Literature DB >> 17316103

Effect of standard (self-directed) training versus intensive training for Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder delivery system on patient-reported outcomes and patient evaluation of the system.

Risa P Hayes1, Masako Nakano, Douglas Muchmore, Jennifer Schmitke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inhaled insulin may provide patients with diabetes a safe, efficacious method of insulin delivery without the burden of injection, but complexity of and time required for training in proper use of delivery systems have not been evaluated.
METHODS: This 4-week, multicenter, single-blind, randomized parallel-group study compared the effect of self-directed [written text-graphic directions for use (DFU) with patient-assistance phone number] or intensive (same DFU, personal training by study personnel, inspiratory flow rate coaching) training for the Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivery system on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled on oral therapy (n = 102, mean hemoglobin A1C = 9.3%) were administered measures of vitality, diabetes-associated symptoms, fear of hypoglycemia, insulin-delivery system satisfaction, and a delivery system-specific evaluation questionnaire. Analysis of covariance models were used to compare the effect on PROs of treatment of diabetes for 1 month following the two training methods. Paired t tests were used to determine change in PROs after treatment with HIIP.
RESULTS: PROs did not differ significantly between training groups. Patients in both groups positively evaluated the delivery system, but the intensive group agreed significantly (P < 0.05) more strongly that the DFU was easy to follow. Improvements in vitality and symptoms of fatigue and increases in fear of hypoglycemia were detected among all patients after using HIIP (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Training for this HIIP delivery system can be self-directed without detrimental effects on PROs, making it potentially a more patient-friendly insulin-delivery method that should appeal to both clinicians and patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17316103     DOI: 10.1089/dia.2006.0043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther        ISSN: 1520-9156            Impact factor:   6.118


  5 in total

1.  A Systematic Review of Interventions for Health Anxiety Presentations Across Diverse Chronic Illnesses.

Authors:  Danielle Petricone-Westwood; Georden Jones; Brittany Mutsaers; Caroline Séguin Leclair; Christina Tomei; Geneviève Trudel; Andreas Dinkel; Sophie Lebel
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2019-02

Review 2.  Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.

Authors:  Susan M Joy; Emily Little; Nisa M Maruthur; Tanjala S Purnell; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Expectations about and experiences with insulin therapy contribute to diabetes treatment satisfaction in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  A N Naegeli; R P Hayes
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Primary care physician beliefs about insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  R P Hayes; J T Fitzgerald; S J Jacober
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  Inhaled insulin for controlling blood glucose in patients with diabetes.

Authors:  Bernard L Silverman; Christopher J Barnes; Barbara N Campaigne; Douglas B Muchmore
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2007
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.