Why Do So Many People with Type 2 Diabetes Who Take Insulin Have Lipohypertrophy? Fate or Educational Deficiencies?

INTRODUCTION: Cutaneous lipohypertrophy (LH) is a thickened, "rubbery" lesion in the subcutaneous tissue following multiple injections performed at the same site, i.e., an incorrect injection technique. It is widespread, averaging 47% of insulin patients worldwide, and has severe direct and indirect consequences. Direct consequences consist mainly of poor metabolic control and frequent hypoglycemic events (HYPOs), and indirect ones of markedly increased healthcare costs related to hospital access due to acute events and long-term disease complications. This observation also holds for Italy, despite the National Health System organization expecting every patient with diabetes to undergo a series of visits by different care team members, each performing a specific treatment/education task. Indeed, the recent literature points to poor awareness of LH relevance and metabolic consequences among doctors from general and diabetic hospital wards, with educational deficiencies on correct injection practice in nurses too. The aim was to establish if, to what extent, and by whom they had received training on correct insulin injection techniques, and how many initially received notions had persisted over time. METHODS: We investigated the possible causes of such a failure from the point of view of 1160 insulin-requiring subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), reporting for the first time to specialized diabetic structures through a validated questionnaire and, in the same patients, we searched for LH by inspection/palpation according to international guidelines, further confirmed by ultrasound scans. We then analyzed differences in education and injecting behavior between subjects classified as LH+ or LH- depending on the presence or absence of LH lesions. RESULTS: We documented significant educational gaps, with 50% of patients failing to refer to healthcare professionals and relying on their peers with diabetes, thought to be more experienced in 15% of the cases. Seventy-five percent of LH- patients received education from healthcare providers, while 90% of LH+ learned from another patient or could not remember how they knew, and 68% of LH+ versus 52% of LH- (p < 0.01) patients had failed to receive training on injection techniques by healthcare providers. All of this enabled the most disabling features of diabetes from the very beginning of the disease history. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents, from the patients' point of view, that educational gaps are significant and that, even in initially trained subjects, education on correct injection techniques has a fleeting effect if not regularly recalled. Therefore, to rehabilitate LH+ patients as soon as possible and prevent LH- patients from inadvertently slipping into the other group, there is an urgent need to educate doctors and nurses repeatedly on the importance of correctly injecting insulin to improve patients' knowledge and skills.

The Economic Burden of Insulin Injection-Induced Lipohypertophy. Role of Education: The ISTERP-3 Study.

INTRODUCTION: The history of insulin-induced skin lipohypertrophy (LH) runs parallel to that of insulin's 100 years, and an average of 47% of insulin-treated patients still suffer from it today. The metabolic and economic effects of LH are significant, with hypoglycemia being the most striking. The objective of the study was to perform a 52-week follow-up of 713 insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and LH to detect any differences in the occurrence of hypoglycemic events (HYPOs) and related healthcare costs as well as in LH rates and injection habits between an intensive education intervention group (IG) and control group (CG) provided with a single educational session at the starting point. METHODS: All participants were trained in accurately self-monitoring blood glucose and recording all HYPOs for 6 months, which allowed baseline recordings before they were randomized into the IG, comprising 395 insulin-treated subjects undergoing repeated, structured multimodal education on correct injection techniques as a longstanding behavioral rehabilitation strategy, and the CG, comprising 318 subjects receiving the same structured, multimodal educational session, but only initially. RESULTS: Changes in LH rate and size and in performance were large in the IG and only slight and transient in the CG. A striking difference in the rate of decrease of HYPOs was also apparent between groups. Indeed, estimated costs of health interventions for severe and symptomatic HYPOs, which were on the order of €70,000 and €9300, respectively, in the two groups at baseline decreased by 5.9 times and 13.7 times, respectively, at the end of follow-up in the IG and by only approximately half in the CG. Full details of the changes occurring as a result of intensive education are provided in the text. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of only initial education in the CG was not significant, thus providing evidence of the virtual worthlessness of a single training session on injection techniques, typical of worldwide daily clinical practice, and easily explaining the extremely high prevalence of LH in insulin-treated patients. Conversely, highly positive effects on LH prevalence and size as well as costs expected from decreased HYPO rate were obtained in the IG. To our knowledge, ours is the first 18-month randomized trial in the field. If our experimental model were to be used as an effective, longstanding behavioral rehabilitation strategy and therefore adapted to real-world settings universally, LH prevalence and costs related to their clinical consequences would be drastically reduced. However, only with a strong, relentless commitment of universities, scientific societies, and patient associations can we achieve this ambitious goal, which would provide great institutional savings and improved quality of life for people with diabetes.