Do We Need Updated Guidelines on the Use of Insulin Pump Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes? A Review of National and International Practice Guidelines

A Cross-Sectional Pilot Survey of Rural Clinic Attitudes and Proficiency with Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices

Purpose: To examine the perceptions, proficiencies, and barriers of diabetes device use among rural clinic providers. Methods: A total of 210 surveys were sent through e-mail and/or U.S. Postal Service to rural clinics throughout Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Utah based on discussions with rural clinic network leadership in the states. Responses were included if the participant was 18 years of age and older, and worked at a rural clinic as a physician, physician assistant, nurse, nurse practitioner, allied health worker, or clinic manager. Results: Respondents included clinic management (13%), midlevel providers (physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and allied health workers (pharmacists, dietitians, and social workers, 30.8%), nurses (30.8%), and physicians (23.1%). We had a low response rate (20%; n = 41), but of those who said they work with patients who have diabetes, only 47.4% indicated that they use diabetes devices as part of their patients' treatment. The most common barrier reported among respondents suggested that additional medical team expertise is needed in their community or clinic to adopt insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitoring for qualified patients (75.9% and 80.8%, respectively). Conclusion: Lack of provider experience and having patients managed by out-of-area experts were the biggest reasons for providers not seeing or managing patients using these devices. Lack of provider access, patient satisfaction with current diabetes regimens, unsupportive health care team, patient literacy, and patient fear showed limited to negligible endorsements from survey respondents. A variety of potential solutions to this problem of limited provider experience and training are also offered.

Impact of improving postprandial glycemic control with intensifying insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Worldwide, many people with type 2 diabetes are not at recommended glycemic targets and remain at increased risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Reaching recommended glycemic targets requires normalizing both fasting and postprandial glucose (PPG). For some patients, this will require addition of a prandial insulin delivered by injection to control PPG excursions. Evidence from epidemiological studies suggests an association between postprandial hyperglycemia and cardiovascular disease, and thus, expert guidelines recommend that treatment for elevated PPG not be delayed. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that PPG makes the greatest contribution to HbA_1c in patients who are approaching, but have not yet reached HbA_1c <7.0%. Appropriately timed exposure of the liver to insulin is critical in suppressing hepatic glucose output (and therefore PPG levels) after a meal. Rapid-acting insulin analogs, with their faster onset and shorter duration of action, offer advantages over regular human insulin. Unfortunately, even with improved pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, rapid-acting insulin analogs are still unable to fully reproduce the rapid release of insulin into the portal circulation and suppression of hepatic glucose output that occurs in the individual without diabetes after starting a meal. The next generation of rapid-acting insulin analogs will have an even more favorable pharmacokinetic profile that should allow patients to further improve glycemic control. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents another option for intensifying therapy and improving postprandial control in some patients, and studies have shown that the benefits are sustainable long-term. However, it is currently unclear which patients stand to benefit the most from the extra expense and complexity of a CSII regimen, and further studies are needed.