A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction using fast-acting insulin aspart in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This survey aimed to explore real-world physician experiences and treatment satisfaction with fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in clinical practice across Europe and Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online web-based survey was used for physicians treating people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. General practitioners and specialists, with experience using faster aspart, were interviewed. RESULTS: A total of 191 physicians participated in the survey. Most of their patients (68% of those with T1D and 63% of those with T2D) were previously treated with another mealtime insulin before switching to faster aspart. At the time of initiating faster aspart, nearly half of patients had an HbA1c level between 7.5% (59 mmol/mol) and 8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The main prescription drivers for faster aspart, versus other mealtime insulins, were faster onset of action, improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and dosing flexibility. Most physicians were more satisfied with faster aspart than other mealtime insulins regarding at-meal (66%) and post-meal (71%) dosing flexibility, improved PPG levels (66%), and onset of action (61%). Main reasons for not prescribing faster aspart included a good response to current treatment (76%) or patient reluctance to switch (57%). Overall, 12% of patients discontinued faster aspart, for reasons including concerns of hypoglycemia (17%), poor adherence (17%), and level of patient co-pay (17%). More than half of physicians had fewer concerns regarding postprandial hyperglycemia, and were more confident in their patients reaching their HbA1c target with faster aspart than with other mealtime insulins. LIMITATIONS: The findings of this survey are based heavily on physicians' experiences, and could therefore be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSIONS: Reported physician and patient experiences of using faster aspart have been positive, and better PPG control and increased dosing flexibility are expected to improve glycemic management.

Physicians' real-world experience with IDegLira: results of a European survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to build on the current clinical findings and investigate physicians' experiences and level of satisfaction in using insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicountry, European online survey included respondents from primary (n=132) and secondary (n=103) care and examined physicians' use, confidence and satisfaction with IDegLira. To standardize responses, 24 of 28 questions pertained to an 'average patient' with T2D who has no major comorbidities, aged 35-70 years, with average cognitive ability/normal mental status and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2. RESULTS: The majority (70%) of respondents prescribe IDegLira in the same visit they first mention it, with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (44%) and weight gain (22%) being the most common reasons. On average, physicians reported that patients weighed 95 kg and the HbA1c level was 9.0% at initiation. Physicians also reported the average HbA1c target set was 7.1%; 76% of patients achieved their target. On average, patients achieved their HbA1c target in <6 months, and the average dose of IDegLira in patients in glycemic control was 28 dose steps. Respondents were more satisfied with IDegLira than basal-bolus therapy across all parameters assessed, including reaching HbA1c targets (59%), number of injections (77%) and avoiding weight gain (84%). Correspondingly, 77% of physicians reported that IDegLira had more potential to improve patient motivation compared with basal-bolus to reach target blood glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world experience of IDegLira is consistent with previous trials/studies, with no major differences between primary and secondary care. Importantly, the majority of respondents were more/much more satisfied with IDegLira than with basal-bolus therapy.