The use of insulin pumps with meal bolus alarms in children with type 1 diabetes to improve glycemic control

The Clinical and Economic Impact of the V-Go® Disposable Insulin Delivery Device for Insulin Delivery in Patients with Poorly Controlled Diabetes at High Risk

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is a chronic condition and when poorly controlled can lead to complications and death. Patients with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) measures >9 % are at significant risk for diabetes-related complications impacting the patient's quality of life and imposing higher costs on the healthcare system. A1C reductions of 1 % or greater in this population have demonstrated substantial health and economic benefits. Reducing the percent of patients at risk is an essential component of quality-care measures established for patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if switching patients prescribed subcutaneous insulin injections to V-Go for insulin delivery would impact clinical and economic parameters in patients with poorly controlled diabetes (A1C > 9 %).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective analysis using data extracted from the electronic medical records database of a multicenter diabetes system. Outcome measures included mean change in A1C from baseline, the percent of patients achieving a reduction in A1C ≥1 % while on V-Go therapy, and the impact to quality measures. In addition, economic analyses were conducted to assess the pharmacy budget impact and projected implication to total healthcare cost.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were evaluated after a mean duration of 13.6 ± 6.9 weeks of insulin delivery with V-Go. Switching to V-Go resulted in an overall mean change (95 % CI) in A1C of -2.0 % (-1.7 to -2.3; p < 0.001) from a baseline of 10.5 %. Seventy-three percent of patients achieved an A1C reduction ≥1 %. Cost analysis supported a direct pharmacy savings of $119.30 (18.80-219.60, p = 0.020) per patient per month compared with baseline.

CONCLUSION

Switching to V-Go for insulin delivery resulted in significant glycemic improvement and proved cost effective. This real-world assessment could be applied more broadly at the health system and plan level.

Association of HbA1c to BOLUS Scores Among Youths with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Frequency of mealtime insulin bolusing (BOLUS) is a promising new objective assessment of adherence in youths with type 1 diabetes (T1D). As further confirmation of the validity of BOLUS, we compare the associations of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values of T1D youths with the original scoring of BOLUS and two alternative scoring procedures: mean mealtime boluses within a 2-h meal window (2h-BOLUS) and total daily frequency of boluses (TOTAL-BOLUS). In addition, we assess HbA1c associations of these three procedures, including interaction terms for mealtime boluses plus correction boluses.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Blood glucose meter data, insulin pump records, and HbA1c levels were collected from a combined clinical and research database for a random sample of 100 youths (mean age, 12.7 ± 4.6 years). Youths' pump records were scored using the published methodology and alternative procedures for evaluating insulin use.

RESULTS

Youths' BOLUS, TOTAL-BOLUS, and mealtime boluses within a 2-h meal window (2h-BOLUS) scores are independently associated with youths' HbA1c level; all measures demonstrated stronger associations with youths' HbA1c than did frequency of glucose monitoring. The strongest association was between youths' BOLUS score and their HbA1c level. In multiple regression analyses, youths' BOLUS score better explains the variations in HbA1c levels than either youths' 2h-BOLUS or TOTAL-BOLUS scores. When combined with BOLUS in the same relationships, 2h-BOLUS and TOTAL-BOLUS were not found to have statistically significant coefficients. None of the bivariate relationships of HbA1c and interaction terms of mealtime and correction boluses was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The original method for calculating BOLUS appears superior to alternative scoring methods in its association with youths' HbA1c levels.

An analysis of "no effect of insulin pen with memory function on glycemic control in a patient cohort with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomized open-label study"

Missing meal bolus and nonadherence is an important barrier to achieving glycemic goals in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Danne and coauthors reported the results of a 24-week randomized-controlled study designed to evaluate if using an insulin pen with memory function, the HumaPen® Memoir™, might improve injection compliance and, therefore, overall glycemic control in T1DM. Patients treated with the pen device with memory function improved, albeit nonsignificantly, their mean HbA1c by 0.43%. Among the reasons to justify why this study was not positive, the most important is the high proportion of adult patients included in the study (87.9%)-children and adolescents being under-represented. I am convinced that pen devices with memory function might be helpful for forgetful patients (children, adolescents), as suggested in another recent study.

No effect of insulin pen with memory function on glycemic control in a patient cohort with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomized open-label study

BACKGROUND

Injection compliance is a major problem in patients with type 1 diabetes. Increased compliance with mealtime insulin injections significantly improves metabolic control. Using an insulin pen with memory function might facilitate corrective dosing to avoid postprandial blood glucose peaks and therefore might improve overall glycemic control.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, 24-week multicenter study evaluated if patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes [hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 8%] who were randomized to use the HumaPen® Memoir™, an insulin pen device with memory function, for their mealtime insulin injections achieved superior glycemic control (HbA1c change from baseline) than patients who used the conventional device HumaPen Luxura™. Hemoglobin A1c, hypoglycemia, and pen acceptance were assessed at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 263 patients randomized, 257 were eligible for analysis: HumaPen Memoir 129, HumaPen Luxura 128; mean [standard deviation (SD)] baseline HbA1c 9.09% (0.99%); mean (SD) age 39.8 (16.5) years; 87.9% ≥18 years old; and mean (SD) diabetes duration 16.0 (11.2) years. Least square mean (95% confidence interval) changes of HbA1c up to week 24 were not significantly different between the HumaPen Memoir [0.43% (-0.59%,-0.28%)] and the HumaPen Luxura group [0.48% (0.64%, 0.32%); p = .669]. The overall incidence of hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly between groups (p = .982). Average satisfaction with insulin delivery was high in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient sample, usage of a memory function pen was not associated with superior glycemic control, suggesting that adherence to mealtime injection schedules was not improved in a relevant manner. The memory function might be helpful for specific patient populations only, e.g., children or forgetful patients.

Comparison of a novel insulin bolus-patch with pen/syringe injection to deliver mealtime insulin for efficacy, preference, and quality of life in adults with diabetes: a randomized, crossover, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy, safety, device satisfaction, and quality of life (QOL) in people with diabetes using an insulin bolus-patch versus current devices (pen/syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Thirty-eight subjects with diabetes (26 with type 1 and 12 with type 2) were randomized to bolus-patch or current injection device (55% pen and 45% syringe) to deliver mealtime insulin in a multicenter, 6-week crossover study. Efficacy was assessed by equivalence in mean daily seven-point blood glucose (MDBG). Safety assessments included severe hypoglycemia episodes, adverse device effects (ADEs), and adverse events (AEs). Device satisfaction was determined by the validated Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire (IDSRQ) and QOL by the validated Diabetes Specific QOL Scale (DSQOLS).

RESULTS

Using bolus-patch, MDBG (mean±SE) was equivalent to that using pen/syringe (8.61±0.28 vs. 9.02±0.26 mmol/L; P=0.098). SD of the seven-point blood glucose measurements was lower using bolus-patch (3.18±0.18 vs. 3.63±0.17 mmol/L; P=0.004), as was the coefficient of variation (CV) (37.2±1.7 vs. 40.3±1.7%; P=0.046). Hemoglobin A1c, 1,5-anhydroglucitol, fructosamine, and insulin use were similar between groups. There were no severe hypoglycemia episodes or serious ADEs. Between-device AEs were comparable. Subjects scored better on six of seven subscales on the DSQOLS and five of six subscales on the IDSRQ while using bolus-patch versus pen/syringe. At study completion, 76% of subjects would choose to switch to bolus-patch (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of mealtime insulin with bolus-patch compared with pen/syringe resulted in equivalent MDBG, lower SD and CV of seven-point blood glucose measurements, good safety, significant device satisfaction, and improved QOL.

Can technology improve adherence to long-term therapies?

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic nonadherence is defined as the lack of equivalence between the behavior of the patients and their prescribed medical treatment. Consequences of nonadherence include not only health outcomes, but also cost saving. Thus, this issue gets paramount importance in contemporary medicine.

METHOD

The aim of this article is to discuss the relationships between technology and adherence by asking the following three questions. (1) How can technology be used to monitor patient adherence? (2) Considering the mechanisms of nonadherence in chronic diseases, is there room for technology in interventions aimed to improve patient adherence? (3) What about adherence to technology in diabetes care?

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Technology may help improve adherence to long-term therapies by (1) giving a concrete representation of adherence rewards, (2) overcoming immediate obstacles to adherence, such as the fear of hypoglycemia, and (3) providing an opportunity for patient-doctor conversations. This assumes, however, that both the patient and the doctor are convinced that technologies are useful.

Past, present, and future of insulin pump therapy: better shot at diabetes control

With the advent of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy and the findings of the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, the management of type 1 diabetes has changed drastically. Over the past 30 years since its development, the effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion has been assessed in comparison with other modes of intensive treatment. Additionally, improvements in pump delivery systems have been made. Here, the findings of the studies on pump therapy are reviewed. Selection criteria of patients for pump use and how to initiate pump therapy are presented. Finally, newer findings on continuous glucose sensors are discussed as the next era of pump therapy continues to focus on the goal of developing an artificial pancreas.

Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System (CARDS): e-mail and SMS cell phone text messaging reminders to support diabetes management

BACKGROUND

Cell phone text messaging, via the Short Messaging Service (SMS), offers the promise of a highly portable, well-accepted, and inexpensive modality for engaging youth and young adults in the management of their diabetes. This pilot and feasibility study compared two-way SMS cell phone messaging with e-mail reminders that were directed at encouraging blood glucose (BG) monitoring.

METHODS

Forty insulin-treated adolescents and young adults with diabetes were randomized to receive electronic reminders to check their BG levels via cell phone text messaging or e-mail reminders for a 3-month pilot study. Electronic messages were automatically generated, and participant replies with BG results were processed by the locally developed Computerized Automated Reminder Diabetes System (CARDS). Participants set their schedule for reminders on the secure CARDS website where they could also enter and review BG data.

RESULTS

Of the 40 participants, 22 were randomized to receive cell phone text message reminders and 18 to receive e-mail reminders; 18 in the cell phone group and 11 in the e-mail group used the system. Compared to the e-mail group, users in the cell phone group received more reminders (180.4 vs. 106.6 per user) and responded with BG results significantly more often (30.0 vs. 6.9 per user, P = 0.04). During the first month cell phone users submitted twice as many BGs as e-mail users (27.2 vs. 13.8 per user); by month 3, usage waned.

CONCLUSIONS

Cell phone text messaging to promote BG monitoring is a viable and acceptable option in adolescents and young adults with diabetes. However, maintaining interest levels for prolonged intervals remains a challenge.