Norbert Hermanns1, Leslie C Lilly2, Julia K Mader3, Felix Aberer3, Anja Ribitsch3, Harald Kojzar3, Jay Warner2, Thomas R Pieber3. 1. Diabetes Center Mergentheim, Research Institute Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Bad Mergentheim, Germany hermanns@diabetes-zentrum.de. 2. CeQur Corp, Marlborough, MA, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The PaQ® insulin delivery system is a simple-to-use patch-on device that provides preset basal rates and bolus insulin on demand. In addition to feasibility of use, safety, and efficacy (reported elsewhere), this study analyzed the impact of PaQ on patient-reported outcomes, including barriers to insulin treatment, diabetes-related distress, and attitudes toward insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes on a stable multiple daily injection (MDI) regimen. METHODS: This single-center, open-label, single-arm study comprised three 2-week periods: baseline (MDI), transition from MDI to PaQ, and PaQ treatment. Validated questionnaires were administered during the baseline and PaQ treatment periods: Barriers to Insulin Treatment questionnaire (BIT), Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS), and Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID). RESULTS: Eighteen patients (age 59 ± 5 years, diabetes duration 15 ± 7 years, 21% female, HbA1c 7.7 ± 0.7%) completed the questionnaires. There was a strong, significant effect of PaQ use in mean BIT total scores (difference [D] = -5.4 ± 0.7.7, P = .01, effect size [d] = 0.70). Patients perceived less stigmatization by insulin injection (D = -2.2 ± 6.2, P = .18, d = 0.35), increased positive outcome (D = 1.9 ± 6.6, P = .17, d = 0.29), and less fear of injections (1.3 ± 4.8, P = .55, d = 0.28). Mean change in ITAS scores after PaQ device use showed a nonsignificant improvement of 1.71 ± 5.63 but moderate effect size (d = 0.30, P = .14). No increase in PAID scores was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The results and moderate to large effects sizes suggest that PaQ device use has beneficial and clinically relevant effects to overcoming barriers to and negative appraisal of insulin treatment, without increasing other diabetes-related distress.
BACKGROUND: The PaQ® insulin delivery system is a simple-to-use patch-on device that provides preset basal rates and bolus insulin on demand. In addition to feasibility of use, safety, and efficacy (reported elsewhere), this study analyzed the impact of PaQ on patient-reported outcomes, including barriers to insulin treatment, diabetes-related distress, and attitudes toward insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes on a stable multiple daily injection (MDI) regimen. METHODS: This single-center, open-label, single-arm study comprised three 2-week periods: baseline (MDI), transition from MDI to PaQ, and PaQ treatment. Validated questionnaires were administered during the baseline and PaQ treatment periods: Barriers to Insulin Treatment questionnaire (BIT), Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scale (ITAS), and Problem Areas in Diabetes scale (PAID). RESULTS: Eighteen patients (age 59 ± 5 years, diabetes duration 15 ± 7 years, 21% female, HbA1c 7.7 ± 0.7%) completed the questionnaires. There was a strong, significant effect of PaQ use in mean BIT total scores (difference [D] = -5.4 ± 0.7.7, P = .01, effect size [d] = 0.70). Patients perceived less stigmatization by insulin injection (D = -2.2 ± 6.2, P = .18, d = 0.35), increased positive outcome (D = 1.9 ± 6.6, P = .17, d = 0.29), and less fear of injections (1.3 ± 4.8, P = .55, d = 0.28). Mean change in ITAS scores after PaQ device use showed a nonsignificant improvement of 1.71 ± 5.63 but moderate effect size (d = 0.30, P = .14). No increase in PAID scores was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The results and moderate to large effects sizes suggest that PaQ device use has beneficial and clinically relevant effects to overcoming barriers to and negative appraisal of insulin treatment, without increasing other diabetes-related distress.
Authors: Steven V Edelman; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Mark S Kipnes; Rocco Brunelle; Xiaojing Chen; Juan P Frias Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: William H Herman; Liza L Ilag; Susan L Johnson; Catherine L Martin; Joyce Sinding; Abdulaziz Al Harthi; Cynthia D Plunkett; Frankie B LaPorte; Ray Burke; Morton B Brown; Jeffery B Halter; Philip Raskin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: W H Polonsky; B J Anderson; P A Lohrer; G Welch; A M Jacobson; J E Aponte; C E Schwartz Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rury R Holman; Andrew J Farmer; Melanie J Davies; Jonathan C Levy; Julie L Darbyshire; Joanne F Keenan; Sanjoy K Paul Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Reinhard G Bretzel; Ulrike Nuber; Wolfgang Landgraf; David R Owens; Clare Bradley; Thomas Linn Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-03-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniil A Ilatovskii; Evgeniia P Gilshtein; Olga E Glukhova; Albert G Nasibulin Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 17.521