Initiation of Basal Insulin Analog Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes and Reasons Behind Patients' Treatment Persistence Behavior: Real-World Data from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Poor treatment persistence can affect the real-world effectiveness of insulin therapy. A cross-sectional online survey in 942 patients with type 2 diabetes from 7 different countries evaluated patient experience when initiating basal insulin and the reasons behind insulin persistence patterns. Here, we report the quantitative results for the subset of patients from Germany. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes who had initiated basal insulin during the last 3-24 months, identified from market-research panels, participated in the survey. Patients were asked if they had ≥7-day gaps in basal insulin treatment, and were then classified as "continuers" (no gap since starting insulin), "interrupters" (≥1 gap within the first 6 months after starting insulin and subsequently restarted insulin), or "discontinuers" (stopped insulin within the first 6 months after starting and had not restarted at the time of the survey). For each country, 50 participants were planned per persistence category. Enrollment ended if the target quota was reached or enrollment plateaued. Data were analyzed overall and separately for each persistence cohort. RESULTS: The 131 participants from Germany included 55 (42.0%) continuers, 50 (38.2%) interrupters and 26 (19.9%) discontinuers. The most common motivations to initiate basal insulin therapy were encouragement by physician or other healthcare provider (HCP; 54.2%) and expectation to improve glycemic control (42.0%). More than 95% of participants received training before and during insulin initiation (considered as helpful by 81.7%); most (67.2%) preferred in-person training. Continuers more frequently felt that insulin would help to manage diabetes and that their own views were considered when initiating insulin, they reported less concerns and challenges before and during insulin initiation than interrupters or discontinuers. The most common motivations to continue basal insulin were improved glycemic control (72.7%), improved physical well-being (49.1%), and instruction by physician or other HCP (45.5%). The most common reasons contributing to interruption/discontinuation were perceived weight gain (52.0%/50.0%), hypoglycemia (22.0%/38.5%), and potential adverse effects (30.0%/26.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Quality interactions between physicians or other HCPs and their patients before and during the initiation of basal insulin may help to manage patient expectations and to improve persistence to insulin therapy.

No effect of insulin pen with memory function on glycemic control in a patient cohort with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes: a randomized open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Injection compliance is a major problem in patients with type 1 diabetes. Increased compliance with mealtime insulin injections significantly improves metabolic control. Using an insulin pen with memory function might facilitate corrective dosing to avoid postprandial blood glucose peaks and therefore might improve overall glycemic control. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, 24-week multicenter study evaluated if patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes [hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥ 8%] who were randomized to use the HumaPen® Memoir™, an insulin pen device with memory function, for their mealtime insulin injections achieved superior glycemic control (HbA1c change from baseline) than patients who used the conventional device HumaPen Luxura™. Hemoglobin A1c, hypoglycemia, and pen acceptance were assessed at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Of 263 patients randomized, 257 were eligible for analysis: HumaPen Memoir 129, HumaPen Luxura 128; mean [standard deviation (SD)] baseline HbA1c 9.09% (0.99%); mean (SD) age 39.8 (16.5) years; 87.9% ≥18 years old; and mean (SD) diabetes duration 16.0 (11.2) years. Least square mean (95% confidence interval) changes of HbA1c up to week 24 were not significantly different between the HumaPen Memoir [0.43% (-0.59%,-0.28%)] and the HumaPen Luxura group [0.48% (0.64%, 0.32%); p = .669]. The overall incidence of hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly between groups (p = .982). Average satisfaction with insulin delivery was high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient sample, usage of a memory function pen was not associated with superior glycemic control, suggesting that adherence to mealtime injection schedules was not improved in a relevant manner. The memory function might be helpful for specific patient populations only, e.g., children or forgetful patients.