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

Improved treatment satisfaction with once-weekly insulin icodec compared with once-daily basal insulin in individuals with type 2 diabetes: An analysis of patient-reported outcomes and participant interviews from ONWARDS 2 and 5 and a physician survey from ONWARDS 1

AIMS

The ONWARDS phase 3a clinical trials evaluated once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) versus once-daily basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. This analysis investigated the treatment-related experiences of participants from ONWARDS 5 and 2, and physicians from ONWARDS 1.

METHODS

Patient-reported outcomes were only collected during ONWARDS 5 (icodec with a dosing guide app vs. once-daily basal analogues) and 2 (icodec vs. once-daily insulin degludec). ONWARDS 1 (icodec vs. once-daily insulin glargine U100) physicians' treatment preferences and satisfaction were obtained via an online survey.

RESULTS

In ONWARDS 5 and 2, there was a statistically significantly greater increase in total treatment satisfaction from baseline to end of treatment for icodec/icodec with app versus once-daily comparators, mostly driven by participants' willingness to continue and recommend treatment. In ONWARDS 2, 93.7 % of icodec users preferred once-weekly over once-daily basal insulin, mainly owing to less frequent injections and ease of use. ONWARDS 1 physicians reported greater satisfaction with once-weekly than with once-daily basal insulin and were more likely to recommend once-weekly injections.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate improved treatment satisfaction with, and strong preferences for, once-weekly versus once-daily basal insulin. Treatment convenience and willingness to continue and recommend once-weekly basal insulin treatment were highlighted.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ONWARDS 1: NCT04460885; ONWARDS 2: NCT04770532; ONWARDS 5: NCT04760626.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Treatment Burden and Medication Adherence Among Primary Care Patients with Multimorbidity in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity, the coexistence of multiple chronic conditions, presents significant challenges in treatment management and medication adherence. This study investigates the burden of multimorbidity and factors influencing treatment adherence among primary care patients in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted from November to December 2023, including 422 participants selected via stratified random sampling from 12 primary healthcare centers in Jeddah. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older with two or more confirmed long-term medical conditions. The Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS) were used to measure treatment burden and medication adherence, respectively. Demographic variables were assessed for their influence on these outcomes.

RESULTS

High treatment burden was reported by 55% of participants, while 21% reported medium burden, 15% experienced low burden and 9% no burden. Medication adherence was partial in 69% of participants, with 13% reporting high adherence, 13% good adherence, and 5% poor adherence. Statistically significant differences in MTBQ scores were observed based on marital status, education level, residence, occupation, and income. GMAS scores varied statistically significantly with marital status, education level, residence, occupation, income, and previous self-care education session attendance and MTBQ scores, with those having high burden reporting the lowest adherence scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic factors, including marital status, education level, residence, occupation, and income, significantly influence multimorbidity treatment burden and medication adherence. A higher treatment burden was associated with lower adherence. Targeted interventions addressing these factors could improve treatment outcomes for patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Turkish version of the Exercise Therapy Burden Questionnaire for individuals with chronic diseases

OBJECTIVE

Chronic diseases, which caused 36 million deaths in 2008, are the most common cause of death worldwide. Exercise is one of the non-pharmacological treatment methods. Although exercise benefits are well known, more than half of the population does not exercise due to the burden of exercise. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate the Turkish version of the Exercise Therapy Burden Questionnaire (ETBQ-T) and to investigate its reliability and validity.

METHODS

A total of 100 participants (female: 69, male: 31) who were diagnosed with at least one chronic disease participated in the translation validity and reliability analysis of the study. Cross-cultural adaptation of the ETBQ-T was performed according to Beaton's guidelines. The ETBQ-T, the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), pain, satisfaction, and self-efficacy were applied for convergent validity. The ETBQ-T was retested to examine its reliability after 7 days.

RESULTS

The internal consistency and reliability were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.959; Cronbach's α=0.919). The standard error of measurement was reported as 5.35. The minimum detectable difference was also demonstrated at 1.35. The ETBQ-T had a good correlation with pain (r=0.545, p<0.001), satisfaction (r=-501, p<0.001), and self-efficacy (r=-0.579, p<0.001). However, the correlation of the ETBQ-T with EQ-5D (r=0.340, p=0.001) was weak. A factor was extracted, accounting for 58.289% of the total variation. There were no floor or ceiling effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The ETBQ-T is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate the exercise burden in the Turkish population with chronic disease.

Measuring treatment burden in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM): a mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Measuring treatment burden is important for the effective management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) care. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the most robust approach for measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM based on existing evidence.

METHODS

Articles from seven databases were retrieved. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies examining treatment burden in adults with T2DM and/or reporting relevant experiences were included. A convergent segregated approach with a mixed-methods design of systematic review was employed, creating a measurement framework in a narrative review for consistent critical appraisal. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. The measurement properties of the instruments were evaluated using the Consensus based Standards for selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 21,584 records were screened, and 26 articles were included, comprising 11 quantitative, 11 qualitative, and 4 mixed-methods studies. A thematic analysis of qualitative data extracted from the included articles summarised a measurement framework encompassing seven core and six associated measurements. The core measurements, including financial, medication, administrative, lifestyle, healthcare, time/travel, and medical information burdens, directly reflect the constructs pertinent to the treatment burden of T2DM. In contrast, the associated measurement themes do not directly reflect the burdens or are less substantiated by current evidence. The results of the COSMIN checklist evaluation demonstrated that the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), and Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) have robust instrument development processes. These three instruments, with the highest total counts combining the number of themes covered and "positive" ratings in COSMIN evaluation, were in the top tertile stratification, demonstrating superior applicability for measuring T2DM treatment burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides evidence for the currently superior option of measuring treatment burden in people with T2DM. It also revealed that most current research was conducted in well-resourced institutions, potentially overlooking variability in under-resourced settings.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec With Dosing Guide App Versus Once-Daily Basal Insulin Analogues in Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 5) : A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Inadequate dose titration and poor adherence to basal insulin can lead to suboptimal glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue that is in development and is aimed at reducing treatment burden.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of icodec titrated with a dosing guide app (icodec with app) versus once-daily basal insulin analogues (OD analogues) dosed per standard practice.

DESIGN

52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04760626).

SETTING

176 sites in 7 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

1085 insulin-naive adults with T2D.

INTERVENTION

Icodec with app or OD analogue (insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, or insulin glargine U300).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 52. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes [TRIM-D] compliance domain score and change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ] total treatment satisfaction score).

RESULTS

The estimated mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 52 was greater with icodec with app than with OD analogues, with noninferiority (P < 0.001) and superiority (P = 0.009) confirmed in prespecified hierarchical testing (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.38 percentage points [95% CI, -0.66 to -0.09 percentage points]). At week 52, patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec with app than with OD analogues (ETDs, 3.04 [CI, 1.28 to 4.81] for TRIM-D and 0.78 [CI, 0.10 to 1.47] for DTSQ). Rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low and similar with both treatments.

LIMITATION

Inability to differentiate the effects of icodec and the dosing guide app.

CONCLUSION

Compared with OD analogues, icodec with app showed superior HbA1c reduction and improved treatment satisfaction and compliance with similarly low hypoglycemia rates.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Novo Nordisk A/S.

Development of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess patient perceptions of simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Treatments for type 2 diabetes vary widely in their complexity. The simplicity or complexity of a treatment regimen may have an impact on patient preference, treatment adherence, and health outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop two draft patient-reported outcome instruments focusing on patients' experience with simplicity and complexity of treatment for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The instruments were developed in a series of steps: gather information to support development of a concept elicitation interview guide (literature review and expert interviews), concept elicitation interviews with patients (N = 30), cognitive interviews with patients (N = 20), and a translatability assessment.

RESULTS

In concept elicitation interviews, patients with type 2 diabetes reported a range of treatment attributes that influence their perceptions of treatment simplicity and complexity, such as injection devices, medication preparation, dose timing, dose frequency, ease of taking the correct dose, flexibility of dose schedule, remembering to take medication, and food requirements. Two draft questionnaires were developed based on the literature review, expert interviews, and concept elicitation interviews with patients. Revisions were made to these draft instruments based on qualitative interviews with patients and translatability assessment.

DISCUSSION

The qualitative research conducted in this study supports the content validity of two newly developed instruments, the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire (Sim-Q) and the Simplicity of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaire-Comparison (Sim-Q-Comp), designed to assess the simplicity and complexity of diabetes treatment from the patient's perspective.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in Older Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are determinants of health-related outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We aimed to determine differences in HRQOL between older adults with T1D and T2D and specific factors influencing HRQOL in this age group. This study used a cross-sectional design with 56 age- and HbA1c-matched T1D and T2D patients (aged 68.9 ± 7.8 years; 55% had T2D). We employed several validated questionnaires (Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions/Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) to investigate the relationships between HRQOL domains and diabetes type, glycemic control, complications, and comorbidities. T1D was associated with better self-reported general health (assessed with the SF-36 general health domain (p = 0.048) and the EuroQol-5 VAS (p = 0.002), whereas no significant differences in the other SF-36 domains, self-reported diabetes distress, anxiety, or depression were found. Most HRQOL domains were not associated with HbA1c or the presence of diabetes complications. The most significant reduction in HRQOL was experienced by patients with higher BMIs, irrespective of the diabetes type. The obtained HRQOL data could be used in clinical settings for evidence-based patient education focused on specific subgroups of patients, as well as in national healthcare policies, e.g., interventions designed to alleviate obesity.

Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measure to Assess Emotional Impact of Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Patients receiving treatment for type 2 diabetes (T2D) may experience an emotional impact associated with treatment-related changes. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure assessing both positive and negative emotional impact of medication treatment for T2D is needed to better understand the patient experience of treatment. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the emotional impact of treatment for T2D and support the development of a questionnaire to assess the emotional impact of treatment for T2D.

METHODS

Exit interviews were conducted with patients with T2D participating in the SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3 trials for tirzepatide. The exit interviews included a concept elicitation section focusing on the emotional impact of their study treatment. Results were used to develop two questionnaires that were evaluated in cognitive interviews with patients with T2D.

RESULTS

The concept elicitation interviews included 28 patients (mean age 57.6 years; 64.3% female). Most patients reported positive changes in emotions associated with tirzepatide, including increased confidence (n = 23; 82.1%), hope (n = 23; 82.1%), self-esteem (n = 23; 82.1%), relief (n = 22; 78.6%), optimism (n = 21; 75.0%), sense of control (n = 21; 75.0%), happiness (n = 15; 53.6%), and motivation (n = 15; 53.6%), as well as reduced worry/anxiety (n = 19; 67.9%). Negative emotional impact was less commonly reported but included frustration (n = 2; 7.1%), worry/anxiety (n = 1; 3.6%), fear (n = 1; 3.6%), and feeling depressed (n = 1; 3.6%). Two new PROs, the Emotional Impact of Diabetes Treatment Questionnaires (EIDTQ, status and comparison versions), were developed based on these finding. The status version assesses the emotional impact of current treatment, while the comparison version allows for comparison of the current treatment to a previous treatment. The questionnaires were refined on the basis of cognitive interviews with 20 additional patients (mean age 58.3 years; 60.0% female), and results suggest that the final instruments were clear, comprehensible, and relevant to patients.

CONCLUSION

The EIDTQ-Status and Comparison measures can be used as a supplement to clinical outcomes, such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight, to provide a broader picture of the patient's emotional experience with medication treatment for T2D.

Label-free optical metabolic imaging of adipose tissues for prediabetes diagnosis

Rationale: Prediabetes can be reversed through lifestyle intervention, but its main pathologic hallmark, insulin resistance (IR), cannot be detected as conveniently as blood glucose testing. In consequence, the diagnosis of prediabetes is often delayed until patients have hyperglycemia. Therefore, developing a less invasive diagnostic method for rapid IR evaluation will contribute to the prognosis of prediabetes. Adipose tissue is an endocrine organ that plays a crucial role in the development and progression of prediabetes. Label-free visualizing the prediabetic microenvironment of adipose tissues provides a less invasive alternative for the characterization of IR and inflammatory pathology. Methods: Here, we successfully identified the differentiable features of prediabetic adipose tissues by employing the metabolic imaging of three endogenous fluorophores NAD(P)H, FAD, and lipofuscin-like pigments. Results: We discovered that 1040-nm excited lipofuscin-like autofluorescence could mark the location of macrophages. This unique feature helps separate the metabolic fluorescence signals of macrophages from those of adipocytes. In prediabetes fat tissues with IR, we found only adipocytes exhibited a low redox ratio of metabolic fluorescence and high free NAD(P)H fraction a₁. This differential signature disappears for mice who quit the high-fat diet or high-fat-high-sucrose diet and recover from IR. When mice have diabetic hyperglycemia and inflamed fat tissues, both adipocytes and macrophages possess this kind of metabolic change. As confirmed with RNA-seq analysis and histopathology evidence, the change in adipocyte's metabolic fluorescence could be an indicator or risk factor of prediabetic IR. Conclusion: Our study provides an innovative approach to diagnosing prediabetes, which sheds light on the strategy for diabetes prevention.

Improved patient-reported outcomes with iGlarLixi versus premix BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes in the SoliMix trial

AIM

To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the SoliMix trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SoliMix (EudraCT: 2017-003370-13), a 26-week, open-label study, randomized (1:1) 887 adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5%-≤10.0% (≥58-≤86 mmol/mol) on basal insulin plus oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) to once-daily iGlarLixi or twice-daily premix insulin, BIAsp 30. PROs were assessed using the Treatment-Related Impact Measure Diabetes (TRIM-D) and Global Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation (GTEE) questionnaires.

RESULTS

Over 26 weeks, iGlarLixi showed greater improvement from baseline versus BIAsp 30 in total TRIM-D score (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 5.08 [3.69, 6.47]; effect size: 0.32) and in each TRIM-D domain, with the greatest differences seen in diabetes management (8.47 [6.11, 10.84]) and treatment burden (6.95 [4.83, 9.07]). GTEE scores showed a greater proportion of participants and physicians rated a complete or marked improvement of diabetes control with iGlarLixi (80.5%, 82.8%) versus BIAsp 30 (63.3%, 65.1%) at week 26. Post hoc analyses showed that after adjusting for HbA1c, body weight and hypoglycaemia outcomes, iGlarLixi continued to show greater improvements in TRIM-D total scores versus BIAsp 30.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to better glycaemic control, weight benefit and less hypoglycaemia, once-daily iGlarLixi provided improved diabetes management, treatment burden and perceived effectiveness versus twice-daily premix BIAsp 30, further supporting iGlarLixi as an advanced treatment option in people with suboptimally controlled T2D on basal insulin plus OADs.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Assessing Diabetes Outcomes

The treatment of diabetes can be complex and overwhelming for patients as it demands persistent attention to lifestyle management, adherence to medications, monitoring of side effects of drugs, and management of devices for glucose monitoring and/or insulin infusion. Therefore, understanding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that provide direct insight into the patient's experience with diabetes is crucial for optimizing diabetes management.This review provides an overview of commonly used PRO questionnaires that assess different aspects of diabetes management.

Development and Validation of the Diabetes Pen Experience Measure (DPEM): A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

BACKGROUND

Satisfaction with insulin-delivery devices has been shown to improve treatment adherence, translating into better glycemic control. The Diabetes Pen Experience Measure (DPEM) is a new patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate patients' experience when using an injection device.

METHODS

The DPEM was developed using literature review and concept elicitation interviews with clinical experts and patients. This led to a theoretical model and a draft measure of the diabetes pen experience, which was refined following cognitive debriefing. Validation entailed a web-based, noninterventional survey; psychometric analyses conducted according to a statistical analysis plan; and refinement and finalization of the DPEM and theoretical model.

RESULTS

In total, 42 patients participated in concept elicitation interviews. Analysis of the qualitative interviews resulted in a preliminary theoretical model. Based on this model, DPEM items were generated; the preliminary version of the DPEM contained 30 items. Following cognitive debriefing, the validation-ready version comprised 28 items. These were later reduced to 7 higher-order items owing to ceiling/floor effects. In total, 300 patients participated in the web-based validation study. The item statistics were all adequate. Item-to-item correlations were good. Item-to-total correlations displayed acceptable associations between each item against the rest of the items, with correlations of 0.68 to 0.79. The internal consistency was adequate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. The DPEM is scored by summing the 7 item scores and transforming the sum onto a 100-point scale.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented supports the use of the DPEM in clinical trials to evaluate the patients' experience with diabetes injection devices.

Basal Insulin Degludec and Glycemic Control Compared to Aspart Via Insulin Pump in Type 1 Diabetes (BIGLEAP): A Single-Center, Open-Label, Randomized, Crossover Trial

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of the second-generation basal insulin degludec (IDeg) to that of insulin aspart via pump using continuous glucose monitoring in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 40-week, single-center, randomized, crossover-controlled trial, adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (hemoglobin A1C of <7.5% [<58 mmol/mol]) (N = 52) who were using an insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring were randomized to 1 of 2 treatments for a 20-week period: a single daily injection of IDeg with bolus aspart via pump or a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with aspart, followed by crossover to the other treatment. The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during the final 2 weeks of each treatment period.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were randomized and completed both treatment periods. The time in range for IDeg and CSII was 71.5% and 70.9%, respectively (P = .553). The time in level 1 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 2.19% and 1.75%, respectively (P = .065). The time in level 2 hypoglycemia for the 24-hour period with IDeg and CSII was 0.355% and 0.271%, respectively (P = .212), and the nocturnal period was 0.330% and 0.381%, respectively (P = .639). The mean standard deviation of blood glucose levels for the 24-hour period for IDeg and CSII was 52.4 mg/dL and 51.0 mg/dL, respectively (P = .294). The final hemoglobin A1C level for each treatment was 7.04% (53 mmol/mol) with IDeg, and 6.95% (52 mmol/mol) with CSII (P = .288). Adverse events were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSION

We observed similar glycemic control between IDeg and insulin aspart via CSII for basal insulin coverage in patients with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

Patient-Reported Experience and Outcome Measures in People Living with Diabetes: A Scoping Review of Instruments

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a global public health concern, with over 463 million people living with this chronic disease. Pathology complexity, management difficulty, and limited participation in care has resulted in healthcare systems seeking new strategies to engage people living with diabetes. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were developed to address the gap between the healthcare system expectation and patient preference.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the existing literature on PREMs and PROMs specific to type 1 and 2 diabetes, and report the dimensions report the dimensions they have measured.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted from January 1985 to March 2020 of six databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Scopus, and BiblioPro, to identify PREM and PROM instruments specific for type 1 and 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 instruments were identified, 32 PROMs and two PREMs. The most common instrument included outcomes related to quality of life at 44% (n = 15), followed by satisfaction (whether with treatment, device, and healthy habits) at 26% (n = 9). Furthermore, instruments regarding personal well-being accounted for 15% (n = 5). For instruments that measure experiences of persons with diabetes, there were two scales of symptoms, and one related to the attitude patients have toward the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes-specific validated instruments mainly focus on quality of life, education, and treatment, and sometimes overlap each other, in their subscales and assessment dimensions. Constructs such as cultural and religious beliefs, leisure, and work life may need more attention. There appears to be a gap in instruments to measure experiences of individuals who "live with diabetes" and seek to lead a "normal life."

The Burden of Caring for and Treating Glaucoma: The Patient Perspective

PURPOSE

To understand the treatment burden experienced by patients receiving care for primary open-angle glaucoma.

DESIGN

Semistructured, one-on-one, qualitative interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and age ≥40 years who were scheduled for a follow-up glaucoma appointment at the Kellogg Eye Center. Researchers used purposeful sampling to ensure that there was representation of a range of ages, disease stages, total number of medical conditions, distance traveled to clinic, history of glaucoma surgery, employment, and education. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was obtained.

METHODS

Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide that addressed aspects of glaucoma care that give them burden, how this burden impacts their lives, and factors that influence the burden and its impact. Researchers analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis and grounded theory to generate themes that emerged from the interviews and to map these themes into a conceptual model of glaucoma treatment burden.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Themes related to glaucoma treatment burden generated by qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients participated in the study. Study participants described 10 categories of glaucoma care activities that cause treatment burden, 8 themes for consequences of glaucoma treatment burden, and 25 themes of factors that influenced the workload created by the various glaucoma care activities and the consequences that they experienced because of these activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed that the treatment of glaucoma creates a burden for patients that is distinct from the burden of the disease process itself and that this burden negatively affects their quality of life and can potentially cause vision-threatening issues with medication and appointment adherence. We observed considerable variation in the extent to which participants experienced this burden and its consequences, much of which was explained by the influencing factors the participants described. Understanding glaucoma treatment burden and its influencing factors is important as we work to deliver patient-centered care and prevent vision loss.

It’s long-term, well it’s for life basically: Understanding and exploring the burden of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with primary immunodeficiency disorders

This paper describes the burden of receiving immunoglobulin (Ig) treatment from the perspective of patients diagnosed with a Primary Immunodeficiency (PID). Thirty semi-structured interviews with patients receiving intravenous (n=21) and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (n=9) therapy, either at home or in hospital were undertaken. Underpinned by a phenomenological theoretical framework, and using a qualitative, inductive thematic approach to prioritise patients’ concerns, we identified that Ig treatment requires considerable effort by the patient, particularly in relation to the amount of time, organization and planning that is needed. They also face numerous physical, social, relationship, emotional, role functioning, travelling, and financial challenges in their effort to undergo and maintain their infusions and care for their health. Some qualitative differences in treatment burden were noted between home and hospital settings which contributed to non-adherence to those regimes. Immunoglobulin treatment burden is complex and influenced by therapeutic mode and setting and the personal circumstances of the patient. As choice over treatment method appears to be mainly informed by lifestyle needs, PID patients may benefit from more information about these potential Ig lifestyle influences when selecting which form of treatment to take together with their health professional.

Patient-reported outcomes in a study of human regular U-500 insulin delivered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or multiple daily injections in patients with type 2 diabetes

Human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) provides both basal and prandial coverage to people with diabetes. As part of the VIVID study, we studied patient-reported outcomes (PRO) of U-500R delivered by multiple daily injections (MDI, n = 211) and continuous subcutaneous infusion using a novel U-500R pump (CSII, n = 209). Treatment-Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (TRIM-D) for Diabetes Device (TRIM-DD) questionnaires were administered at weeks 0, 14 and 26. TRIM scores with effect sizes (ES) for within-group and between-group change were reported. All TRIM-D scores significantly improved from baseline for both groups (P < .001). The Diabetes Management domain had the greatest improvement, 16.3 (ES = 0.85) and 10.6 (ES = 0.51) for CSII and MDI, respectively. At the study end, the CSII group had significantly higher TRIM-D scores than the MDI group (P < .05). Most TRIM-DD scores had small within-group improvements and were not different between groups. People with type 2 diabetes on U-500R by either CSII or MDI reported improvement in PRO, particularly in Diabetes Management, Treatment Burden and Psychological Health domains, with greater improvement in the CSII group. In terms of delivery device and function, the CSII and MDI methods were similarly acceptable.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the assessment of self-injection questionnaire: an adaptation of the self-injection assessment questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments provide robust and effective means of evaluating patients' treatment experience; however, none adequately cover experience using self-injection devices with enhanced features, such as an electromechanical autoinjector (e-Device). The aim of this study was to develop a PRO instrument that accurately assesses patient experience of using an e-Device and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was taken; two parallel, targeted literature reviews were conducted to identify relevant concepts and existing self-injection PRO instruments that could be adapted. Patient feedback obtained from two focus groups was used to inform initial instrument development. The pilot instrument was then administered in a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 clinical study in which patients self-injected certolizumab pegol using an e-Device, to gather evidence of its psychometric qualities. Exit interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of patients enrolled in the study to confirm the appropriateness and clarity of the items included and cognitively debrief the instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on all items, and each domain's internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's ɑ.

RESULTS

The literature searches identified several e-Device-specific concepts related to device features, device function, side effects/reactions/pain, confidence, and interference/convenience in daily life. Seven existing PRO instruments were identified. The Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), containing pre- and post-injection questionnaire modules, was selected as most suitable and adapted using feedback from 19 patients in the two focus groups to form the pilot Assessment of Self-Injection (ASI) questionnaire. CFA resulted in some changes to the grouping of items in the post-injection module domains following psychometric evaluation of the ASI. Internal consistency was satisfactory for all pre- and post-injection domains (ɑ > 0.8). Cognitive debriefing results from 12 patient exit interviews confirmed the ASI's appropriateness and clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASI was developed iteratively with patient input and was evaluated in its intended clinical context of use. Psychometric analyses indicated promising cross-sectional results; the ASI was well understood and considered relevant by patients self-injecting using the e-Device, suggesting that it could be used in real-world settings to aid with clinical decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03357471.

Patient Input for Design of a Decision Support Smartphone Application for Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Decision support smartphone applications integrated with continuous glucose monitors may improve glycemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We conducted a survey to understand trends and needs of potential users to inform the design of decision support technology.

METHODS

A 70-question survey was distributed October 2017 through May 2018 to adults aged 18-80 with T1D from a specialty clinic and T1D Exchange online health community (myglu.org). The survey responses were used to evaluate potential features of a diabetes decision support tool by Likert scale and open responses.

RESULTS

There were 1542 responses (mean age 46.1 years [SD 15.2], mean duration of diabetes 26.5 years [SD 15.8]). The majority (84.2%) have never used an app to manage diabetes; however, a large majority (77.8%) expressed interest in using a decision support app. The ability to predict and avoid hypoglycemia was the most important feature identified by a majority of the respondents, with 91% of respondents indicating the highest level of interest in these features. The task that respondents find most difficult was management of glucose during exercise (only 47% of participants were confident in glucose management during exercise). The respondents also highly desired features that help manage glucose during exercise (85% of respondents were interested). The responses identified integration and interoperability with peripheral devices/apps and customization of alerts as important. Responses from participants were generally consistent across stratified categories.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide valuable insight into patient needs in decision support applications for management of T1D.

Impact of a Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist, Albiglutide, on Glycemic Control and on Reducing Prandial Insulin Use in Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Multiple Insulin Therapy: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

The principle of replacing prandial insulin lispro with a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) for type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on a multiple daily insulin injections regimen was tested with albiglutide.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this treat-to-target study, basal plus prandial insulin was optimized over 4 weeks before participants were randomized (1:1) to albiglutide plus optimized basal insulin glargine and lispro (dose reduced by 50% at randomization; subsequently, lispro injections were fully discontinued 4 weeks later) (n = 402) or to continued optimized lispro plus optimized glargine (n = 412).

RESULTS

Mean ± SD HbA_1c at baseline, 7.8 ± 0.6% (61 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the albiglutide + glargine group and 7.7 ± 0.6% (60 ± 7 mmol/mol) in the lispro + glargine group, was reduced at week 26 to 6.7 ± 0.8% (49 ± 8 mmol/mol) and 6.6 ± 0.8% (48 ± 8 mmol/mol), respectively (least squares [LS] difference 0.06% [95% CI -0.05 to 0.17]; noninferiority P < 0.0001). In the albiglutide + glargine group, 218 participants (54%) replaced all prandial insulin without reintroducing lispro up to week 26. Total daily prandial insulin dose was similar at baseline but was lower by 62 units/day (95% CI -65.9 to -57.8; P < 0.0001) at week 26 in the albiglutide + glargine group, and the total number of weekly injections was also reduced from 29 to 13 per week. Less severe/documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (57.2% vs. 75.0%) occurred in the albiglutide + glargine group with meaningful weight differences (LS mean ± SE -2.0 ± 0.2 vs. +2.4 ± 0.2 kg; P < 0.0001) vs. lispro + glargine. Gastrointestinal adverse events were higher with albiglutide + glargine (26% vs. 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

A once-weekly GLP-1RA was able to substitute for prandial insulin in 54% of people, substantially reducing the number of prandial insulin injections; glycemic control improved, with the added benefits of weight loss and less hypoglycemia in the GLP-1RA arm. Replacing prandial insulin with a weekly GLP-1RA can simplify basal plus prandial insulin treatments and achieve better outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Burden of Treatment Among Older Adults With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma is an incurable hematologic malignancy with significant recent treatment advances; however, the magnitude of treatment burden among patients in the first year after diagnosis has yet to be fully researched and reported.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with multiple myeloma newly diagnosed between 2007 and 2013 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked databases. Treatment burden was captured as the number of total days with a health care encounter (including acute care and outpatient visits), oncology and nononcology physician visits, and the number of new prescriptions within the first year after diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with high treatment burden.

RESULTS

A total of 3065 patients were included in the analysis. There was a substantial burden of treatment within the first year after diagnosis (median, 77 days; interquartile range, 55-105 days), which was highest during the first 3 months. Patients with high comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.27 per 1-point increase in Charlson comorbidity index, P < .001), poor performance status (aOR 1.85, P < .001), myeloma-related end organ damage, particularly bone disease (aOR 2.28, P < .001), and those who underwent autologous stem-cell transplantation (aOR 2.41, P < .001) were more likely to have a higher treatment burden.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable burden of treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma within the first year after diagnosis, particularly within the first 3 months. Future tailored interventions aimed at optimizing this treatment burden when possible while simultaneously providing support to manage it may improve patient-centered care.

Investigation of a Mobile Health Texting Tool for Embedding Patient-Reported Data Into Diabetes Management (i-Matter): Development and Usability Study

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to integrate data from patients’ perspective into clinical care. To date, the majority of PRO tools have lacked patient and provider involvement in their development, thus failing to meet the unique needs of end users, and lack the technical infrastructure to be integrated into the clinic workflow.

Objective

This study aims to apply a systematic, user-centered design approach to develop i-Matter (investigating a mobile health [mHealth] texting tool for embedding patient-reported data into diabetes management), a theory-driven, mobile PRO system for patients with T2D and their primary care providers.

Methods

i-Matter combines text messaging with dynamic data visualizations that can be integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and personalized patient reports. To build i-Matter, we conducted semistructured group and individual interviews with patients with T2D and providers, a design thinking workshop to refine initial ideas and design the prototype, and user testing sessions of prototypes using a rapid-cycle design (ie, design-test-modify-retest).

Results

Using an iterative user-centered process resulted in the identification of 6 PRO messages that were relevant to patients and providers: medication adherence, dietary behaviors, physical activity, sleep quality, quality of life, and healthy living goals. In user testing, patients recommended improvements to the wording and timing of the PRO text messages to increase clarity and response rates. Patients also recommended including motivational text messages to help sustain engagement with the program. The personalized report was regarded as a key tool for diabetes self-management by patients and providers because it aided in the identification of longitudinal patterns in the PRO data, which increased patient awareness of their need to adopt healthier behaviors. Patients recommended adding individualized tips to the journal on how they can improve their behaviors. Providers preferred having a separate tab built into the EHR that included the personalized report and highlighted key trends in patients’ PRO data over the past 3 months.

Conclusions

PRO tools that capture patients’ well-being and the behavioral aspects of T2D management are important to patients and providers. A clinical trial will test the efficacy of i-Matter in 282 patients with uncontrolled T2D.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652389; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03652389

Flexible insulin therapy with a hybrid regimen of insulin degludec and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with pump suspension before exercise in physically active adults with type 1 diabetes (FIT Untethered): a single-centre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes who use continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII, or insulin pump therapy) often remove their pump before extended periods of exercise, but this approach might result in reduced glycaemic control and increased risk of hyperglycaemia and ketogenesis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a hybrid approach, in which basal insulin delivery was divided between CSII and a daily injection of insulin degludec.

METHODS

In this single-centre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised crossover trial done at the LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology research centre, we recruited physically active and aerobically fit participants aged 18 years or older with type 1 diabetes who were using CSII. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to one of two sequences of either usual CSII, involving the continuation of the participant's usual CSII regimen, followed by crossover to hybrid CSII, in which the delivery of the participant's usual daily basal insulin dose was split (50% delivered by CSII and 50% delivered by a once-daily morning injection of 100 U/mL insulin degludec), or the opposite sequence (ie, hybrid CSII followed by crossover to usual CSII). Treatment was not masked to the investigators or participants. For each intervention, participants completed a moderate-intensity and a high-intensity in-clinic exercise session in the first week, followed by four high-intensity and two moderate-intensity home-based exercise sessions in the subsequent 3 weeks. Insulin pumps were suspended or disconnected 60 min before exercise and reconnected immediately after exercise during both treatment regimens. The coprimary outcomes were: (1) time spent in the target control range of 4·0-10·0 mmol/L blood glucose after high-intensity exercise, and (2) time spent in target control range of 4·0-10·0 mmol/L blood glucose after moderate-intensity exercise, measured by continuous glucose monitoring in the 6-h period from the start of the high-intensity and moderate-intensity in-clinic exercise sessions. Outcomes were assessed in a modified intention-to-treat population that included all participants who started both intervention phases and completed all of the in-clinic exercise visits. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03838783, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between May 15, 2018, and March 5, 2019, we assessed 43 patients for eligibility, of whom 31 were randomly assigned to receive the usual CSII regimen (n=14) or hybrid CSII regimen (n=17) in the first phase (before crossover). The analysis population consisted of 24 participants who completed both study phases. Compared with the usual CSII regimen, participants on the hybrid CSII regimen had a significantly longer time in blood glucose range of 4-10 mmol/L during the 6-h period from the start of both moderate-intensity (mean difference 86 min [95% CI 61-147], p=0·005; percentage time in range 64% [SD 35] vs 40% [35]) and high-intensity in-clinic exercise session (60 min [11-109], p=0·01; 66% [32] vs 50% [27]). Participants on the hybrid CSII regimen also showed a higher time in blood glucose range of 4-10 mmol/L during home-based exercise sessions (mean difference 23 min [95% CI -1 to 46], p=0·055), with significantly lower time spent in hyperglycaemia than participants on the usual CSII regimen (mean difference 25 min [2-48], p=0·04). These exploratory outcomes also showed no significant difference in the amount of time spent in hypoglycaemia, nor the number of hypoglycaemic events, between the two interventions. There were three study-related adverse events reported with the usual CSII regimen (two hypotension events and one nausea event) and four with the hybrid CSII regimen (two hypotension events and two nausea events).

INTERPRETATION

A hybrid regimen of injected insulin degludec and CSII (with pump removal during exercise) appears to be safe and effective in adults with type 1 diabetes who exercise regularly. This approach could offer improved glycaemic control immediately after exercise and should be further assessed in a larger-scale randomised trial.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

The Development and Psychometric Validation of the Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction Scale for Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of new insulin delivery technology, measuring patient experience has become especially pertinent. The current study reports on item development, psychometric validation, and intended use of the newly developed Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction (DIDS) Scale.

METHOD

The DIDS Scale was informed by a comprehensive literature review, and field tested as part of two focus groups. The finalized measure was used at baseline and 6 months post-assessment with a large US cohort. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted to determine and confirm factor structure and item selection. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and convergent/divergent validity of the emerged factors were tested with demographics, diabetes-specific information, and diabetes behavioral and satisfaction measures.

RESULTS

In all, 778 participants with type 1 diabetes (66% female, mean age 47.13 ± 17.76 years, 74% insulin pump users) completed surveys at both baseline and post-assessment. EFA highlighted two factors-Device Satisfaction (seven items, Cronbach's α = 0.85-0.90) and Diabetes Impact (four items, Cronbach's α = 0.71-0.75). DIDS Scale demonstrated good concurrent validity and test-retest reliability.

CONCLUSION

The DIDS Scale is a novel and a brief assessment tool with robust psychometric properties. It is recommended for use across all insulin delivery devices and is considered appropriate for use in longitudinal studies. Future studies are recommended to evaluate the performance of DIDS Scale in diverse populations with diabetes.

The Development of a New Questionnaire to Measure the Burden of Immunoglobulin Treatment in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiencies: The IgBoT-35

PURPOSE

To describe the development and psychometric testing of a new questionnaire to measure the burden of immunoglobulin treatment (Ig) from the perspective of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An online, cross-sectional survey was administered to PID patients across 10 countries (nine European and Canada) who were receiving either intravenous (IVIg) or subcutaneous (SCIg) immunoglobulin therapy. The range and distribution of the responses (ie, levels of missing data, floor and ceiling effects), exploratory factor analysis (using factor loadings of 0.4 or greater) and measures of internal consistency reliability (ie, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, inter-item and item-total correlations) were used to identify the domain and item pool.

RESULTS

In total, 472 patients completed the questionnaire, of which 395 were included in the analysis (32% underwent IVIg and 67% underwent SCIg). The final instrument contained 34 items across eight domains of treatment burden (time, organisation and planning, leisure and social, interpersonal relationships, employment and education, travel, consequences of treatment and emotional) and an additional Ig treatment burden global question at the end of the measure. All the scales achieved good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient ranged from 0.70 to 0.85) and, with the exception of one item exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.35 for item-total correlations. Treatment burden was lower than anticipated across the different treatment routes and countries, although overall was more burdensome for patients undergoing IVIg compared to SCIg treatment.

CONCLUSION

The IgBoT-35 appears to be a reliable, patient-generated questionnaire and may help to identify more individualised and preferred therapies for the PID patient when used in clinical practice. A new survey with a sample of US patients is currently being undertaken to further establish its validity and conceptual model. The overall Ig burden of treatment scores appeared to be low. PID patient preferences are important to guide treatment decisions and ensuring patients receive the right treatment at the right time.

Measuring the Quality of Life in Diabetic Patients: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a widely diffused chronic condition which impacts on several aspects of patients' lives. In the current clinical practice, the implementation in the clinical routine of monitoring systems of patients' outcomes has led to an increased generation and use of several measures for the assessment of patients' quality of life (QOL). Nevertheless, this construct appears to be particularly complex, and its operationalization is variable across different measures. The purpose of this paper is to offer an updated review of the diabetes-specific QOL measures present in scientific literature with a specific focus on the broad domains assessed.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out with the purpose of identifying the existing measures in literature and describing their implicit representation of QOL in diabetes care. Five different databases (Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection; Medline; PsycInfo; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched with a string including validation studies of adult-only, diabetes-specific QOL measures. Each measure was then qualified according to its structure, a qualitative assessment of the broad domains of QOL it comprises, and finally an overview of the psychometric properties of its first validation.

RESULTS

30 scales were identified and assessed. Theme analysis shows that QOL is operationalized with multidimensional surveys comprising of both mental, physical, and social health components. Some scales also consider the impact of societal attitudes, public policies, and context on QOL.

CONCLUSION

Several self-report measures of QOL specifically developed for diabetic patients exist in scientific literature. The present scoping review reports scales structure, broad domains of QOL, and development purpose. This may help in understanding the concept of QOL in diabetic patients and may also serve the purpose of guiding the reader in the choice of the most appropriate instrument or in the development of a new one.

Key Features of Insulin Delivery Devices for Type 2 Diabetes: Type 2.0 Booth Survey

This article reports on a survey conducted at four diabetes-related annual conferences in 2017 and 2018 to obtain input from the medical community regarding the most important features of insulin delivery devices to address the unmet needs of people with type 2 diabetes who require basal/bolus insulin therapy. The overall patterns of responses compiled from 742 participating health care providers, each voting for three of eight proposed features of insulin delivery devices, were mostly similar numerically at each conference. The features garnering the top three percentages of votes (n = 2,226) averaged for all four conferences were tube-free patch (14.7%), reduced number of insulin injections (14.7%), and dose capture report (14.2%). Four other features received almost as many votes: flexible dosing (14.0%), patient lifestyle app (13.3%), wireless controller (12.7%), and interconnected glucose monitoring (12.6%). This survey provided valuable information that can aid the development of future insulin delivery devices.

IDegLira improves patient-reported outcomes while using a simple regimen with fewer injections and dose adjustments compared with basal-bolus therapy

AIMS

Basal-bolus therapy is associated with greater treatment burden and lower adherence compared with more simplified regimens. This post hoc analysis studied the difference between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus therapy on number of injections, dose adjustments and patient outcomes in the DUAL VII trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DUAL VII was a 26-week, open-label trial in which patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were using metformin and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (20-50 U) were randomized 1:1 to IDegLira (N = 252) or basal-bolus (insulin glargine U100 + insulin aspart ≤4 times/day) (N = 254). This post hoc analysis reports the observed mean number of injections and cumulative dose adjustments during 26 weeks of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes [TRIM-D] and Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 [SF-36v2]) were collected at scheduled visits and change from baseline scores calculated.

RESULTS

The clinical benefits (non-inferior HbA1c reductions, weight benefit, less hypoglycaemia) of IDegLira vs basal-bolus therapy were achieved with fewer cumulative dose adjustments (16.6 vs 217.2, respectively) and fewer injections (1 vs ≥3 per day, respectively). Patients treated with IDegLira experienced significant improvements across all TRIM-D domains compared with those undergoing basal-bolus therapy. The SF-36v2 showed improvements in both treatment arms with no significant difference between arms in the physical component summary, but there was a significant improvement in patients treated with IDegLira in the mental component summary (P = .0228).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings, combined with the DUAL VII results, suggest that IDegLira, through a more simplified regimen versus basal-bolus therapy, may help improve patient adherence and improve patient outcomes related to diabetes management, treatment burden and mental health, which in turn may assist in the timely achievement of glycaemic control in clinical practice.

Patient Reported Outcomes following initiation of Glucagon-like peptide-1 Receptor agonists in patients with type 2 Diabetes in a specialist endocrinology practice of the LMC diabetes registry: The PROGRESS-Diabetes study

AIMS

To compare patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes in patients who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide as part of usual clinical therapy.

METHODS

This observational study enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide between April 2017 and January 2018. A prospective patient cohort completed questionnaires at baseline and at their usual follow-up visit three to six months later. Clinical outcomes were assessed in a post-hoc retrospective analysis using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In the per-protocol analysis, 146 dulaglutide and 79 liraglutide patients had similar significant improvements in diabetes treatment satisfaction scores (dulaglutide 9.6 ± 1.1, p < 0.001; liraglutide 10.6 ± 1.4, p < 0.001) and follow-up scores for diabetes device satisfaction. Only dulaglutide had significant improvements in medication adherence scores. In the overall cohort, 754 matched patients showed similar reductions in A1C (dulaglutide -0.8% [9 mmol/mol]; liraglutide -0.7% [8 mmol/mol]). Liraglutide patients had a greater reduction in weight than those initiating dulaglutide (-2.8 kg vs. -1.8 kg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who initiated dulaglutide or liraglutide in a real-world specialist practice had similar improvements in diabetes medication satisfaction and diabetes device satisfaction. Only dulaglutide patients had significant improvements in medication adherence scores. Both treatment cohorts had similar patterns of A1C change, and liraglutide had significantly greater weight loss, which are similar to findings from clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch¹ versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar² pen injector.Methods: In this randomized, multicenter (USA), open-label, crossover, treat-to-target study (NCT01570751), patients with T2D using high-dose insulin (≥81 U/day from vials) were randomized (n = 145) 1:1 to 16 weeks of degludec U200 (3 mL FlexTouch) followed by 16 weeks of glargine U100 (3 mL SoloStar) or vice versa. PRO questionnaires assessed treatment impact and patient preference of pen injectors.Results: Significantly more patients (p < .01) considered FlexTouch "extremely easy" for learning (62.5 vs. 43.0%), maintaining (63.2 vs. 42.2%) and adjusting the dose (63.2 vs. 44.4%), and significantly more were "very" or "extremely confident" in using the device (60.3 vs. 36.3%) and in its accuracy (50.7 vs. 30.4%) versus SoloStar. Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100.Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.

Development of a Patient-reported Experience and Outcome Measures in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Bowel Management for Constipation and Fecal Incontinence

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is develop a reliable and valid questionnaire that assesses patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of caregivers, families, and patients with severe constipation and fecal incontinence who failed conservative treatments and require a formal bowel management program (BMP).

METHODS

A 5-step iterative process was utilized to ensure the reliability and validity of the final instrument. Parents or guardians of patients undergoing our week-long BMP were first asked 20 open-ended questions aimed at understanding the challenges in managing their child's condition. Responses were transformed into an initial 41-item survey constituted of 2 constructs relating to PREMs (24 items) and PROMs (17 items). Survey items were then administered to 359 parents and guardians undergoing BMP. Cognitive interviews were performed with 20 families to assess face validity and to further refine the survey. Instrument readability and reliability was assessed by Flesch-Kincaid and Crohnbach α analyses. Items that weakly correlated were deleted to yield a final instrument that was both valid and reliable.

RESULTS

A 33-statement survey was developed that encompasses important physical and emotional health concerns, quality of life, treatment success, financial considerations, schooling, parental employment, and social concerns. The final instrument, the Patient-Reported Experience and Outcome Measure in a Bowel Management Program (PREOM-BMP), is divided into 2 separate constructs that assess important patient-reported experience (22 items) and outcome (11 items) measures. Reliability analyses on the final instrument yielded a Crohnbach α of 0.925.

CONCLUSIONS

The PREOM-BMP offers physicians and nursing professionals a brief and valid tool to measure the impact of a bowel management program on both the child and the family unit.

Risk factors for poor health-related quality of life in cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: exploring the role of treatment burden as a mediator

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for poor health-related quality of life (HRQL) in multi-morbid adult cancer survivors and explore whether perceived treatment and self-management burden mediate any of these relationships.

Methods

Ninety-one multi-morbid cancer survivors (median age: 65 years) completed surveys at baseline and 6 months. Demographic, psychosocial, and health care-related factors were assessed as were perceived treatment burden and general HRQL (physical and mental health). Data on medical diagnoses and cancer treatment were extracted from the medical record. Bivariate correlations screened for associations between predictors and outcomes, with significant predictors entered into multivariable linear regressions to identify unique risk factors for greater treatment burden and poorer HRQL. Follow-up regressions examined whether treatment burden mediated any of the risk factor–outcome relationships.

Results

Factors that correlated with higher baseline treatment burden included: having more diagnoses, less formal education, having seen more physicians in the past 6 months, having a mental health diagnosis, not having a set routine for one’s self-management, low health literacy, low self-efficacy for self-management, and low social support (Ps <0.05). Among these, factors that also correlated with worse 6-month HRQL outcome included: having more diagnoses, having seen more physicians in the past 6 months, having a mental health diagnosis, not having a set routine for one’s self-management, low health literacy, low self-efficacy, and low social support (Ps <0.05). Multivariable regressions showed that some of these factors independently predicted higher treatment burden and/or worse HRQL. Low self-efficacy was the most robust independent risk factor for poor HRQL (bs: 0.34–0.49, Ps <0.005), with evidence supporting that the relationships were partially mediated by treatment burden.

Conclusion

Monitoring of psychosocial and health care-related risk factors for high treatment burden and poor HRQL can identify multi-morbid cancer survivors in need of extra support and could inform a more personalized treatment approach.

A Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Compare the Real-World Effectiveness of V-Go versus Standard Delivery of Insulin in Patients with Advanced Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) do not have adequate glycemic control, leading to poor patient outcomes and high healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective pragmatic clinical trial evaluated V-Go, a wearable insulin delivery device, compared with standard treatment optimization (STO) among insulin-treated patients with T2DM in a real-world, community-based practice setting.

METHODS

Study sites, rather than individual patients, were randomized to V-Go or STO via cluster randomization. Patients were treated according to routine clinical practice and followed up to 4 months. T2DM medications and supplies were purchased utilizing usual insurance and co-pay systems. The primary analysis was an unadjusted treatment group comparison of glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) change from baseline to end of study (EOS). A cost of therapy analysis was completed on patients who had received comparable baseline T2DM treatment with multiple daily basal-bolus insulin injections (MDI).

RESULTS

Analysis included 415 patients (169 V-Go, 246 STO) enrolled from 52 US sites. Mean baseline HbA1c (9.6%) was higher in V-Go (9.9%, range 8.0% - 14.2%) than STO (9.3%, range 7.9% - 13.9%, p <.001). HbA1c decreased from baseline to EOS in both V-Go (-1.0%, p<.001) and STO (-0.5%, p<.001); V-Go had significantly larger decrease (p=.002). V-Go had a significant reduction (p<.001) in mean insulin total daily dose (TDD; 0.76 U/kg baseline, 0.57 U/kg EOS), not seen in STO (0.72 U/kg baseline and EOS). The MDI group included 95 (56.2%) V-Go and 113 STO (45.9%) patients. Mean baseline HbA1c was significantly higher in V-Go (9.9%) than STO (9.4%). V-Go also experienced larger decrease in HbA1c from baseline (-1.0%) than STO (-0.36%) (p=.006) with a decrease in TDD, while STO TDD remained unchanged. EOS mean per patient per day cost of diabetes treatment was lower for V-Go ($30.59) vs STO ($32.20) (p=.006). V-Go was more cost effective than STO ($24.02 per 1% drop in HbA1c vs $58.86, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This pragmatic clinical trial demonstrated improved HbA1c levels, lower cost, and decreased insulin dose in patients with T2DM initiating V-Go vs STO in a real-world community-based practice setting. Observed baseline HbAlc indicated use of V-Go in more difficult to manage diabetes patients.

Reserve-building activities attenuate treatment burden in chronic illness: The mediating role of appraisal and social support

This study examines the importance of four psychosocial factors—personality, cognitive appraisal of quality of life, social support, and current reserve-building—in predicting treatment burden in chronically ill patients. Chronically ill patients (n = 446) completed web-based measures. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate psychosocial factors predicting treatment burden. Reserve-building activities indirectly reduced treatment burden by: (1) reducing health worries appraisals, (2) reducing financial difficulties, (3) increasing calm and peaceful appraisals, and (4) increasing perceived social support. These findings point to key behaviors that chronically ill people can use to attenuate their treatment burden.

Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism

AIMS

To evaluate the injection success and user perception of a shield-triggered pen-injector mechanism.

METHODS

The trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02627287) was an exploratory, two-centre, one-visit, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in Germany in 150 injection-experienced individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants self-administered subcutaneous injections of a placebo solution using a prototype shield-triggered pen-injector, DV3316 (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), and FlexPen (Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark). Injection success was evaluated on a yes/no basis by the investigator. Participant confidence, leakage of fluid and pain were evaluated after each injection. Pain and device experience were assessed after completion of all injections with each pen-injector. Overall preference was assessed after completion of all injections with both pen-injectors.

RESULTS

Injection success was high with both pen-injectors (97.0%, DV3316 vs 99.7%, FlexPen). Participant confidence in dose delivery was similar for the two devices (88% of injections with DV3316 vs 81% with FlexPen were scored as "extremely confident"). The median injection pain score on a visual analogue scale (0-100) was 3 with DV3316 vs 4 with FlexPen after each injection, and 4 with DV3316 vs 5 with FlexPen after all injections with each device. After all injections were completed, 55% of participants reported an overall preference for DV3316 vs 21% for FlexPen.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that injection-experienced individuals can achieve a high injection success rate with a shield-triggered pen-injector, with similar patient confidence and injection pain compared with FlexPen.

An RCT Investigating Patient-Driven Versus Physician-Driven Titration of BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled Using NPH Insulin

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to confirm the efficacy of patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 in terms of glycemic control, by comparing it to physician-driven titration of BIAsp 30, in patients with type 2 diabetes in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

METHODS

A 20-week, open-label, randomized, two-armed, parallel-group, multicenter study in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. Patients (n = 155) with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled using neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin were randomized to either patient-driven or physician-driven BIAsp 30 titration.

RESULTS

The noninferiority of patient-driven compared to physician-driven titration with respect to the reduction in HbA1c was confirmed. The estimated mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 20 was -1.27% in the patient-driven arm and -1.04% in the physician-driven arm, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.23% (95% confidence interval: -0.54; 0.08). After 20 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients achieving the target of HbA1c <7.5% were similar between titration arms; the proportions of patients achieving the target of ≤6.5% were also similar. Both titration algorithms were well tolerated, and hypoglycemic episode rates were similar in both arms.

CONCLUSION

Patient-driven titration of BIAsp 30 can be as effective and safe as physician-driven titration in non-Western populations. Overall, the switch from NPH insulin to BIAsp 30 was well tolerated in both titration arms and led to improved glycemic control. A limitation of the study was the relatively small number of patients recruited in each country.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01589653.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S, Denmark.

A Multinational, Randomized, Open-label, Treat-to-Target Trial Comparing Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Introduction

To lower the barrier for initiating insulin treatment and obtain adequate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), new basal insulin preparations with improved pharmacological properties and consequently a lower risk of hypoglycemia are needed. The objective of this trial was to confirm the efficacy and compare the safety of insulin degludec (IDeg) with insulin glargine (IGlar) in a multinational setting with two thirds of subjects enrolled in China.

Methods

This was a 26-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial in 833 subjects with T2DM (48 % were female, mean age 56 years, diabetes duration 8 years), inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Subjects were randomized 2:1 to once-daily IDeg (555 subjects) or IGlar (278 subjects), both with metformin. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) after 26 weeks.

Results

The completion rate was high (IDeg 94.2 %; IGlar 91.4 %). Mean HbA_1c decreased from 8.3 to 7.0 % in both groups. Estimated treatment difference (ETD) [95 % confidence interval (CI)] IDeg-IGlar in change from baseline was −0.05 % points [−0.18 to 0.08], confirming the non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar. The proportion of subjects achieving HbA_1c <7.0 % was 54.2 and 51.4 % with IDeg and IGlar, respectively (estimated odds ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 1.14 [0.84 to 1.54]). The mean decrease in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose profiles, and insulin dose were similar between groups. Numerically lower rates of overall (estimated rate ratio [95 % CI] IDeg/IGlar: 0.80 [0.59 to 1.10]) and nocturnal (0.77 [0.43 to 1.37]) confirmed hypoglycemia were observed with IDeg compared with IGlar. No treatment differences in other safety parameters were found. Subjects were more satisfied with the IDeg device compared with the IGlar device as reflected by the total Treatment Related Impact Measures-Diabetes Device score (ETD [95 % CI] IDeg-IGlar: 2.2 [0.2 to 4.3]).

Conclusion

IDeg provided adequate glycemic control non-inferior to IGlar and a tendency for a lower hypoglycemia rate. IDeg is considered suitable for initiating insulin therapy in T2DM patients on OADs requiring intensified treatment.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01849289.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40268-016-0134-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development and Preliminary Psychometrics of the Exercise Therapy Burden Questionnaire for Patients With Chronic Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a self-reporting questionnaire assessing the burden of exercise therapy for patients with chronic conditions.

DESIGN

Measurement properties of an instrument.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics and tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N=201) with at least 1 chronic condition and performing exercise therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The dimensional structure of the questionnaire was assessed by principal component analysis. Construct validity of the instrument was assessed by exploring convergent validity with the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) and divergent validity with pain, self-efficacy, treatment satisfaction, and health state. Reliability was assessed with the Cronbach α coefficient, a test-retest method using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman plotting.

RESULTS

A preliminary list of items was developed from semistructured interviews with 28 patients and reviewed by 2 expert physicians. Items obtained were reduced. Then a sample of 163 patients was used to measure the psychometrics of the Exercise Therapy Burden Questionnaire (ETBQ), consisting of 10 items. Principal component analysis extracted 1 dimension. The Cronbach α was .86 (.82-.89). Test-retest reliability (n=24 patients) was good with an ICC of .93 (.85-.97), and Bland-Altman analysis did not reveal a systematic trend. The ETBQ showed expected convergent validity with the TBQ (ρ=.52) and expected divergent validity with pain (ρ=.37), self-efficacy (ρ=-.34), treatment satisfaction (ρ=-.49), and perceived health state (ρ=-.28).

CONCLUSIONS

The ETBQ is the first questionnaire assessing exercise therapy burden in patients with chronic conditions. Its psychometric properties are promising.

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

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

The Efficacy of IDegLira (Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Combination) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with a GLP-1 Receptor Agonist and Oral Therapy: DUAL III Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes necessitates treatment intensification. This often involves intensification with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) initially, followed by other agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), with the majority of patients eventually requiring insulin therapy. Therefore, this trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of IDegLira (combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) in controlling glycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on a GLP-1RA and OADs.

METHODS

In this 26-week open-label phase 3b trial, patients on maximum-dose GLP-1RA therapy (liraglutide once daily or exenatide twice daily) with metformin alone or with pioglitazone and/or sulfonylurea were randomized 2:1 to IDegLira once daily (n = 292) or to unchanged GLP-1RA therapy (n = 146), continuing OADs at the pre-trial dose.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, HbA_1c reductions were superior with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA; estimated treatment difference -0.94% (-10.3 mmol/mol), p < 0.001. Mean HbA_1c reduced from 7.8% to 6.4% (61.5 to 46.9 mmol/mol) with IDegLira and from 7.7 to 7.4% (60.8 to 57.1 mmol/mol) with unchanged GLP-1RA. With IDegLira, 75% and 63% of patients achieved HbA_1c <7% and ≤6.5%, compared with 36% and 23% on unchanged GLP-1RA, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose and 9-point self-monitored blood glucose profiles improved significantly more with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The mean change in weight was +2.0 kg with IDegLira, versus -0.8 kg with unchanged GLP-1RA. Rates of confirmed hypoglycemia were low, but higher with IDegLira versus unchanged GLP-1RA. The safety profile of IDegLira was consistent with previous findings; both treatments were well tolerated and the rate of nausea was low in both groups. IDegLira improved patient-reported outcomes versus unchanged GLP-1RA.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira provided superior glycemic control versus unchanged GLP-1RA and represents an efficacious intensification approach in patients inadequately controlled on GLP-1RAs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01676116.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Medication Burden of Treatment Using Oral Cancer Medications

Objective:

With the changes in healthcare, patients with cancer now have to assume greater responsibility for their own care. Oral cancer medications with complex regimens are now a part of cancer treatment. Patients have to manage these along with the management of medications for their other chronic illnesses. This results in medication burden as patients assume the self-management.

Methods:

This paper describes the treatment burdens that patients endured in a randomized, clinical trial examining adherence for patients on oral cancer medications. There were four categories of oral agents reported. Most of the diagnoses of the patients were solid tumors with breast, colorectal, renal, and gastrointestinal.

Results:

Patients had 1–4 pills/day for oral cancer medications as well as a number for comorbidity conditions (>3), for which they also took medications (10–11). In addition, patients had 3.7–5.9 symptoms and side effects. Patients on all categories except those on sex hormones had 49%–57% drug interruptions necessitating further medication burden.

Conclusions:

This study points out that patients taking oral agents have multiple medications for cancer and other comorbid conditions. The number of pills, times per day, and interruptions adds to the medication burden that patients’ experience. Further study is needed to determine strategies to assist the patients on oral cancer medications to reduce their medication burden.

Measuring medicine-related experiences from the patient perspective: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing drive to measure and so improve patients' experiences and outcomes of health care. This also applies to medicines, given their ubiquity as health care interventions. Patients' experiences of using medicines vary, and instruments which measure these are seen as an essential component to improve care. We aimed to identify generic measures of patients' experiences of using prescription medicines and to examine their properties and suitability for use in research or practice.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINHAL Plus, PROQOLID®, and Google Scholar. We identified, critically appraised, and summarized generic questionnaires assessing one or more aspects of the medicine use experience among adult patients using prescription medicines for chronic conditions, and the process of questionnaire development, degree of patient involvement, and/or validation processes.

RESULTS

Fifteen questionnaires were included. Of these, nine measures were multidimensional, covering various aspects of medicine use. Six instruments covered only a single domain, assessing a specific facet of using medicines. Domains covered were the following: effectiveness; convenience, practicalities, and/or managing medicines; information, knowledge, and/or understanding; side effects; relationships and/or communication with health professionals; impact on daily living and/or social life; general satisfaction; attitudes; beliefs, concerns, and/or perceptions; medical follow-up and/or adherence-related issues; treatment- and/or medicine-related burden, perceived control, or autonomy; self-confidence about medicine use; availability and accessibility; and medicine-related quality of life. None of the identified questionnaires covered all domains. Instruments varied in the extent of patient involvement in both their development and validation.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of psychometrically sound, comprehensive, and generic measures of experiences of using prescription medicines among adult patients living with chronic illnesses. There is a need for further development and/or validation of existing instruments suitable for use in this population.

Patient-reported outcomes in transition from high-dose U-100 insulin to human regular U-500 insulin in severely insulin-resistant patients with type 2 diabetes: analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Initiation and titration of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) with a dosing algorithm of either thrice daily (TID) or twice daily (BID) improved glycemic control with fewer injections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with high-dose, high-volume U-100 insulin. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-500R TID and BID treatment groups in this titration-to-target randomized, clinical trial.

Methods

In this 24-week, open-label, parallel trial, 325 patients were randomized to TID (n = 162) or BID (n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period (screening). The Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes (TRIM-D) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were administered at screening, baseline/randomization, and endpoint (24 weeks). The Visual Analog Scale-Injection Site Pain (VAS-ISP) was assessed at baseline/randomization, 12 weeks, and endpoint.

Results

The TRIM-D showed statistically significant improvements in overall scores from baseline to endpoint for both BID and TID groups, most domains in the TID group, and all domains in the BID group. The BID group achieved better scores than the TID patients in overall and in treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains (p < .05). EQ-5D-5L index scores showed no statistically significant differences for TID and BID groups (and no differences between TID and BID groups) from baseline to endpoint. VAS-ISP scores improved for both treatment groups (−5.60 TID; −6.47 BID; p < .05 for both) from baseline to endpoint.

Conclusions

U500 can be successfully titrated for improved glycemic control using BID and TID regimens with diabetes-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes showing improvements in both arms; however, BID had better scores than TID in overall, treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains.

Trial registration

These secondary analyses are based on the study first received January 22, 2013 and reported in Clinical Trial Registry No.: NCT01774968.

Development and validation of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS): a patient-reported measure of treatment burden

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new comprehensive patient-reported measure of treatment burden-the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS).

METHODS

A conceptual framework was used to derive the PETS with items reviewed and cognitively tested with patients. A survey battery, including a pilot version of the PETS, was mailed to 838 multi-morbid patients from two healthcare institutions for validation.

RESULTS

A total of 332 multi-morbid patients returned completed surveys. Diagnostics supported deletion and consolidation of some items and domains. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a domain model for scaling comprised of 9 factors: medical information, medications, medical appointments, monitoring health, interpersonal challenges, medical/healthcare expenses, difficulty with healthcare services, role/social activity limitations, and physical/mental exhaustion. Scales showed good internal consistency (α range 0.79-0.95). Higher PETS scores, indicative of greater treatment burden, were correlated with more distress, less satisfaction with medications, lower self-efficacy, worse physical and mental health, and lower convenience of healthcare (Ps < 0.001). Patients with lower health literacy, less adherence to medications, and more financial difficulties reported higher PETS scores (Ps < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive patient-reported measure of treatment burden can help to better characterize the impact of treatment and self-management burden on patient well-being and guide care toward minimally disruptive medicine.

Phase 1 in the development of a patient-reported measure to quantify perceived inconvenience of radiotherapy: generation of issues

AIMS

Current patient-reported measures (PROMs) do not specifically address radiotherapy (RT) related inconvenience. We conducted, as per guidelines of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the initial (issue generation) phase of development of a RT inconvenience PROM. Specifically, we aimed to develop a conceptual framework for RT inconvenience and generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to it.

METHODS

We reviewed existing PROMs and literature and gathered qualitative and quantitative data from consumers and health professionals, in order to generate a comprehensive list of issues pertaining to RT inconvenience. A framework for the consideration of RT inconvenience was defined and used to ensure all possible issues were explored and to list the issues into conceptual domains.

RESULTS

Qualitative data from 26 consumers and 30 health professionals, and quantitative data from 1191 consumers and 253 health professionals resulted in the identification of 38 issues grouped into five conceptual domains: (1) inconvenience of RT opportunity, (2) inconvenience of decision-making, (3) inconvenience of treatment, (4) inconvenience of side effects, and (5) inconvenience of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This list of RT inconvenience issues will, in future work, be operationalized into a set of items for pretesting and then large-scale field testing as per the EORTC guidelines.

Content validity of global measures for at-work productivity in patients with rheumatic diseases: an international qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To identify from a patient's perspective, difficulties and differences in the comprehension of five global presenteeism measures in patients with inflammatory arthritis and OA across seven countries.

METHODS

Seventy patients with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis or OA in paid employment were recruited from seven countries across Europe and Canada. Patients were randomly allocated to be cognitively debriefed on 3/5 global measures [Work Productivity Scale - Rheumatoid Arthritis, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index, Quality and Quantity questionnaire, and WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)], with the WPAI debriefed in all patients as a standard measure of comparison between countries and patients. NVivo was used to code the data into four themes: construct and anchor, time recall, reference frame, and attribution.

RESULTS

Discrepancies were found in the interpretation of the word performance (HPQ) between countries, with Romania and Sweden relating performance to sports rather than work. Seventy percent of patients considered that a 7-day recall (WPAI) can accurately represent how their disease affects work productivity. The compared to normal reference (Quality and Quantity questionnaire) was reportedly too ambiguous, and the comparison with colleagues (HPQ), made many feel uncomfortable. Overall, 29% of patients said the WPAI was the most relevant to them, making it the most favoured measure.

CONCLUSION

Overall, patients across countries agree that the construct of work productivity in the last 7 days can accurately reflect the impact of disease while at work. Some current constructs to assess at-work productivity are not interchangeable between languages.

Development of a New Measure for Assessing Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although many different types of insulin delivery devices are currently available, there is no well-accepted, validated method to assess patient satisfaction with these devices and their impact on quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. To address this problem, we developed the Insulin Device Satisfaction Survey (IDSS) and herein describe its construction and validation. We then examine how key patient factors are associated with device satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Items were developed from interviews with adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (n=10) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) using insulin (n=10), as well as eight healthcare professionals, leading to an initial pool of 32 items. Separate exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted with T1D subjects (n=279) and insulin-using T2D subjects (n=209). Construct validity was established with overall well-being (World Health Organization-5), diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale), diabetes self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Diabetes Management Scale), and subscales from the Insulin Delivery System Rating Questionnaire. Regression analyses examined associations between total scale satisfaction and demographics, insulin adherence, clinical indicators, and device type (pump vs. nonpump users).

RESULTS

The two EFAs resulted in a 14-item scale for T1D subjects and a 12-item scale for T2D subjects, with eight items common across both samples. The EFAs yielded three coherent, meaningful factors in each sample, accounting for 55.6% (T1D sample) and 64.1% (T2D sample) of the variance. Validity was established by significant correlations with all criterion variables. For both samples, higher IDSS scores were significantly associated with better glycemic control and greater insulin adherence and pump use. For T2D subjects only, IDDS scores were significantly linked to fewer long-term complications, fewer low blood glucose readings, and older age.

CONCLUSIONS

The IDSS is a reliable, valid measure of insulin device satisfaction in both its T1D form and T2 form. It provides a comprehensive profile of sources of device satisfaction for use in clinical care and research.

Change in cardio-protective medication and health-related quality of life after diagnosis of screen-detected diabetes: Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cohort

AIMS

Establishing a balance between the benefits and harms of treatment is important among individuals with screen-detected diabetes, for whom the burden of treatment might be higher than the burden of the disease. We described the association between cardio-protective medication and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among individuals with screen-detected diabetes.

METHODS

867 participants with screen-detected diabetes underwent clinical measurements at diagnosis, one and five years. General HRQoL (EQ5D) was measured at baseline, one- and five-years, and diabetes-specific HRQoL (ADDQoL-AWI) and health status (SF-36) at one and five years. Multivariable linear regression was used to quantify the association between change in HRQoL and change in cardio-protective medication.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) number of prescribed cardio-protective agents was 2 (1 to 3) at diagnosis, 3 (2 to 4) at one year and 4 (3 to 5) at five years. Change in cardio-protective medication was not associated with change in HRQoL from diagnosis to one year. From one year to five years, change in cardio-protective agents was not associated with change in the SF-36 mental health score. One additional agent was associated with an increase in the SF-36 physical health score (2.1; 95%CI 0.4, 3.8) and an increase in the EQ-5D (0.05; 95%CI 0.02, 0.08). Conversely, one additional agent was associated with a decrease in the ADDQoL-AWI (-0.32; 95%CI -0.51, -0.13), compared to no change.

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence that increases in the number of cardio-protective medications impacted negatively on HRQoL among individuals with screen-detected diabetes over five years.