefits may be ameliorated by concomitant sulphonylurea (SU) treatment and, in the case of hypoglycaemia, reduction of the SU dose may be necessary. Overall, the profile of liraglutide is similar and, in some aspects, superior to twice-daily exenatide. The implementation of liraglutide therapy is straightforward, with simple dose titration from the starting dose of 0.6 to 1.2 mg/day after 1 week; some patients may benefit from additional titration to 1.8 mg/day. Treatment is self-administered by subcutaneous injection. This contrasts with other agents used early in the treatment pathway, but clinical data suggest patients' overall treatment satisfaction with liraglutide is similar (1.2 mg) or better (1.8 mg) than that with sitagliptin despite differing administration methods. Some patients may experience nausea when initiating liraglutide treatment, but the titration regimen is designed to improve tolerability and clinical data indicate nausea is transient.

Patient-reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes using mealtime inhaled technosphere insulin and basal insulin versus premixed insulin

AIMS

This study assessed patient-reported outcomes in a multicenter study of adults with type 2 diabetes taking mealtime Technosphere(®) inhaled insulin (MannKind Corp., Valencia, CA) and basal insulin (insulin glargine) or premixed aspart insulin 70/30.

METHODS

Subjects were 618 non-smoking adults with starting hemoglobin A1c >7.0%: 302 in the Technosphere+glargine (TI+G) arm and 316 in the biphasic rapid-acting insulin arm (premixed aspart insulin 70/30). Subjects (47% male; mean age, 56 years; mean duration of diagnosed diabetes, 13.4 years) completed a measure of health-related quality of life (the SF-36) and a measure of treatment satisfaction (the Inhaled Insulin Treatment Questionnaire [IITQ]) before starting insulin treatment and approximately 45 weeks later.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in either treatment arm for SF-36 Physical or Mental Component Summary measures. IITQ Diabetes Worries declined significantly in the TI+G arm (P=0.008), and Perceptions of Insulin Therapy, Treatment Satisfaction, and Treatment Preference improved in both arms (all P<0.001); there were no significant between-arm differences in change on any of these measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with inhaled Technosphere insulin was implemented without a negative impact on health-related quality of life and with a reduction in diabetes worries. Improvements in perceptions of insulin therapy, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference did not differ from treatment with premixed aspart insulin.

Effect of intensive glycemic lowering on health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes: ACCORD trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of intensive versus standard glycemic control strategies on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a substudy of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomly selected subsample of 2,053 ACCORD participants enrolled in the HRQL substudy was assessed at baseline and 12-, 36-, and 48-month visits. HRQL assessment included general health status (the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]), diabetes symptoms (the Diabetes Symptom Distress Checklist), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ]-9), and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ]). Repeated-measures ANOVA models were used to estimate change in HRQL outcomes by treatment group over 48 months adjusting for model covariates. The effects of early discontinuation of the ACCORD intensive glycemic control arm on study results were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 1,956 (95%) completed the self-report HRQL instrument(s) at baseline. The intensive arm had a larger decrease in SF-36 physical health component score than the standard arm (-1.6 vs. -1.1, P = 0.0345). Treatment satisfaction (DTSQ) showed larger improvement with intensive than standard (P = 0.0004). There were no differences in mean scores of the Diabetes Symptom Checklist and PHQ-9. Effects of participant transition following discontinuation of the intensive arm on HRQL were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD trial strategy of intensive glycemic control did not lead to benefits in HRQL and was associated with modest improvement in diabetes treatment satisfaction. Thus patient acceptability was apparently not compromised with intensive and complex interventions such as those used in ACCORD.

Associations between improved glucose control and patient-reported outcomes after initiation of insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the relationship between changes in glucose control and changes in patient-reported outcomes (PRO)--health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and treatment satisfaction (TxSat)--in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

Patients (n = 54) initiating insulin pump therapy (Animas(®) 2020, Animas Corp., West Chester, PA) were studied for 16 weeks. Glucose control was measured with patient-blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) (SEVEN(™), DexCom, San Diego, CA) and unblinded glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and seven-point self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) profiles. HR-QoL was measured using the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). TxSat was measured using the Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) clinical efficacy and treatment preference scales. Bivariate correlations assessed associations between measures of change from baseline.

RESULTS

Decreased A1C was associated only with improvement in IDSRQ clinical efficacy. For CGM and SMBG, reductions in mean glucose concentrations were associated with decreased DSC-R symptoms, improved EQ-5D health utility, and increased IDSRQ perceived clinical efficacy and treatment preference. Reduced glycemic variability was associated with improved EQ-5D health utility and increased IDSRQ treatment preference. CGM and SMBG readings from different times of day/night were differentially associated with all PRO.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that A1C, representing an "average" of both high and low blood glucose values throughout the day, may not capture aspects of glucose control with the greatest impact on HR-QoL. Although TxSat was more strongly associated with A1C and mean glucose readings than with glycemic variability, HR-QoL was more strongly associated with glycemic variability.

One year of liraglutide treatment offers sustained and more effective glycaemic control and weight reduction compared with sitagliptin, both in combination with metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue liraglutide with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, each added to metformin, over 52 weeks in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In an open-label, parallel-group trial, metformin-treated participants were randomised to liraglutide 1.2 mg/day (n=225), liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (n=221) or sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n=219) for 26 weeks (main phase). Participants continued the same treatment in a 26-week extension.

RESULTS

Liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg) was superior to sitagliptin for reducing HbA(1c) from baseline (8.4-8.5%) to 52 weeks: -1.29% and -1.51% vs. -0.88% respectively. Estimated mean treatment differences between liraglutide and sitagliptin were as follows: -0.40% (95% confidence interval -0.59 to -0.22) for 1.2 mg and -0.63% (-0.81 to -0.44) for 1.8 mg (both p<0.0001). Weight loss was greater with liraglutide 1.2 mg (-2.78 kg) and 1.8 mg (-3.68 kg) than sitagliptin (-1.16 kg) (both p<0.0001). Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire scores increased significantly more with liraglutide 1.8 mg than with sitagliptin (p=0.03). Proportions of participants reporting adverse events were generally comparable; minor hypoglycaemia was 8.1%, 8.3% and 6.4% for liraglutide 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg and sitagliptin respectively. Gastrointestinal side effects, mainly nausea, initially occurred more frequently with liraglutide, but declined after several weeks.

CONCLUSION

  Liraglutide provides greater sustained glycaemic control and body weight reduction over 52 weeks. Treatment satisfaction was significantly greater with 1.8 mg liraglutide, similar to 26-week results. The safety profiles of liraglutide and sitagliptin are consistent with previous reports.

Factors associated with physician perceptions of and willingness to recommend inhaled insulin

OBJECTIVE

To examine predictors of physician perceptions of an inhaled insulin, willingness to prescribe that insulin, and estimates of patient initiation of therapy with that insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was an Internet survey of a US national sample (n = 602) of physicians who treat adults with diabetes. Respondents were given a brief description of potential clinical benefits and administration procedures for the study inhaled insulin (SII).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures included clinical beliefs, benefit ratings and overall evaluation of SII relative to other mealtime insulins, willingness to recommend SII, and estimates of patient initiation of therapy with that insulin. Multivariate regression assessed significant independent associations controlling for respondent and patient case-mix characteristics.

RESULTS

Physicians who self-identified as medical innovators or who reported high levels of involvement with patients tended to rate the SII higher, while respondents who self-identified as diabetes experts or who avoided using insulin tended to rate the SII lower. Medical innovators and those who rated the SII high on efficacy in avoiding discomfort and inconvenience were more likely to say they would recommend the SII to their patients and that their patients would use it. Family physicians were most likely and endocrinologists least likely to say they would recommend the SII for a variety of patient profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians see a variety of important benefits for the SII, and would recommend inhaled insulin to patients with different treatment regimens and treatment needs, especially those patients who are hesitant to initiate insulin therapy or concerned about taking more insulin injections. These findings should be considered in light of study limitations, including the fact that responses were based on expected benefits, and not on benefits actually experienced by physicians in the study, the fact that no information was provided about the cost of the SII, though this could have an important influence on prescription decisions, and the fact that the study sample was a self-selected group, rather than a representative sample of all physicians treating patients with diabetes.

Weight-related quality of life, health utility, psychological well-being, and satisfaction with exenatide once weekly compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone after 26 weeks of treatment

OBJECTIVE

To assess change in patient-reported outcomes in subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide once weekly compared with those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 26-week randomized, multicenter, double-dummy study, 491 subjects received 2 mg of exenatide once weekly or maximum daily doses of sitagliptin (100 mg) or pioglitazone (45 mg) on a background of metformin. Weight-related quality of life, health utility, psychological well-being, and diabetes treatment satisfaction were assessed at baseline and week 26. Mean group changes from baseline to week 26 were estimated by ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Weight-related quality of life total scores improved significantly in the exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin arms only; the exenatide once weekly group experienced significantly greater improvement than the pioglitazone group in weight-related quality of life total scores and in several domain scores. Health utility scores improved significantly for exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin groups (P < 0.05) with no significant difference between the exenatide once weekly group and either comparison group. All groups experienced significant improvements on the psychological well-being global scale and all six domain scores, with no significant difference between the exenatide once weekly group and either comparator. All groups experienced significant improvements in total diabetes treatment satisfaction scores. The exenatide once weekly group experienced greater improvement than the sitagliptin group in treatment satisfaction total scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with clinical outcomes from this study, these results indicate it is possible for patients treated with metformin to initiate exenatide therapy with potential benefits in both clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Factors associated with persistence and resumption of insulin pen use for patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

this study assessed patient-related factors associated with persistence and resumption of using pens as insulin delivery devices.

METHODS

patients (n = 549; 300 current pen users, 249 former pen users) were recruited from national panels to participate in computer-assisted telephone interviews. Measures included demographic characteristics, diabetes treatment and self-care factors, physician recommendation for pen use, perceptions of pen convenience, clinical efficacy, facilitation of self-care, cost, patient reasons for terminating pen use, and likelihood of resuming pen use among those who had terminated use.

RESULTS

current and former pen users rated the pen higher (P < 0.05) than vial and syringe on convenience, efficacy, facilitation of self-care, and cost, except for former users' ratings of cost. Current pen users rated pens higher (P < 0.05) than former users on all these measures. In addition to more positive pen perceptions, multivariate analysis showed that current users were more likely (P < 0.05) than former users to have received a pen recommendation from their physician, have better insurance coverage, and be working. Cost was the major reason reported for terminating pen use. Self-assessed likelihood of resuming pen use was higher (P < 0.05) among those with longer duration of pen use and more positive perceptions of pen cost and convenience.

CONCLUSIONS

results suggest that physician recommendations of pen use, patient perceptions of pens, and cost and insurance coverage of pens may play an important role in persistence of pen use. Among former pen users, duration of pen use and perceptions of pens may be important factors in likelihood of patients' resuming pen use.

Perceived medication benefits and their association with interest in using inhaled insulin in type 2 diabetes: a model of patients' cognitive framework

OBJECTIVE

To examine predictors of patient perceived relevance of different diabetes medication benefits, and to determine how medication benefit ratings of an inhaled insulin were associated with evaluation of, and interest in that inhaled insulin.

METHODS

The study was an Internet survey of a US sample (n = 1094) of adults with type 2 diabetes using different medication regimens. Patients were given a brief description of potential clinical benefits and administration procedures for the inhaled insulin described in this study (based on MannKind Corporation's Technosphere insulin). Measures included indicators of medication benefits, needs and relevance, benefit ratings and overall evaluation of the studied inhaled insulin relative to current medication, and interest in the study medication. Multivariate regression assessed significant (P < 0.05) independent associations, controlling for demographic and disease characteristics.

RESULTS

Relevance of potential medication benefits (avoidance of hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, weight gain, discomfort/inconvenience) was significantly associated with objective and subjective indicators of patients' needs. Most need indicators were associated only with the specific benefit to which they apply; concerns about weight and lifestyle were associated with multiple benefits. Ratings of the studied inhaled insulin for avoiding postprandial hyperglycemia and discomfort/inconvenience were associated with overall evaluation of and interest in the inhaled insulin described in this study; rating of this medication for avoiding weight gain was associated with overall evaluation ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevance of different potential benefits was based on objective and subjective indicators of need. Perceived efficacy of the inhaled insulin described in this study for avoiding postprandial hyperglycemia and discomfort/inconvenience were the benefits most strongly related to the evaluation of and interest in this medication.

Patient-reported outcomes from a 16-week open-label, multicenter study of insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

This study assessed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for patients with type 2 diabetes treated by insulin pump therapy.

METHODS

This 16-week, open-label, multicenter study was conducted with adults (averaging 57 years old, 50% women, 68% white non-Hispanic, with duration of diabetes of 13 years) treated at baseline with oral antidiabetes agents (OAD) only (OAD cohort, n = 17), basal insulin with or without OAD (Basal cohort, n = 17), or multiple daily injections (MDI) with or without OAD (MDI cohort, n = 20). All diabetes medications except metformin were discontinued at baseline, and insulin pump therapy was initiated. PRO were measured at baseline and end of study using two measures of health-related quality of life (QOL)--the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)--and a measure of treatment satisfaction--the Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ).

RESULTS

The combined study population (n = 54) experienced significant reductions in DSC-R total symptoms, as well as a significant increase in the EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale score. The OAD cohort experienced no changes in any QOL measure; the Basal and MDI cohorts each experienced significant improvements in several QOL measures. The combined study population experienced significant improvements in all IDSRQ measures except treatment interference, for which change was not significant. The OAD cohort experienced significant improvements in perceived clinical efficacy and overall treatment preference; the Basal and MDI cohorts each experienced significant improvements in five of the seven IDSRQ measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pump therapy improved QOL and treatment preference in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and harms of the hypoglycemic agent pramlintide in diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

We conducted a study to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and harms of pramlintide as adjunct therapy in adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched multiple bibliographic databases to January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling inclusion criteria. Syntheses were qualitative because data were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Three published RCTs in type 1 diabetes and 4 in type 2 disease fulfilled inclusion criteria. All trials were conducted with adults, and none was longer than 52 weeks. In type 1 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy, pramlintide was as effective as placebo in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in one trial. Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo in patients using conventional insulin therapy, with a between-group difference in HbA(1c) levels of 0.2% to 0.3% (2 studies). In patients with type 2 diabetes, pramlintide was more effective at reducing HbA(1c) levels than placebo when added to flexibly dosed glargine (without prandial insulin) and when added to fixed-dose insulin therapies, with or without oral hypoglycemic agents (between-group differences in HbA(1c) were approximately 0.4%). Weight loss was observed with pramlintide in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, whereas placebo-treated patients tended to gain weight. Pramlintide-treated patients experienced more frequent nausea and severe hypoglycemia compared with patients treated with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo as adjunct therapy for improving HbA(1c) levels and weight in adults with type 1 diabetes on conventional insulin therapy, or type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with their current therapies, with between-group differences in HbA(1c) levels in the range of 0.2% to 0.4%. Further research is needed to determine pramlintide's durability of hypoglycemic effect, as well as effects on patient-reported outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and long-term harms.

Bolus guide: a novel insulin bolus dosing decision support tool based on selection of carbohydrate ranges

BACKGROUND

Optimal continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy emphasizes the relationship between insulin dose and carbohydrate consumption. One widely used tool (bolus calculator) requires the user to enter discrete carbohydrate values; however, many patients might not estimate carbohydrates accurately. This study assessed carbohydrate estimation accuracy in type 1 diabetes CSII users and compared simulated blood glucose (BG) outcomes using the bolus calculator and the "bolus guide," an alternative system based on ranges of carbohydrate load.

METHODS

Patients (n = 60) estimated the carbohydrate load of a representative sample of meals of known carbohydrate value. The estimated error distribution [coefficient of variation (CV)] was the basis for a computer simulation (n = 1.6 million observations) of insulin recommendations for the bolus guide and bolus calculator, translated into outcome blood glucose (OBG) ranges (< or =60, 61-200, >201 mg/dl). Patients (n = 30) completed questionnaires assessing satisfaction with the bolus guide.

RESULTS

The CV of typical meals ranged from 27.9% to 44.5%. The percentage of simulated OBG for the calculator and the bolus guide in the <60 mg/dl range were 20.8% and 17.2%, respectively, and 13.8% and 15.8%, respectively, in the >200 mg/dl range. The mean and median scores of all bolus guide satisfaction items and ease of learning and use were 4.17 and 4.2, respectively (of 5.0).

CONCLUSION

The bolus guide recommendation based on carbohydrate range selection is substantially similar to the calculator based on carbohydrate point estimation and appears to be highly accepted by type 1 diabetes insulin pump users.

Patient-reported outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide or glimepiride, both as add-on to metformin

Patient-reported outcomes for liraglutide or glimepiride on metformin were investigated. Patients' treatment satisfaction on liraglutide was higher than with metformin alone and comparable with glimepiride+metformin. Patients perceived lower frequency of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride+metformin and lower frequency of hyperglycaemia than metformin. Impact of weight on quality of life did not differ.

The contribution of pretreatment expectations and expectation-perception difference to change in treatment satisfaction and end point treatment satisfaction in the context of initiation of inhaled insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This study explored relationships among pretreatment expectations, treatment perceptions, expectation-perception difference, change in diabetes treatment satisfaction, and end point diabetes treatment satisfaction in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Multivariate models were used to evaluate clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from a randomized clinical trial comparing treatment algorithms for an inhaled insulin. PRO measures--Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised subscales, Well-Being Questionnaire 12, Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Self-Efficacy Scale--were administered at baseline and end point. Expectations about Insulin Therapy (EITQ) and Perceptions of Insulin Therapy Questionnaires (PITQ) were administered at baseline and end point, respectively. Change scores for hemoglobin A1C (A1C), PRO (i.e., during-trial effects), and expectation-perception change were calculated. Perceptions, expectation-perception difference, and change in and end point treatment satisfaction served as dependent variables for statistical models.

RESULTS

Complete EITQ and PITQ data were available for 240 insulin-naive individuals with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 58 years; 61% male; 78% white; mean baseline A1C, 8.4%). Treatment perceptions were significantly (P < 0.01) more positive than expectations. After controlling for baseline patient assessments and during-trial effects, regression analyses showed that pretreatment expectations independently contributed to perceptions (beta = 0.18, P = 0.001) and expectation-perception change (beta = -0.71, P < 0.001). Acting as a suppressor variable, pretreatment expectations enhanced the ability of expectation-perception difference to predict both change in (beta = 0.39, P < 0.001) and end point (beta = 0.57, P < 0.001) diabetes treatment satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment expectations and expectation-perception difference play an important role in the amount of change that occurs in satisfaction with new treatment as compared to that of previous treatment, as well as satisfaction with new treatment.

Patient reported outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin randomized to addition of mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether treatment satisfaction and quality of life were affected by adding mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) to basal insulin therapy for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this 24-week open-label, multicenter study of adults with type 2 diabetes, mealtime pramlintide (PRAM) (120 microg fixed dose; n = 56) or titrated RAIAs (n = 56) was added to basal insulin therapy with or without oral antidiabetic medications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00467649.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of life (Diabetes Distress Scale - DDS, and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index - PSQI), and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - DTSQ, and Pramlintide Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire - PRAM-TSQ) were assessed at baseline and week 24. Mixed-effect models estimated mean group changes from baseline to week 24 (adjusted for baseline scores) in patient reported outcomes.

RESULTS

PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in total diabetes distress, while RAIA patients did not; both groups experienced significant improvement in regimen-related distress and physician-related distress. Between-group differences in DDS measures were not significant. PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in sleep latency and daytime dysfunction, while RAIA patients did not; the difference between groups was significant for daytime dysfunction. Both treatment groups experienced significant improvement in most individual DTSQ items and total diabetes treatment satisfaction, while only PRAM patients experienced significant improvement in perceived hypoglycemia. Between-group differences in DTSQ measures were not significant. Both treatment groups experienced significant improvement in most individual PRAM-TSQ items and total treatment satisfaction; RAIA patients experienced increased eating flexibility and reduced perceived weight control. PRAM patients experienced significantly better perceived weight and appetite control than RAIA patients.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was relatively small and there were few non-white subjects. The schedule for implementation of change in therapy may have affected study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding pramlintide on a background of basal insulin improved some aspects of treatment satisfaction and quality of life relative to adding rapid-acting insulin analogs.

Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial

BACKGROUND

Agonists of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor provide pharmacological levels of GLP-1 activity, whereas dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase concentrations of endogenous GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the human GLP-1 analogue liraglutide versus the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, as adjunct treatments to metformin, in individuals with type 2 diabetes who did not achieve adequate glycaemic control with metformin alone.

METHODS

In this parallel-group, open-label trial, participants (aged 18-80 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had inadequate glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] 7.5-10.0%) on metformin (>or=1500 mg daily for >or=3 months) were enrolled and treated at office-based sites in Europe, the USA, and Canada. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 26 weeks' treatment with 1.2 mg (n=225) or 1.8 mg (n=221) subcutaneous liraglutide once daily, or 100 mg oral sitagliptin once daily (n=219). The primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 26. The efficacy of liraglutide versus sitagliptin was assessed hierarchically by a non-inferiority comparison, with a margin of 0.4%, followed by a superiority comparison. Analyses were done on the full analysis set with missing values imputed by last observation carried forward; seven patients assigned to liraglutide did not receive treatment and thus did not meet criteria for inclusion in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00700817.

FINDINGS

Greater lowering of mean HbA(1c) (8.5% at baseline) was achieved with 1.8 mg liraglutide (-1.50%, 95% CI -1.63 to -1.37, n=218) and 1.2 mg liraglutide (-1.24%, -1.37 to -1.11, n=221) than with sitagliptin (-0.90%, -1.03 to -0.77, n=219). Estimated mean treatment differences for liraglutide versus sitagliptin were -0.60% (95% CI -0.77 to -0.43, p<0.0001) for 1.8 mg and -0.34% (-0.51 to -0.16, p<0.0001) for 1.2 mg liraglutide. Nausea was more common with liraglutide (59 [27%] patients on 1.8 mg; 46 [21%] on 1.2 mg) than with sitagliptin (10 [5%]). Minor hypoglycaemia was recorded in about 5% of participants in each treatment group.

INTERPRETATION

Liraglutide was superior to sitagliptin for reduction of HbA(1c), and was well tolerated with minimum risk of hypoglycaemia. These findings support the use of liraglutide as an effective GLP-1 agent to add to metformin.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Psychometric properties of an instrument for assessing the experience of patients treated with inhaled insulin: the inhaled insulin treatment questionnaire (IITQ)

BACKGROUND

Along with general measures of treatment satisfaction, treatment-specific and device-specific treatment satisfaction should be assessed in clinical trials, because these latter measures may be more strongly correlated with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Study participants were 1076 adults (type 1 = 509, type 2 = 567) in clinical trials of Technosphere Insulin(R), who completed the SF-36 health-related quality of life questionnaire and the Inhaled Insulin Treatment Questionnaire (IITQ), a new instrument assessing diabetes worries, perceptions of insulin therapy, treatment satisfaction, treatment preference, and inhaler performance. The IITQ was administered twice prior to treatment initiation in the clinical trials, 1-2 weeks apart, and several times during the trials. Inhaler performance was assessed at follow-up visits, after participants had used the device.

RESULTS

IITQ subscales had acceptable reliability (alpha = 0.68-0.87, median 0.83) and test-retest correlations (intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.67-0.90, median 0.82); floor effects (0.2-2.8%) and ceiling effects (0-9.3%) were minimal. Reliabilities for inhaler performance measures were acceptable (alpha = 0.73-0.90, median 0.85); there were no floor effects (0.0%) and ceiling effects (4.9-39.0%) were moderate. There were several modest associations between IITQ scores and measures of health status. Diabetes worries were lower for participants who had better mental health (type 2) and for those with higher BMI; perceptions of insulin therapy were more favorable for participants who had better physical and mental health; treatment satisfaction was higher for patients who had lower BMI (type 2), lower A1c levels, and better physical health (type 2); treatment preference was higher for patients with lower BMI (type 2) and better mental health (type 1). CONCLUSIONS -: Preliminary findings suggest that the IITQ is a comprehensive, reliable measure of the experience of patients treated with inhaled insulin.

A psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) cognitive distress, fatigue, hyperglycemia, and hypoglycemia subscales in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To explore the use of Diabetes Symptom Checklist-Revised (DSC-R) Cognitive Distress, Fatigue, Hyperglycemia, and Hypoglycemia subscales as measures of acute diabetes-associated symptoms in patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Our study was conducted in context of two international, multicenter, randomized clinical trials for inhaled insulin. Confirmatory factor analyses and assessments of reliability and construct validity were performed.

RESULTS

Study participants were 371 patients with type 2 (56% male; mean age, 57 years) and 481 with type 1 diabetes (57% male, mean age, 40 years). In both populations a four-factor model was the best fit. Cronbach's α ≥ 0.79 and intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.63; subscales correlated (P ≤ 0.05) with measures of well-being and satisfaction (0.12 ≤ r ≤ 0.71). In patients with type 1 diabetes, three subscales correlated (P < 0.05) with A1C.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometric properties of the DSC-R Cognitive Distress, Fatigue, Hyperglycemia, and Hypoglycemia suggest they may be utilized in clinical trials as reliable and valid measures of acute symptoms of diabetes.

A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products--liraglutide and exenatide--for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To use time trade-off (TTO) to compare patient preferences for profiles of two glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) products for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (liraglutide and exenatide) that vary on four key attributes - efficacy (as measured by hemoglobin A(1C)), incidence of nausea, incidence of hypoglycemia, and dosing frequency (QD vs. BID) - and measure the contribution of those attributes to preferences.

METHODS

A total of 382 people with T2DM were recruited to participate in an internet-based survey consisting of a series of health-related questions, a conjoint exercise and a set of time trade-off items. In the conjoint exercise, respondents were presented with eight pairs of hypothetical GLP-1 profiles, and completed a time-tradeoff exercise for each pair.

RESULTS

The product profile representing liraglutide was preferred by 96% of respondents and resulted in significantly higher health utilities (0.038) than the product profile representing exenatide (0.978 vs. 0.94, p < 0.05). Estimated preference scores from the conjoint analysis revealed that efficacy measured by hemoglobin A(1C) is the most important attribute, followed by nausea, hypoglycemia, and dosing schedule.

LIMITATIONS

On-line participants may not represent 'typical' type 2 diabetes patients, and brief product profiles represented results from clinical trials, not clinical practice

CONCLUSION

Based on the four attributes presented, patients prefer liraglutide over exenatide. Preference is based on superior efficacy and less nausea more than less hypoglycemia and once-daily dosing.

Treatment satisfaction and quality of life for an integrated continuous glucose monitoring/insulin pump system compared to self-monitoring plus an insulin pump

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how the most advanced technology affects treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adults with diabetes. This study was designed to assess treatment satisfaction and HRQOL among users of an integrated real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)/continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) system compared with those using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with CSII.

METHODS

Participants were 311 adult respondents to an Internet survey, 162 using RT-CGM/CSII, 149 using SMBG + CSII (median age 43 years; type 1 diabetes 94%; diabetes duration >15 years 61%; median insulin use 15 years). Respondents completed instruments assessing glucose monitoring system and insulin delivery system convenience, interference, burden, glucose control efficacy, cost satisfaction, overall satisfaction, and treatment preference, as well as quality of life (diabetes-related worries, social burden, and psychological well-being). Real-time CGM/CSII users also assessed specific elements of the RT-CGM/CSII system. Group differences were assessed using analysis of covariance controlling for respondent characteristics.

RESULTS

The RT-CGM/CSII group gave significantly better ratings than the SMBG + CSII group for their glucose monitoring system's glucose control efficacy, overall satisfaction, desire to switch, and willingness to recommend, and significantly worse ratings for interference with daily activities. The RT-CGM/CSII group gave significantly better ratings than the SMBG + CSII group for their insulin delivery system's convenience and glucose control efficacy, overall satisfaction, desire to switch, and willingness to recommend. Real-time CGM/CSII users gave positive ratings of all system features.

CONCLUSIONS

Users of the integrated RT-CGM/CSII system reported more benefits of treatment, higher treatment satisfaction and quality of life, and greater preference for this system than SMBG + CSII users.