Limits...
Improved Treatment Satisfaction and Self-reported Health Status after Introduction of Basal-Supported Oral Therapy Using Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Sub-Analysis of ALOHA2 Study.

Tsukube S, Ikeda Y, Kadowaki T, Odawara M - Diabetes Ther (2015)

Bottom Line: In 1251 patients (336 in the target-achieved group), scores of DTSQs, DTSQc, and EQ-5D indicated significant improvement from baseline to the final evaluation point (both P < 0.01).The mean change in DTSQs scale score, DTSQs item score, and EQ-5D index score, and mean DTSQc scale score were significantly improved in the target-achieved group compared with the target-not-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all).Following insulin glargine BOT introduction, treatment satisfaction and health status were improved from patients' perspectives despite the need for daily injections.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sanofi K.K., Tokyo Opera City Tower, 3-20-2 Nishi-shinjyuku, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, 163-1488, Japan, DiabetesMedical.Sanofi@sanofi.com.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study aimed to assess treatment satisfaction and self-reported health status in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who started insulin glargine basal-supported oral therapy (BOT) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value of ≥6.5%, using data from Add-on Lantus(®) to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents 2 (ALOHA2) study, a 24-week single-arm, observational study of Japanese patients with T2DM, conducted as drug use surveillance in Japan.

Methods: Treatment satisfaction was measured using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) and self-reported health status using EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D). The results were compared between the groups stratified by HbA1c level at the final evaluation point: target-achieved (<7.0%) and target-not-achieved groups (≥7.0%).

Results: In 1251 patients (336 in the target-achieved group), scores of DTSQs, DTSQc, and EQ-5D indicated significant improvement from baseline to the final evaluation point (both P < 0.01). The mean change in DTSQs scale score, DTSQs item score, and EQ-5D index score, and mean DTSQc scale score were significantly improved in the target-achieved group compared with the target-not-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all). DTSQs scale score and HbA1c level showed the same pattern of chronological change. Data analysis in patients stratified by DTSQs score showed better glycemic control in the high satisfaction group.

Conclusion: Following insulin glargine BOT introduction, treatment satisfaction and health status were improved from patients' perspectives despite the need for daily injections. Based on the possible association between HbA1c 7.0% level achievement, treatment satisfaction, and health status, better glycemic control may be a key to successful treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

DTSQ treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. a–c DTSQs treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. d–f DTSQc treatment satisfaction score at the final evaluation point by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. DTSQ Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, DTSQs Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version, DTSQc Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001, ns not significant, (mean change target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group), Wilcoxon rank-sum test. a Patients whose data both at baseline and the final evaluation point available were included in the inter-group comparison. Change from baseline to the final evaluation point [target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group, mean ± standard deviation (SD)]: 5.3 ± 8.0 vs 3.2 ± 7.6 (total satisfaction scale score), mean ± SD vs mean ± SD (item score). b Final evaluation point: week 24 or the final visit in case of discontinuation
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4478177&req=5

Fig3: DTSQ treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. a–c DTSQs treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. d–f DTSQc treatment satisfaction score at the final evaluation point by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. DTSQ Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, DTSQs Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version, DTSQc Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001, ns not significant, (mean change target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group), Wilcoxon rank-sum test. a Patients whose data both at baseline and the final evaluation point available were included in the inter-group comparison. Change from baseline to the final evaluation point [target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group, mean ± standard deviation (SD)]: 5.3 ± 8.0 vs 3.2 ± 7.6 (total satisfaction scale score), mean ± SD vs mean ± SD (item score). b Final evaluation point: week 24 or the final visit in case of discontinuation

Mentions: The mean DTSQs treatment satisfaction scale score significantly improved from baseline to the final evaluation point in overall patients (baseline vs final evaluation point: 21.8 vs 25.6, P < 0.0001) and also in the target-achieved and target-not-achieved group (P < 0.0001 for both) (Fig. 3a). The mean change from baseline to the final evaluation point was significantly greater in the target-achieved group (mean ± standard deviation: 5.3 ± 8.0 and 3.2 ± 7.6, P = 0.001). Over the study period, the treatment satisfaction scale score increased in both groups from baseline to week 10, and continued to increase slightly thereafter in the target-achieved group and almost leveled off in the target-not-achieved group, similar to the change in HbA1c level (Fig. 3a). Mean score of each item significantly improved from baseline to the final evaluation point (P < 0.0001 for all) with significantly greater improvement in the target-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all) (Fig. 3b).Fig. 3


Improved Treatment Satisfaction and Self-reported Health Status after Introduction of Basal-Supported Oral Therapy Using Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Sub-Analysis of ALOHA2 Study.

Tsukube S, Ikeda Y, Kadowaki T, Odawara M - Diabetes Ther (2015)

DTSQ treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. a–c DTSQs treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. d–f DTSQc treatment satisfaction score at the final evaluation point by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. DTSQ Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, DTSQs Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version, DTSQc Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001, ns not significant, (mean change target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group), Wilcoxon rank-sum test. a Patients whose data both at baseline and the final evaluation point available were included in the inter-group comparison. Change from baseline to the final evaluation point [target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group, mean ± standard deviation (SD)]: 5.3 ± 8.0 vs 3.2 ± 7.6 (total satisfaction scale score), mean ± SD vs mean ± SD (item score). b Final evaluation point: week 24 or the final visit in case of discontinuation
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4478177&req=5

Fig3: DTSQ treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. a–c DTSQs treatment satisfaction score by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. d–f DTSQc treatment satisfaction score at the final evaluation point by the target-achieved and target-not-achieved groups. DTSQ Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, DTSQs Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version, DTSQc Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire change version. *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001, ns not significant, (mean change target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group), Wilcoxon rank-sum test. a Patients whose data both at baseline and the final evaluation point available were included in the inter-group comparison. Change from baseline to the final evaluation point [target-achieved vs target-not-achieved group, mean ± standard deviation (SD)]: 5.3 ± 8.0 vs 3.2 ± 7.6 (total satisfaction scale score), mean ± SD vs mean ± SD (item score). b Final evaluation point: week 24 or the final visit in case of discontinuation
Mentions: The mean DTSQs treatment satisfaction scale score significantly improved from baseline to the final evaluation point in overall patients (baseline vs final evaluation point: 21.8 vs 25.6, P < 0.0001) and also in the target-achieved and target-not-achieved group (P < 0.0001 for both) (Fig. 3a). The mean change from baseline to the final evaluation point was significantly greater in the target-achieved group (mean ± standard deviation: 5.3 ± 8.0 and 3.2 ± 7.6, P = 0.001). Over the study period, the treatment satisfaction scale score increased in both groups from baseline to week 10, and continued to increase slightly thereafter in the target-achieved group and almost leveled off in the target-not-achieved group, similar to the change in HbA1c level (Fig. 3a). Mean score of each item significantly improved from baseline to the final evaluation point (P < 0.0001 for all) with significantly greater improvement in the target-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all) (Fig. 3b).Fig. 3

Bottom Line: In 1251 patients (336 in the target-achieved group), scores of DTSQs, DTSQc, and EQ-5D indicated significant improvement from baseline to the final evaluation point (both P < 0.01).The mean change in DTSQs scale score, DTSQs item score, and EQ-5D index score, and mean DTSQc scale score were significantly improved in the target-achieved group compared with the target-not-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all).Following insulin glargine BOT introduction, treatment satisfaction and health status were improved from patients' perspectives despite the need for daily injections.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Sanofi K.K., Tokyo Opera City Tower, 3-20-2 Nishi-shinjyuku, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, 163-1488, Japan, DiabetesMedical.Sanofi@sanofi.com.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study aimed to assess treatment satisfaction and self-reported health status in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who started insulin glargine basal-supported oral therapy (BOT) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value of ≥6.5%, using data from Add-on Lantus(®) to Oral Hypoglycemic Agents 2 (ALOHA2) study, a 24-week single-arm, observational study of Japanese patients with T2DM, conducted as drug use surveillance in Japan.

Methods: Treatment satisfaction was measured using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire status version (DTSQs) and change version (DTSQc) and self-reported health status using EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D). The results were compared between the groups stratified by HbA1c level at the final evaluation point: target-achieved (<7.0%) and target-not-achieved groups (≥7.0%).

Results: In 1251 patients (336 in the target-achieved group), scores of DTSQs, DTSQc, and EQ-5D indicated significant improvement from baseline to the final evaluation point (both P < 0.01). The mean change in DTSQs scale score, DTSQs item score, and EQ-5D index score, and mean DTSQc scale score were significantly improved in the target-achieved group compared with the target-not-achieved group (P < 0.05 for all). DTSQs scale score and HbA1c level showed the same pattern of chronological change. Data analysis in patients stratified by DTSQs score showed better glycemic control in the high satisfaction group.

Conclusion: Following insulin glargine BOT introduction, treatment satisfaction and health status were improved from patients' perspectives despite the need for daily injections. Based on the possible association between HbA1c 7.0% level achievement, treatment satisfaction, and health status, better glycemic control may be a key to successful treatment.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus