RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study assessed experiences, attitudes, and behaviors of people with diabetes (PwD) regarding diabetes self-management and glucose control, and their level of awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward time in range (TIR). METHODS: This quantitative survey was conducted using an online questionnaire across seven countries. Respondents were PwD classified into three subgroups: type 1 (T1), type 2 insulin (T2 insulin), and type 2 not on insulin (T2 N/insulin). RESULTS: Respondents included 621 people in the T1, 780 people in the T2 insulin, and 735 people in the T2 N/insulin subgroups. Awareness of TIR was low, particularly in the T2 N/insulin subgroup (T1 53%, T2 insulin 29%, T2 N/insulin 9%). Despite a lower current use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among the T2 insulin and T2 N/insulin participants (38% and 9%, respectively), versus T1 participants (64%), most (> 70%) were positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to self-manage blood glucose. Recommendations from their healthcare professionals (HCPs) were cited as a strong motivator to try new measures for analyzing glucose levels. The main barriers cited were limited access to CGM and lack of understanding of TIR benefits. Cost was the main reason given by ≥ 40% of respondents for stopping CGM use. CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet need in diabetes management, and TIR and CGM offer a potential solution. PwD are motivated to manage their blood glucose levels and are positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to achieve this goal. HCPs play a pivotal role in informing and guiding PwD on new measures for analyzing glucose.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Derived time in range (dTIR), calculated from self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG-dTIR) profiles, has demonstrated correlation with risk of cardiovascular and microvascular complications. This post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VIII trials aimed to compare dTIR with an insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine-point SMBG profiles were taken more than 24 hours at baseline and end of trial (EOT: 26 weeks [DUAL V] and 104 weeks [DUAL VIII]) and used to derive the percentage of readings within target range (70-180 mg/dL). Estimated treatment differences (ETDs, IDegLira-glargine U100) were analyzed using analysis of covariance, with treatment as fixed effects and baseline response as a covariate. RESULTS: ETDs for change from baseline to EOT in dTIR were significantly greater with IDegLira versus glargine U100 in DUAL V (4.18%, P = .027) and DUAL VIII (5.17%, P = .001). The proportions of people achieving ≥70% dTIR at EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100, respectively, were 62% and 60% in DUAL V (P = .7541), and 50% and 26% in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). The proportion achieving a ≥5% increase in dTIR from baseline to EOT with IDegLira and glargine U100 was 63% in both groups in DUAL V (P = .9043), and 44% and 25%, respectively, in DUAL VIII (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira was associated with significantly greater increases in dTIR versus basal insulin alone in people with T2D. TRIAL ID(S): ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952145 (DUAL V); ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02501161 (DUAL VIII).