Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Towards Nasal versus Autoinjector Glucagon Delivery Devices for Treatment of Severe Hypoglycemia.

Background: For individuals managing diabetes, the administration of glucagon for severe hypoglycemia can be lifesaving, yet, until recently, there were no easy-to-use devices for these stressful emergencies. New products have emerged to meet this need, including nasal glucagon (NG) and auto-injector glucagon (AI). This study evaluated the psychometric properties of a new measure, the Glucagon Device Attitudes Questionnaire (GDAQ), in assessing attitudes toward NG and AI from the perspectives of persons with diabetes on insulin (PWDs), caregivers, and acquaintances. Methods: Developed based on qualitative research, the GDAQ consists of 38 rating items for each device and 16 direct-elicitation of attitudes of device relative to each other. It was administered to participants via a cross-sectional online survey. Twenty-six rating items were included in principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Items comprising each factor were averaged to form scales. Additionally, 12 direct elicitation items were averaged to form an overall "Attitudes" scale. Reliability and validity analyses were conducted. Descriptive statistics were provided for the rating items not included in the factor analysis. Results: A total of 405 PWDs, 313 caregivers, and 305 acquaintances participated. Three factors were identified: "Prepared and Protected" (7 items), "Hesitation" (12 items), and "Device Perceptions by Others" (7 items); factor loadings ranged from 0.13 to 0.92, 0.50 to 0.89, and 0.16 to 0.92, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for the four scales ranged from 0.76 to 0.96. Correlations of the scales with their global item ranged from 0.30 to 0.90. The items outside of the factor analysis showed good distribution in responses and differentiation between the two devices. Discussion: This study supports the validity and reliability of the GDAQ, which successfully conceptualizes attitudes towards devices for administering glucagon among different respondent groups. Use of the GDAQ can help guide the development and testing of new glucagon drug/device combinations.

Patient, caregiver, and healthcare professional perspectives on seizure control and treatment goals.

OBJECTIVE: To examine perspectives of adult patients with epilepsy, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on seizure freedom, seizure control, communication, and treatment goals. METHODS: Participants were recruited from online M3 panel and by Rare Patient Voice, and completed the self-administered online STEP Survey (Seize the Truth of Epilepsy Perceptions). Group comparisons used analysis of variance and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The STEP Survey was completed by 400 adult patients with epilepsy, 201 caregivers, and 258 HCPs (112 general neurologists, 96 epileptologists, 50 nurse practitioners/physician assistants). Significantly more patients (61%) and caregivers (66%) than HCPs (45%) agreed that seizure freedom is always a reasonable goal (P < 0.05). On average, patients considered 3.6 seizures/year to be "in control." Of their patients with focal seizures, HCPs reported 47% were seizure-free and 33% were "in control" (63% were having 1-12 seizures/year), and 20% were with "uncontrolled" seizures. Among patients, caregivers, and HCPs, ≥60% agreed that a defining characteristic indicating seizure control was having good quality of life. Patients, caregivers, and HCPs agreed that the emotional, psychological, and relational impact of seizures were least discussed (<50% of each group reporting discussion), but disagreed in their top priority for greater discussion (patients: sudden unexplained death in epilepsy [SUDEP]; HCPs: relational impact of seizures). Although ≥80% of patients and caregivers selected multiple patient life goals as very or extremely important, 49% of patients said they do not share life goals with their HCP. HCPs agreed that patients are not telling them everything they should about their epilepsy (73% of HCPs) or their life goals (81% of HCPs). CONCLUSIONS: Differing perspectives on seizure freedom, seizure control, communication priorities, and treatment goals that were identified in the STEP Survey provide opportunities to improve patient care and outcomes through more effective two-way communication and alignment of goals among patients with epilepsy, caregivers, and HCPs.

Perceptions About Glucagon Delivery Devices for Severe Hypoglycemia: Qualitative Research With Patients, Caregivers, and Acquaintances.

PURPOSE: People with diabetes taking insulin are at risk of severe hypoglycemia, an unpredictable, life-threatening event that requires assistance from others. Outside the clinical setting, glucagon is indicated for the treatment of hypoglycemia. However, there is significant unmet medical need to improve successful administration of glucagon by caregivers and acquaintances. This study assesses perceptions about glucagon delivery and potential effects of 2 glucagon delivery devices for severe hypoglycemia. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with people with diabetes (patients), caregivers, and acquaintances from a general population panel composed of individuals across the United States who have agreed to be recruited for research studies. Participants were recruited via email with a link to an online screener to determine eligibility. Experienced qualitative researchers conducted telephone interviews after a semistructured discussion guide, developed by the authors, that focused on aspirational device features and perceptions about the 2 devices: nasal glucagon and autoinjector glucagon; visuals of the instructions for use were displayed. Verbatim transcripts were developed, and a qualitative analysis software program, MaxQDA, was used to code responses and themes that emerged from the data. FINDINGS: A total of 45 (15 patients, 15 caregivers, and 15 acquaintances) interviews were conducted (mean ages, 55, 40, and 51, respectively). The most frequently spontaneously identified aspirational features for a new glucagon device were ease of use (29 [64%]), including being uncomplicated, premixed/ready to use, and ability to use quickly; small/easy to carry (9 [20%]); needle-free/no long needles (8 [18%]); and easy instructions (4 [9%]). In general, participants indicated that having a glucagon delivery device on hand would make them feel prepared, protected, and confident that others could assist in the event of severe hypoglycemia. More participants across all subgroups preferred nasal glucagon versus autoinjector glucagon (33 [73%] vs 12 [27%]). Favorable comments about nasal glucagon included that it appeared to be easy to carry, easy to use, and lacked a needle, that one does not need to remove clothing to use it, and that others likely would be more comfortable using it. Favorable comments about autoinjector glucagon included that it was familiar as a rescue device and that patients felt confident that the full dose would be delivered with it. There may be more hesitation using autoinjector glucagon versus nasal glucagon because of anxiety about needles and locating an injection site. Participants indicated that they would feel more comfortable socially using nasal glucagon because it was viewed as more discreet and less embarrassing than using autoinjector glucagon; it was also considered less traumatic for use in children. IMPLICATIONS: This research suggests that patients with diabetes, caregivers, and acquaintances prefer a device that is simple, compact, and ready to use. Nasal glucagon was generally preferred over autoinjector glucagon primarily because it lacks a needle and it appears to be less complicated.

Patient-reported barriers to osteoporosis therapy.

We investigated reasons for non-treatment of osteoporosis and discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy. Barriers to treatment include patients' preference for alternative treatments and a fear of possible side effects. Side effects are a common reason for treatment discontinuation, and they may be associated with a lack of willingness to restart treatment. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis patients commonly cite treatment-related side effects, or the fear thereof, as a reason for discontinuing or not initiating anti-osteoporosis medications. The purpose of this study was to investigate, from the patient's perspective, reasons for (i) non-treatment of osteoporosis and (ii) discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy. METHODS: This was an internet-based survey of postmenopausal women in the USA who self-reported having been diagnosed with osteoporosis. Respondents were recruited from consumer research panels and received nominal compensation. RESULTS: Within the surveyed population (N = 1407), 581 patients were currently being treated, 503 had never been treated, and 323 had previously been treated. Among patients never treated for osteoporosis, the highest ranking reasons for non-treatment were the use of alternative treatments such as over-the-counter vitamins/supplements (57.5 % of respondents) and fear of side effects (43.9 %). Among previously treated patients, frequent reasons for discontinuation included the direction of the physician (41.2 % of respondents), concerns about long-term safety (30.3 %), and the experience of side effects (29.8 %). When asked about their willingness to restart their osteoporosis medication, previously treated patients who were not willing (N = 104) to restart had a higher frequency of experiencing side effects (44.2 versus 20.5 % of those willing; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From the osteoporosis patient's perspective, barriers to prescription treatment include a preference for alternative, non-prescription treatments and a fear of possible side effects. Side effects are one of the most common reasons for discontinuing osteoporosis medications, and they appear to be associated with a lack of willingness to restart treatment.