Nadine Taleb1, Virginie Messier2, Sylvie Ott-Braschi3, Jean-Luc Ardilouze4, Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret5. 1. Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, 110, avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1R7, Canada; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, 2900, Édouard-Montpetit, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1J4, Canada. 2. Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, 110, avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1R7, Canada. 3. Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, 110, avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1R7, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 3840, rues Saint-Urbain, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1T8, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001-12(e) Avenue Nord, Sherbrooke, Québec J1H 5N4, Canada. 5. Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, 110, avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1R7, Canada; Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 3840, rues Saint-Urbain, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1T8, Canada; Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, 2405, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Québec H3T 1A8, Canada; Montreal Diabetes Research Center, 900 Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9, Canada. Electronic address: remi.rabasa-lhoret@ircm.qc.ca.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess perceptions of patients using subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) about metabolic control, pump malfunctions, technical and insertion site adverse events (AEs) related to infusion sets/catheters as well as patients' practices. METHODS: Online survey (from June 2016 to January 2017) using an actualized 39-item questionnaire directed to adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using CSII therapy and living in the province of Quebec, Canada. RESULTS: Participants with T1D (n = 115, 72% females, 39.7 ± 14.0 years, diabetes duration: 20.9 ± 12.2 years, CSII use: 6.2 ± 4.1 years) adequately completed the survey. Infusion sets were changed every 3.3 ± 0.9 day. Improved glucose control and decreased number/severity of hypoglycemic episodes were reported by 80% and 68%/50% of subjects, respectively. Over the past year of CSII use, participants perceived no increase in anxiety/worry (84%), no negative impact on life (89%) or on time off from work/school (82%). Conversely, many experienced at least one clinical AEs at insertion site [pain (84%), adhesion (76%), irritation (69%), lipodystrophy (45%)] and technical issues [blockage (52%), cannula kinking (50%), pump stop (55%), air bubbles (46%)]. No significant association was observed between catheter wear-time and AEs. All participants had one or more problems related to CSII use, although only 37% reported addressing these issues with health professionals. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients positively perceived CSII use although they experienced a high frequency of clinical and technical AEs. This warrants further attention by health professionals, investigators and manufacturers to optimize CSII therapy.
AIMS: To assess perceptions of patients using subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) about metabolic control, pump malfunctions, technical and insertion site adverse events (AEs) related to infusion sets/catheters as well as patients' practices. METHODS: Online survey (from June 2016 to January 2017) using an actualized 39-item questionnaire directed to adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using CSII therapy and living in the province of Quebec, Canada. RESULTS:Participants with T1D (n = 115, 72% females, 39.7 ± 14.0 years, diabetes duration: 20.9 ± 12.2 years, CSII use: 6.2 ± 4.1 years) adequately completed the survey. Infusion sets were changed every 3.3 ± 0.9 day. Improved glucose control and decreased number/severity of hypoglycemic episodes were reported by 80% and 68%/50% of subjects, respectively. Over the past year of CSII use, participants perceived no increase in anxiety/worry (84%), no negative impact on life (89%) or on time off from work/school (82%). Conversely, many experienced at least one clinical AEs at insertion site [pain (84%), adhesion (76%), irritation (69%), lipodystrophy (45%)] and technical issues [blockage (52%), cannula kinking (50%), pump stop (55%), air bubbles (46%)]. No significant association was observed between catheter wear-time and AEs. All participants had one or more problems related to CSII use, although only 37% reported addressing these issues with health professionals. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients positively perceived CSII use although they experienced a high frequency of clinical and technical AEs. This warrants further attention by health professionals, investigators and manufacturers to optimize CSII therapy.
Authors: Emmanouil S Benioudakis; Evangelos D Georgiou; Eirini D Barouxi; Athanasios M Armagos; Vaia Koutsoumani; Faidra Anastasiou-Veneti; Eleni Koutsoumani; Maria Brokalaki Journal: Diabetol Int Date: 2020-11-16
Authors: Ron Brazg; Satish K Garg; Anuj Bhargava; James R Thrasher; Kashif Latif; Bruce W Bode; Timothy S Bailey; Barry S Horowitz; Arvind Cavale; Yogish C Kudva; Kevin B Kaiserman; George Grunberger; John Chip Reed; Sarnath Chattaraj; Gina Zhang; John Shin; Vivian Chen; Scott W Lee; Toni L Cordero; Andrew S Rhinehart; Robert A Vigersky; Bruce A Buckingham Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 7.337
Authors: Damian Ucieklak; Sandra Mrozinska; Aleksandra Wojnarska; Maciej T Malecki; Tomasz Klupa; Bartłomiej Matejko Journal: Int J Endocrinol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 3.257