HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Online-Only Appendix All Versions of this Article: dc06-1497v1 30/6/1399    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Testa, M. A. Articles by Simonson, D. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Testa, M. A. Articles by Simonson, D. C. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Satisfaction and Quality of Life With Premeal Inhaled Versus Injected Insulin in Adolescents and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

¹ Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
² Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Marcia A. Testa, MPH, PhD, Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115. E-mail: testa{at}hsph.harvard.edu

OBJECTIVE—We sought to compare and evaluate the impact of inhaled versus injected insulin on potential mediators of patient acceptance of insulin therapy while maintaining comparable A1C levels.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—During a noninferiority efficacy trial conducted in 40 centers in the U.S., we surveyed treatment satisfaction, quality of life, and adherence barriers at weeks –4, –1, 6, 12, 20, and 24 in adolescents aged 12–17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes who received premeal regular plus twice-daily NPH insulin during a 4-week run-in; then, subjects were randomized to premeal inhaled human insulin plus twice-daily NPH (adults, n = 102; adolescents, n = 60) (inhaled) or remaining on run-in therapy (n = 105 and 60, respectively) (subcutaneous injection).

RESULTS—Overall treatment satisfaction (0–100) increased by 13.2 ± 1.1 units for inhaled insulin (baseline = 63.3 ± 1.2) compared with 1.7 ± 0.8 for subcutaneous insulin injection (baseline = 64.1 ± 1.2, P < 0.0001). All 12 satisfaction subscales favored inhaled insulin (all P < 0.01), and effects did not vary by age or sex. Despite similar baseline-adjusted end point A1C for inhaled (7.7 ± 0.1%) and subcutaneous (7.9 ± 0.1%) regimens, quality-of-life scales of mental health, symptoms, health status, cognitive functioning, and adherence barriers during treatment were more favorable for inhaled insulin (all P < 0.05). Greater satisfaction was associated with fewer barriers to insulin adherence (rho = –0.78, P < 0.0001) and a greater reduction in A1C (rho = –0.18, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS—Treatment satisfaction was substantially more favorable, adherence barriers moderately lower, and quality of life moderately higher for inhaled compared with subcutaneous regimen. It remains to be demonstrated whether these patient-reported outcomes will translate into improved adherence and glycemic control.

Abbreviations: FPG, fasting plasma glucose

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. R. Holman Inhaled Insulin Shows Short-term Safety DOC News, September 1, 2007; 4(9): 1 - 13. [Full Text]