Glycemic control after initiating basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a primary care database analysis

Predicting Response to Bolus Insulin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a predictive model to classify people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) into expected levels of success upon bolus insulin initiation.

METHODS

Machine learning methods were applied to a large nationally representative insurance claims database from the United States (dNHI database; data from 2007 to 2017). We trained boosted decision tree ensembles (XGBoost) to assign people into Class 0 (never meeting HbA1c goal), Class 1 (meeting but not maintaining HbA1c goal), or Class 2 (meeting and maintaining HbA1c goal) based on the demographic and clinical data available prior to initiating bolus insulin. The primary objective of the study was to develop a model capable of determining at an individual level, whether people with T2D are likely to achieve and maintain HbA1c goals. HbA1c goal was defined at <8.0% or reduction of baseline HbA1c by >1.0%.

RESULTS

Of 15 331 people with T2D (mean age, 53.0 years; SD, 8.7), 7800 (50.9%) people met HbA1c goal but failed to maintain that goal (Class 1), 4510 (29.4%) never attained this goal (Class 0), and 3021 (19.7%) people met and maintained this goal (Class 2). Overall, the model's receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was 0.79 with greater performance on predicting those in Class 2 (ROC = 0.92) than those in Classes 0 and 1 (ROC = 0.71 and 0.62, respectively). The model achieved high area under the precision-recall curves for the individual classes (Class 0, 0.46; Class 1, 0.58; Class 2, 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive modeling using routine health care data reasonably accurately classified patients initiating bolus insulin who would achieve and maintain HbA1c goals, but less so for differentiation between patients who never met and who did not maintain goals. Prior HbA1c was a major contributing parameter for the predictions.

Rate of glycaemic control and associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin-based therapy at selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia: a multicentre cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed to determine the level of glycaemic control and associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with insulin-based therapy.

DESIGNS

Institutional-based multicentre cross-sectional study design was employed to conduct this study.

SETTINGS

The diabetes follow-up clinics of selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with T2DM treated with insulin-based therapy at the selected hospitals who met the eligibility criteria were the study participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Good glycaemic control; when fasting blood glucose (FBG) level ranged from 70 to 130 mg/dL, and FBG <70 and >130 mg/dL was considered poor glycaemic control. A logistic regression model was used to identify determinants of poor glycaemic control. A p<0.05 at 95% CI was statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 403 study participants, 54.8% were males with a mean age of 55.03±10.8 years. Though patients with T2DM were treated with insulin-based therapy, most of the participants (72.5%) could not achieve the target FBG. The overall mean FBG was 177.1±54.3, and far from the target glucose level. Patients who could not practise self-monitoring of blood glucose were found more likely to have poor glycaemic control compared with those who practised self-monitoring (p<0.001). Whereas patients who had a normal body mass index (p=0.011) and who were treated with premixed insulin-based therapy (p=0.04) were found less likely to have poor glycaemic control compared with patients with obesity and who received NPH insulin based-regimens, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a significant proportion of the study samples could not achieve glycaemic targets and the average blood glucose was far higher than the recommended glycaemic target level. Insulin initiation and titration, considering the determinants of glycaemic control, could be recommended to achieve target glycaemic levels.

Adherence and Persistence to Insulin Therapy in People with Diabetes: Impact of Connected Insulin Pen Delivery Ecosystem

Diabetes is an increasing public health problem, and insulin is the mainstay for treatment of type 1 diabetes. In type 2 diabetes treatment, insulin therapy is used after oral or other injectable agents become inadequate to achieve glycemic control. Despite the advances in insulin therapy, management of diabetes remains challenging. Numerous studies have reported low adherence and persistence to insulin therapy, which acts as a barrier to successful glycemic control and diabetes management. The aim of this targeted review article is to provide an overview of adherence and persistence to insulin therapy in people with diabetes and to discuss the impact of the emergence of a new connected ecosystem of increasingly sophisticated insulin pens, glucose monitoring systems, telemedicine, and mHealth on diabetes management. With the emergence of a connected diabetes ecosystem, we have entered an era of advanced personalized insulin delivery, which will have the potential to enhance diabetes self-management and clinical management. Early systems promise to unlock the potential to address missed or late bolus insulin delivery, which should help to address non-adherence and non-persistence. Over time, improvements in this ecosystem have the potential to combine insulin data with previously missing contextualized patient data, including meal, glucose, and activity data to support personalized clinical decisions and ultimately revolutionize insulin therapy.

Individualized HbA1c target selection and achievement in the Multinational Observational Study Assessing Insulin Use (MOSA1c) type 2 diabetes study

AIM

To identify which individual-, physician-, and the healthcare system-related factors can predict individualized hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) targets and the likelihood of reaching those targets after initial insulin therapy over a two-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Real-world data, including baseline characteristics of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), psychosocial data, and diabetes medication use, collected from the Multinational Observational Study Assessing Insulin Use (MOSA1c) study in 18 countries were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 225 of 1194 people with T2DM (18.8%) who received initial insulin therapy for ≥3 months reached HbA1c targets at two-year follow-up; most were likely to be White (64.9%) and perceptions of their relationship with physicians were less positive than those who did not reach HbA1c targets. Higher baseline HbA1c (>8%) was the strongest predictor of being assigned an HbA1c target >7% (odds ratio [OR] 6.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.97, 9.26). A smaller difference between baseline and target HbA1c levels was the strongest predictor of reaching an HbA1c target at two-year follow-up (large vs small difference, OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17, 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors were significantly associated with establishing individualized HbA1c targets and reaching these targets. A small proportion of people with T2DM on insulin therapy reached their HbA1c target. Personalized management of glycemic targets necessitates the adoption of multi-factorial strategies, as several factors could influence an individual's glycemic outcome. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01400971.

Episodic Real-Time CGM Use in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Resistance to initiating insulin therapy is common for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using multiple oral agents, resulting in sustained poor glycemic control. We explored a non-pharmacologic option and examined whether adults with T2D and elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) who were using multiple, non-insulin antihyperglycemics could obtain glycemic benefit from limited, episodic use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM).

METHODS

A randomized, pilot trial enrolled patients with T2D who were using two or more non-insulin therapies and had HbA1c values of 7.8-10.5%. Following a baseline, 10-day, blinded CGM session, participants were randomized 2:1, rtCGM or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Medication changes were not made during the 12-week study unless required for safety; benefits would result from lifestyle changes. The rtCGM group used unblinded rtCGM for three sessions at weeks 0, 4, and 8, and the control group managed diabetes with SMBG and wore blinded rtCGM at week 8. Glycemic endpoints were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy participants were enrolled from eight North American sites and data were available from 68 (n = 45 rtCGM; n = 23 SMBG). Median (IQR) baseline HbA1c was 8.4 (0.8)% and 8.3 (1.2)% and median (IQR) change in HbA1c at week 12 was - 0.5 (1.3)% and - 0.2 (1.1)% for the rtCGM and SMBG groups, respectively (between-group difference p = 0.74). More than one-third (34.1%) of the rtCGM group vs 17.4% of the SMBG group reached the HbA1c goal of less than 7.5% at week 12 (between-group difference p = 0.12). Compared to run-in, mean (SD) time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) at week 8 increased for the rtCGM group (56.3 [24.5]% vs 63.1 [25.5]%) while it decreased for the SMBG group (68.4 [21.5]% vs 55.1 [30.3]%). HbA1c reductions were not sustained at month 9.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, limited episodic rtCGM use in people failing multiple non-insulin therapies resulted in modest, short-term glycemic benefits.

The Diabetes Unmet Need with Basal Insulin Evaluation (DUNE) study in type 2 diabetes: Achieving HbA1c targets with basal insulin in a real-world setting

AIMS

To describe in a real-world setting the achievement of physician-selected individualized HbA1c targets in individuals with type 2 diabetes, newly or recently initiated with basal insulin, and the association of hypoglycaemia with target achievement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 12-week, prospective, single-arm, observational study of adults with type 2 diabetes, either newly initiated with any basal insulin or start on basal insulin within the preceding 12 months. At enrollment, eligible participants from 28 countries were treated with or without oral antihyperglycaemic drugs and/or GLP-1 receptor agonists.

RESULTS

Individualized targets for almost all of the 3139 evaluable participants (99.7%) had been set by their physicians, with 57% of participants having HbA1c targets between 7.0% and <7.5% (53 and <58 mmol/mol). By week 12, 28% and 27% of newly and previously initiated participants, respectively, achieved individualized HbA1c targets with modest average increases in daily insulin dose of 9 and 5 U (0.10 and 0.06 U/kg), respectively, from baseline (14 and 23 U [0.17 and 0.29 U/kg], respectively). Overall, 16% of participants experienced at least one episode of hypoglycaemia. Both the incidence and frequency of hypoglycaemia, but not the severity, were positively associated with a higher likelihood of achieving individualized HbA1c targets (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective real-world study, most participants using basal insulin did not achieve the individualized HbA1c targets set by their physicians. Participants who experienced symptomatic hypoglycaemia were more likely to achieve HbA1c targets than those who did not.

Probability of Achieving Glycemic Control with Basal Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Real-World Practice in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Basal insulin (BI) plays an important role in treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially when oral antidiabetic (OAD) medications are insufficient for glycemic control. We conducted a retrospective, observational study using electronic medical records (EMR) data from the IBM^® Explorys database to evaluate the probability of achieving glycemic control over 24 months after BI initiation in patients with T2D in the USA.

METHODS

A cohort of 6597 patients with T2D who started BI following OAD(s) and had at least one valid glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) result recorded both within 90 days before and 720 days after BI initiation were selected. We estimated the changes from baseline in HbA1c every 6 months, the quarterly conditional probabilities of reaching HbA1c < 7% if a patient had not achieved glycemic control prior to each quarter (Q), and the cumulative probability of reaching glycemic control over 24 months.

RESULTS

Our cohort was representative of patients with T2D who initiated BI from OADs in the USA. The average HbA1c was 9.1% at BI initiation, and decreased robustly (1.5%) in the first 6 months after initiation with no further reductions thereafter. The conditional probability of reaching glycemic control decreased rapidly in the first year (26.6% in Q2; 17.6% in Q3; 8.6% in Q4), and then remained low (≤ 6.1%) for each quarter in the second year. Cumulatively, about 38% of patients reached HbA1c < 7% in the first year; only approximately 8% more did so in the second year.

CONCLUSION

Our study of real-world data from a large US EMR database suggested that among patients with T2D who initiated BI after OADs, the likelihood of reaching glycemic control diminished over time, and remained low from 12 months onwards. Additional treatment options should be considered if patients do not reach glycemic control within 12 months of BI initiation.

FUNDING

Sanofi Corporation.

Insights into optimal basal insulin titration in type 2 diabetes: Results of a quantitative survey

AIMS

Basal insulin (BI) treatment initiation and dose titration in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are often delayed. Such "clinical inertia" results in poor glycaemic control and high risk of long-term complications. This survey aimed to determine healthcare professional (HCP) and patient attitudes to BI initiation and titration.

METHODS

An online survey (July-August 2015) including HCPs and patients with T2DM in the USA, France and Germany. Patients were ≥18 years old and had been on BI for 6 to 36 months, or discontinued BI within the previous 12 months.

RESULTS

Participants comprised 386 HCPs and 318 people with T2DM. While >75% of HCPs reported discussing titration at the initiation visit, only 16% to 28% of patients remembered such discussions, many (32%-42%) were unaware of the need to titrate BI, and only 28% to 39% recalled mention of the time needed to reach glycaemic goals. Most HCPs and patients agreed that more effective support tools to assist BI initiation/titration are needed; patients indicated that provision of such tools would increase confidence in self-titration. HCPs identified fear of hypoglycaemia, failure to titrate in the absence of symptoms, and low patient motivation as important titration barriers. In contrast, patients identified weight gain, the perception that titration meant worsening disease, frustration over the time to reach HbA1c goals and fear of hypoglycaemia as major factors.

CONCLUSION

A disconnect exists between HCP- and patient-perceived barriers to effective BI titration. To optimize titration, strategies should be targeted to improve HCP-patient communication, and provide support and educational tools.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Proper Insulin Injection Technique Training on Glycemic Control

INTRODUCTION

Improper injection technique can negatively affect glycemic control and treatment tolerability. We assessed the impact of structured insulin injection training on glycemic control.

METHODS

We compared changes in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and fasting plasma glucose following structured insulin injection training in a 6-month pilot study in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Patients were recruited from mobile clinics in Moscow, Russia, and randomized into three groups. Groups 1 and 2 received structured injection training, and group 3 did not. Group 1 received 4-mm needles sufficient for each injection; groups 2 and 3 provided their own needle supply. Changes in insulin total daily dose (TDD), injection technique, needle reuse, and lipohypertrophy (LH) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 120 patients enrolled, 116 were included in all analyses (group 1, n = 43; group 2, n = 35; group 3, n = 38). At 6 months, mean [95% CI] reductions in A1C were significant in groups 1 and 2 (- 1.00% [10.9 mmol/mol (- 1.3 to - 0.6)] and - 1.00% [10.9 mmol/mol (- 1.4 to - 0.7)], respectively; P < 0.001 for both), but not in group 3 (- 0.02% [0.2 mmol/mol (- 1.2 to 1.6)]). Increases in insulin TDD, however, were similar and significant across groups (approximately 6 IU; P < 0.05). Injection technique improved, and needle reuse and LH declined in groups 1 and 2, but not in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Little is known about the glycemic impact of insulin injection training. We found that structured training and the use of short pen needles can improve injection technique, leading to significant A1C reductions and decreased rates of LH.

iGlarLixi, a titratable once-daily fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and lixisenatide for intensifying type 2 diabetes management for patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents

BACKGROUND

Achieving and maintaining glycemic control is important for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), to reduce disease-related complications and mortality; however, about half of US patients fail to meet glycemic targets. iGlarLixi, a titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (iGlar) and lixisenatide for once-daily administration, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in adults with T2D inadequately controlled on basal insulin (<60 U daily) or lixisenatide. iGlar and lixisenatide have complementary mechanisms of action, primarily targeting fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose, respectively. In the US, iGlarLixi is available in a 3:1 ratio of iGlar and lixisenatide, respectively, across the dosage range of 15-60 U of iGlar and 5-20 µg of lixisenatide.

METHODS

This study identified phase 3 trials which assessed the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi. Relevant trials were LixiLan-O, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar or lixisenatide alone in insulin-naïve patients, and LixiLan-L, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar alone in insulin-experienced patients.

RESULTS

Patients on iGlarLixi experienced greater A1C reduction and were more likely to achieve A1C <7.0% than its comparators. iGlarLixi mitigated the weight gain associated with iGlar without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and resulted in a lower frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with lixisenatide.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi provides a new approach to therapy intensification in patients with T2D. iGlarLixi showed greater A1C efficacy compared with either iGlar or lixisenatide, mitigating iGlar-associated weight gain, without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and reducing the gastrointestinal side-effects seen with lixisenatide.

Glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia burden in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin in Europe and the USA

AIMS

To evaluate short- and long-term glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia incidence in insulin-naïve patients ≥30 years of age with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiating basal insulin (BI) with or without oral anti-hyperglycaemic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective longitudinal analysis of electronic medical records from 5 European countries and the USA. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed baseline and short-term (0-3 months post BI initiation) factors associated with long-term (3-24 months) glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

Overall, 40 627 patients were included; 20.9% and 27.8% achieved the general HbA1c target of ≤7% at 3 and 24 months post BI initiation, respectively. Failure to achieve HbA1c ≤7% at 3 months was associated with increased risk of failing to achieve target at 24 months (odds ratio [OR], 3.70 [95% CI, 3.41-4.00]). Over 24 months, 8.9% of patients experienced a recorded hypoglycaemic event. Hypoglycaemia during the initial 3-month period was associated with longer-term risk of these events over the ensuing 3 to 24 months (OR, 5.71 [95% CI, 4.67-6.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating BI with or without OADs is associated with short- and long-term suboptimal glycaemic control; the majority of patients fail to achieve HbA1c target ≤7% in the first 3 months, or after 2 years of BI treatment. Treatment response and hypoglycaemia incidence by 3 months post BI initiation are associated with longer-term glycaemic control and hypoglycaemic risk, respectively. These results support the need for early anti-hyperglycaemic interventions that more effectively control blood glucose levels without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Estimating the impact of better management of glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes on the number of clinical complications and the associated financial benefit

AIM

To estimate potential cost avoidance through modest and achievable improvements in glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK healthcare system.

METHODS

The IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to examine the impact of improved glycaemic control (indicated by reduction in HbA_1c level), in a representative cohort of adults with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The cumulative incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications was modelled across 5-year periods to a 25-year time horizon. Complication costs were applied to the data to estimate potential accrued cost avoidance.

RESULTS

Significant cost avoidance of ~£340 m is apparent in the first 5 years, increasing to ~£5.5bn after 25 years of sustained improvement in control. The overwhelming majority of cost avoidance arises from reductions in microvascular complications. In people with Type 1 diabetes the greatest cost avoidance comes from a reduction in renal disease (74% of cost avoidance), while in people with Type 2 diabetes it is generated by a reduction in foot ulcers, amputations and neuropathy: 57% cost avoidance). Greater cost reduction is accrued more rapidly in people with higher starting HbA_1c levels.

CONCLUSION

Modest improvements in glycaemic control generate significant reductions in the incidence and, therefore, cost of microvascular complications in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. This study provides clear support for the premise that prioritized and sustained investment in early and better intervention can provide concrete financial benefits in both the short and longer term.

Are patients on basal insulin attaining glycemic targets? Characteristics and goal achievement of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin and physician-perceived barriers to achieving glycemic targets

AIMS

To investigate treatment patterns and achievement of glycemic targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with basal insulin in a real-world setting, and to determine physicians' beliefs and practices regarding these patients.

METHODS

This study had two components; a retrospective analysis using a US claims database of patient and treatment data, and a survey of physicians' beliefs and practices.

RESULTS

A total of 39,074 patients treated with basal insulin were included in this analysis. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c<7.0% (53mmol/mol) was similar in ongoing basal insulin users at baseline (26%) and at 3months follow-up (27%). The number of new initiators achieving HbA1c<7.0% (53mmol/mol) increased from baseline (11%) to 3months (27%). In the physician survey component, the majority of physicians indicated they would continue to increase basal insulin dose as long as was needed to reach HbA1c/fasting blood glucose goals (85% of physicians treating 'not on-goal' patients, 78% of physicians treating 'on-goal' patients). Physician-perceived barriers to insulin intensification included patient's lifestyle, non-adherence, and concerns about out-of-pocket costs.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of patients on insulin-based therapy fail to reach glycemic goals. More education of clinicians may improve insulin intensification rates and increase the proportion of patients reaching glycemic targets.

Randomized Trial of Long-Acting Insulin Glargine Titration Web Tool (LTHome) Versus Enhanced Usual Therapy of Glargine Titration (INNOVATE Trial)

BACKGROUND

Basal insulin titration in the real world is often unsuccessful. LTHome, a web tool, applies a rules engine-based algorithm providing insulin titration advice directly to the patient.

METHODS

This pilot, randomized trial evaluates basal insulin glargine titration by LTHome compared to enhanced usual therapy ([EUT]-diabetes education program) over 12 weeks. Important inclusion criteria: 18-75 years, type 2 diabetes, computer literacy, and HbA1c >7.0%. Trial protocol was approved by ethics board.

RESULTS

We randomized 139 subjects. The achievement of primary composite outcome (four out of seven fasting plasma glucose [FPG] within 5-7.2 mmol/L + mean for three consecutive FPG within 5-7.2 mmol/L + no severe hypoglycemia) was 15% in LTHome versus 41% in EUT (noninferiority not met, P-value = 0.92). Other outcomes were similar between the LTHome and EUT arms: alternate composite outcome achievement (last five FPG mean within the range of 5-7.2 mmol/L + no hypoglycemia, 47% and 51%, P = 0.73); A1c reduction (-1.0% and -1.1%, P = 0.66); proportion achieving A1c ≤7% (14% and 20%, P = 0.36); and hypoglycemia incidence (31% and 37%, P = 0.4), respectively. Patient satisfaction score improvements were greater in LTHome versus EUT (change in fear of hypoglycemia score P = 0.04 and change in diabetes distress score P = 0.04). The mean number of additional healthcare provider visits was 0.13 for LTHome and 1.22 for EUT (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

INNOVATE trial suggests clinical utility of LTHome compared to EUT in real-life settings. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of automated insulin titration algorithms.

[Satisfaction of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after starting treatment with insulin]

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to evaluate if overcoming the barrier of starting treatment with insulin can lead to better clinical control and a higher level of patient satisfaction with their treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is an observational, multicentre study of patients diagnosed with DM2 who attended primary care centres with poor glycaemic control (A1c≥8%) under treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and who were given motivational treatment to overcome their fear of injections, and started treatment with insulin. The level of satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). The questionnaire was used before initiating the treatment with insulin and in the follow-up visit (3-4 months from the beginning of treatment with basal insulin).

RESULTS

A total of 573 patients with a mean age of 64±10 years were recruited. The overall mean score from the DTSQs satisfaction questionnaire was 18.3±6.3, and the change of treatment led to an improvement in patient satisfaction compared to the previous treatment (DTSQc mean score 8.8±5.9). A1c dropped from an initial value of 8.7% (SD 0.8) to 7.5% (SD 0.7) (P<.001). The frequency of hyperglycaemic episodes perceived by the patients was significantly lower after they overcame their fear of injections (35.6% compared to 11.5%; P<.001), but no statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of hypoglycaemic episodes (32% compared to 35%; P=.059).

CONCLUSION

In patients with DM2 poorly controlled with OADs, overcoming a fear of injections and starting treatment with insulin was associated with an overall improvement in satisfaction with the new treatment, and decreased the perception of hyperglycaemic episodes. Glycaemic control and the metabolic profile of the patients also improved to a statistically significant degree with the change of treatment.