Injection Technique: Development of a Novel Questionnaire and User Guide.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 200 million people worldwide use injectable therapies as part of diabetes management. There appears to be a significant gap between insulin injection technique recommendations and injection practice for many. We aimed to develop and validate a novel, brief, self-administered injection technique assessment questionnaire. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An iterative codesign process was conducted. Focus groups and interviews with adults (or parents of children) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and health care providers (HCPs) elicited views and refined the tool for broader distribution to the target audience. Questions addressed ease of understanding; relevance; included items and potential missing questions; feelings about diabetes; and any discomfort or judgment felt when completing the tool. A user guide was developed with cognitive interviewing performed to ensure relevance, acceptability, readability, and understanding. Statistical analyses included propensity score matching to identify a subset of the Worldwide Injection Technique Questionnaire with similar characteristics. Boruta feature selection, Cramér's V, and multiple correspondence analysis were conducted. RESULTS: HCPs and 16 people with diabetes participated in the initial focus groups and interviews. Questions were reported as clinically relevant, simple to complete, "about the right length," relevant, and easy to understand. A total of 267 participants completed the survey reviewing the questionnaire. A further 16 participants underwent cognitive interviews. The complete resource was then reviewed by another 23 people with diabetes as a final check for completeness and usability. Statistical analyses demonstrated high validity and reliability. CONCLUSION: This novel resource is clinically relevant, acceptable, and easy to use as both a clinical tool and a self-assessment tool for people using injectable therapies for diabetes.

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.

Treatment Intensification With Insulin Pumps and Other Technologies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Physician Survey in the United States.

An online survey was conducted to assess the perspectives and use of diabetes technologies by a sample of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists to optimize intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Overall, endocrinologists reported using diabetes technologies more frequently than PCPs for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-bolus insulin therapy. PCPs and endocrinologists who were highly focused on diabetes management with insulin therapy reported using insulin delivery devices (insulin pumps and wearable tube-free patches) when patients are not achieving their A1C target while taking basal plus three or more prandial injections of insulin daily.

Needle Technology for Insulin Administration: A Century of Innovation.

Innovations in syringe and pen needle (PN) technology over the last 100 years have led to important advances in insulin delivery for people with diabetes, paralleling the strides made in developing recombinant DNA human insulin and insulin analogs with varying onset and duration of action. In this review, the history of advances in insulin delivery is described, focusing on progress in syringe, needle, and PN technologies. The early glass and metal syringes that required sterilization by boiling have been replaced by disposable, single-use syringes or pens with clear labeling for precise insulin dosing. The early needles ranging in length from 19 to 26 mm that required manual sharpening against a whetstone have been replaced by syringe needles of 6 mm and PNs of 4 mm in length as slender as 34 gauge. Imaging studies using ultrasound and computed tomography measured the thickness of skin and subcutaneous tissue layers to show feasibility of targeted insulin administration with shorter needles. These developments, coupled with innovations in needle/PN wall and tip structure, have led to improved injection experience for people with diabetes. It is also important to acknowledge the role of injection technique education, together with these advances in injection technology, for improving clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. With continued projected growth of diabetes prevalence, particularly in developing countries where expensive and complex insulin delivery systems may not be practical, insulin syringes and pens will continue to serve as reliable and cost-effective means of insulin delivery for people with diabetes.

Optimising Insulin Injection Techniques to Improve Diabetes Outcomes.

The effectiveness of therapy in patients with diabetes depends on the correct use of the insulin injection technique. However, despite many established recommendations and evidence that an effective insulin injection technique is essential to improve glycaemic control and minimise the risk associated with diabetes, there is still a need to identify impediments to the insulin injection technique among patients and create awareness among patients and healthcare professionals about the importance of the optimisation of insulin injection techniques. This review focuses on the recent advancements in delivery devices, insulin injection technique teaching methods, monitoring, and complication management and highlights regional best practices and recommendations for optimising injection techniques to improve diabetes outcomes.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter comparison of parenteral ertapenem and ceftriaxone for the treatment of hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Ertapenem is a once-daily parenteral beta-lactam licensed in the United States in November 2001 and in Europe in May 2002. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety profiles of ertapenem with those of ceftriaxone for the treatment of hospitalized adult patients with serious community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring parenteral therapy. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind (with sponsor blinding), multicenter study, adult patients with CAP were stratified by Pneumonia Severity Index (< or = 3 or > 3) and age (< or = 65 or > 65 years) and randomized (2:1) to receive IV or intramuscular (IM) ertapenem 1 g once daily or IV or IM ceftriaxone 1 g once daily. Investigators could switch patients to an oral antimicrobial agent if clinical improvement was shown after at least 3 days of parenteral therapy. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were randomized to treatment: 239 to the ertapenem group and 125 to the ceftriaxone group. Three patients in the ertapenem group and 2 in the ceftriaxone group did not receive study therapy. Of the treated patients, 77.1% (182/236) of patients in the ertapenem group and 75.6% (93/123) in the ceftriaxone group were clinically evaluable. Among clinically evaluable patients, the mean (SD) durations of parenteral and total (parenteral plus optional oral) therapy were 5.5 (2.6) and 11.5 (2.7) days for ertapenem and 5.6 (2.8) and 11.7 (3.0) days for ceftriaxone, respectively. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most frequently isolated pathogen in both treatment groups. Cure rates were 92.2% for clinically evaluable patients in the ertapenem group and 93.6% for those in the ceftriaxone group (95% CI for the difference, adjusted for stratum, -8.6 to 5.7), fulfilling the criteria for statistical equivalence. At completion of parenteral therapy, 94.7% of patients in the ertapenem group and 95.8% in the ceftriaxone group showed clinical improvement. Infused vein complications (ertapenem, 3.4% [8/236]; ceftriaxone, 7.3% [9/123]) and elevated transaminase levels (ertapenem, 6.3% [13/207]; ceftriaxone, 7.1% [8/113]) were the most common adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of hospitalized adult patients, ertapenem therapy, with an oral switch option, was as effective as ceftriaxone with the same oral switch option for treatment of CAP requiring initial parenteral therapy. The overall safety profiles of the 2 drugs were comparable.