Davida F. Kruger

Correlates of Insulin Injection Omission

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess factors associated with patient frequency of intentionally skipping insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data were obtained through an Internet survey of 502 U.S. adults self-identified as taking insulin by injection to treat type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Multiple regression analysis assessed independent associations of various demographic, disease, and injection-specific factors with insulin omission. RESULTS Intentional insulin omission was reported by more than half of respondents; regular omission was reported by 20%. Significant independent risk factors for insulin omission were younger age, lower income and higher education, type 2 diabetes, not following a healthy diet, taking more daily injections, interference of injections with daily activities, and injection pain and embarrassment. Risk factors differed between type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients, with diet nonadherence more prominent in type 1 diabetes and age, education, income, pain, and embarrassment more prominent in type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Whereas most patients did not report regular intentional omission of insulin injections, a substantial number did. Our findings suggest that it is important to identify patients who intentionally omit insulin and be aware of the potential risk factors identified here. For patients who report injection-related problems (interference with daily activities, injection pain, and embarrassment), providers should consider recommending strategies and tools for addressing these problems to increase adherence to prescribed insulin regimens. This could improve clinical outcomes.

A biopsychosocial model of glycemic control in diabetes: stress, coping and regimen adherence.

This study examines stress, coping, and regimen adherence as determinants of chronic and transient metabolic control in diabetes. We also examine the interaction of biologic vulnerability and psychosocial risk factors to see if Type 1 (insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) or Type 2 (noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus) diabetes had greater responsiveness to psychosocial risk factors. Analyses of data from insulin-treated adults with Type 1 (N = 57) and Type 2 (N = 61) diabetes supported the biopsychosocial model. For Type 1 diabetes, self-controlling persons had better glycemic control and emotional persons had worse (because of differences in stress). All of these associations were mediated by regimen compliance. For Type 2 diabetes, self-controlling persons had better glycemic control for reasons other than regimen compliance. There was an interaction between biologic and psychosocial factors, with psychosocial factors accounting for more variance in glycemic control within Type 1 patients. Stable psychosocial resources (i.e., education, being married, and positive coping styles) were associated with better chronic glycemic control, while stress and regimen nonadherence were associated with worse transient glycemic control.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Previous clinical trials showing the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of type 1 diabetes predominantly have included adults using insulin pumps, even though the majority of adults with type 1 diabetes administer insulin by injection. Objective To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with insulin injections. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial conducted between October 2014 and May 2016 at 24 endocrinology practices in the United States that included 158 adults with type 1 diabetes who were using multiple daily insulin injections and had hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels of 7.5% to 9.9%. Interventions Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (control group; n = 53). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome measure was the difference in change in central-laboratory–measured HbA1c level from baseline to 24 weeks. There were 18 secondary or exploratory end points, of which 15 are reported in this article, including duration of hypoglycemia at less than 70 mg/dL, measured with CGM for 7 days at 12 and 24 weeks. Results Among the 158 randomized participants (mean age, 48 years [SD, 13]; 44% women; mean baseline HbA1c level, 8.6% [SD, 0.6%]; and median diabetes duration, 19 years [interquartile range, 10-31 years]), 155 (98%) completed the study. In the CGM group, 93% used CGM 6 d/wk or more in month 6. Mean HbA1c reduction from baseline was 1.1% at 12 weeks and 1.0% at 24 weeks in the CGM group and 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, in the control group (repeated-measures model P < .001). At 24 weeks, the adjusted treatment-group difference in mean change in HbA1c level from baseline was –0.6% (95% CI, –0.8% to –0.3%; P < .001). Median duration of hypoglycemia at less than <70 mg/dL was 43 min/d (IQR, 27-69) in the CGM group vs 80 min/d (IQR, 36-111) in the control group (P = .002). Severe hypoglycemia events occurred in 2 participants in each group. Conclusions and Relevance Among adults with type 1 diabetes who used multiple daily insulin injections, the use of CGM compared with usual care resulted in a greater decrease in HbA1c level during 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess longer-term effectiveness, as well as clinical outcomes and adverse effects. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02282397

Diabetes and Pregnancy: Factors associated with seeking pre-conception care

OBJECTIVE To define sociodemographic characteristics, medical factors, knowledge, attitudes, and health-related behaviors that distinguish women with established diabetes who seek pre-conception care from those who seek care only after conception. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A multicenter, case-control study of women with established diabetes making their first pre-conception visit (n = 57) or first prenatal visit without having received pre-conception care (n = 97). RESULTS Pre-conception subjects were significantly more likely to be married (93 vs. 51%), living with their partners (93 vs. 60%), and employed (78 vs. 41%); to have higher levels of education (73% beyond high school vs. 41%) and income (86% >

Barriers to Insulin Injection Therapy Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives

20,000 vs. 60%); and to have insulin-dependent diabetes mellims (IDDM) (93 vs. 81%). Pre-conception subjects with IDDM were more likely to have discussed preconception care with their health care providers (98 vs. 51%) and to have been encouraged to get it (77 vs. 43%). In the prenatal group, only 24% of pregnancies were planned. Pre-conception patients were more knowledgeable about diabetes, perceived greater benefits of pre-conception care, and received more instrumental support. CONCLUSIONS Only about one-third of women with established diabetes receive pre-conception care. Interventions must address prevention of unintended pregnancy. Providers must regard every visit with a diabetic woman as a pre-conception visit. Contraception must be explicitly discussed, and pregnancies should be planned. In counseling, the benefits of pre-conception care should be stressed and the support of families and friends should be elicited.

Self-Management Support for Insulin Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Objective To compare patients’ perceptions of injection-related problems with clinicians’ estimates of those problems. Methods Data were obtained through 2 Internet surveys, one of US adults self-identified as taking insulin to treat diabe- tes and the second of health care professionals who treat people with diabetes who inject insulin, including pri- mary care physicians, endocrinologists, and diabetes educators. Results A substantial majority of patients would like to reduce the number of injections they take each day; almost half said that they would be more likely to take their insulin injections regularly if a product were available to ease the pain. A much smaller proportion of patients reported that (1) injections were a serious burden, (2) they were dissatisfied with the way they took insulin, (3) injections had a substantial negative impact on qual- ity of life, (4) they skipped injections they should take, or (5) injection-related problems affected the number of injections they were willing to take. Half of the patients said they mentioned injection-related problems to their provider; a similar number reported that their providers had not given them a solution to problems with injection- related pain and bruising. Although awareness of prod- ucts to ease injection pain was high among providers (especially diabetes educators), this information was not effectively transmitted to patients. Conclusions Patients should be encouraged to discuss their injection- related concerns, and providers should regularly ask about injection-related problems. Providers should offer patients information about tools to reduce injection- related worries, preferably by having them available to show and demonstrate

Clinical implications of amylin and amylin deficiency.

PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to describe the self-management support that can be provided by diabetes educators for type 2 diabetes patients who are transitioning from therapy with oral hypoglycemic agents to insulin. METHODS The role of the diabetes educator in patient education and self-management support during all aspects of insulin therapy is discussed. Phases during which support may be especially important include the decision-making process, initiation, and maintenance. RESULTS Although some patients make the decision fairly easily, the introduction of insulin therapy is likely to raise many issues and questions for many type 2 diabetes patients. The more reluctant patients may experience psychological insulin resistance, a syndrome where insulin therapy is viewed as a threat or failure, which can affect health professionals as well. The diabetes educator can provide support and approaches to help diminish this resistance and make the transition to insulin therapy easier and more effective for patients with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Education and ongoing self-management support are needed for informed decision making and the initiation and maintenance of insulin therapy. Therefore, diabetes educators have a critical role to play during both the decision-making process and the safe transition to insulin therapy.

Translation of the diabetes nutrition recommendations for health care institutions.

PURPOSE this paper presents an overview of the physiology of glycemic control and the mechanisms of amylin deficiency in people with diabetes. Benefits of replacement therapy with both pramlintide and insulin are discussed. METHODS The discovery of the pancreatic p-cell hormone amylin, which is cosecreted with insulin in response to hyperglycemia, has prompted a reanalysis of the mechanisms underlying the control of glucose homeostasis. A review of the current literature on amylin and amylin deficiency provides the basis of this reanalysis, with a discussion of the clinical implications for people with diabetes. RESULTS Amylin appears to work with insulin to regulate plasma glucose concentrations in the bloodstream, suppressing the postprandial secretion of glucagon and restraining the rate of gastric emptying. People with diabetes have a deficiency in the secretion of amylin that parallels the deficiency in insulin secretion, resulting in an excessive inflow of glucose into the bloodstream during the postprandial period. CONCLUSIONS While insulin replacement therapy is a cornerstone of diabetes treatment, replacement of the function of both amylin and insulin may allow a more complete restoration of the normal physiology of glucose control.

Risk Factors Associated With Severe Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

The Nutrition Recommendations and Principles for People With Diabetes Mellitus (1,2) reflect current scientific nutrition and diabetes knowledge and consensus. The recommendations apply primarily to individuals receiving diabetes medical nutrition therapy on an outpatient basis and living in a home setting and not to hospitalized patients or residents of long-term care facilities with diabetes. This population takes on added importance when one considers that adults with diabetes are hospitalized three times more often than adults without diabetes and tend to have longer hospital stays. In addition, ~18% of all long-term care residents have diabetes (3). To provide guidance on implementation of the nutrition recommendations in acute and long-term health care facilities (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes), a task force was formed by the American Diabetes Association. The task force began by gathering data on how, and if, health care facilities were implementing the nutrition recommendations as well as on other nutrition issues related to the recommendations that should be addressed. This technical review summarizes the survey; reviews the role of diabetes medical nutrition therapy in acute and long-term health care settings; summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of meal planning systems used; reviews the role of patient selfmanagement education in acute-care settings; examines nutrition issues such as liquid and surgical diets, catabolic illness, and nutrition support; and suggests areas for future research. The technical review summarizes published research and recommendations, as well as traditional and usual acute and long-term nutrition care and food service. However, for many of the issues, few studies were available. This area requires additional research to determine if current nutrition therapy practices for diabetes lead to desired nutrition, medical, and clinical outcomes.

Delayed Gastric Emptying is Associated with Early and Long-Term Hyperglycemia in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE Severe hypoglycemia is common in older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, but little is known about factors associated with its occurrence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A case-control study was conducted at 18 diabetes centers in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥60 years old with type 1 diabetes for ≥20 years. Case subjects (n = 101) had at least one severe hypoglycemic event in the prior 12 months. Control subjects (n = 100), frequency-matched to case subjects by age, had no severe hypoglycemia in the prior 3 years. Data were analyzed for cognitive and functional abilities, social support, depression, hypoglycemia unawareness, various aspects of diabetes management, C-peptide level, glycated hemoglobin level, and blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics. RESULTS Glycated hemoglobin (mean 7.8% vs. 7.7%) and CGM-measured mean glucose (175 vs. 175 mg/dL) were similar between case and control subjects. More case than control subjects had hypoglycemia unawareness: only 11% of case subjects compared with 43% of control subjects reported always having symptoms associated with low blood glucose levels (P < 0.001). Case subjects had greater glucose variability than control subjects (P = 0.008) and experienced CGM glucose levels <60 mg/dL for ≥20 min on 46% of days compared with 33% of days in control subjects (P = 0.10). On certain cognitive tests, case subjects scored worse than control subjects. CONCLUSIONS In older adults with long-standing type 1 diabetes, greater hypoglycemia unawareness and glucose variability are associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. A study to assess interventions to prevent severe hypoglycemia in high-risk individuals is needed.