Objective To understand physicians’ reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml (IL200) and their experience with IL200 treatment in Germany.Methods The survey consisted of 28 questions on physician’s profile, average IL200 patients’ characteristics and rationales for prescribing IL200. Questions were rated on a scale of 0 (‘not at all important’/‘strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘absolutely important’/‘strongly agree’).Results The surveyed physicians had a mean (SD) experience of 18.1 (7.0) years managing diabetes, consulted an average of 226.8 patients with diabetes/month and prescribed IL200 to 56.1% of their patients on mealtime insulin (MTI). About 80.0% of IL200 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, were overweight/obese, and received >20 units/day of MTI. More than 70.0% of physicians rated patient’s insulin dose, pattern of self-measured glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (clinical); adherence, hypoglycemia knowledge, motivation to improve lifestyle, desire to reduce injection volume and emotional struggle with controlling HbA1c (behavioral) as ‘very important’/‘absolutely important’ factors when prescribing IL200.Conclusion Physicians considered IL200 a promising treatment option that reduces the injection burden for patients on MTI. Physicians adopted a patient-centered perspective by aligning IL200 prescribing decisions with each patient’s medical needs and non-clinical preferences, with an aim to encourage treatment adherence through resorting to IL200’s advantageous attributes.
The objective of the CRASH (Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia) survey was to further our understanding of the characteristics, experience, behavior and conversations with healthcare professionals (HCPs) of people with diabetes (PWD) receiving insulin, and of caregivers (CGs) caring for such people, concerning hypoglycemia requiring external assistance (severe hypoglycemic events [SHEs]).CRASH was an online cross-sectional survey conducted across eight countries. PWD with self-reported type 1 (T1D) or insulin-treated type 2 (T2D) diabetes were aged≥18 years and had experienced one or more SHEs in the past 3 years; CGs were non-medical professionals aged ≥18 years, caring for PWD meeting all the above criteria except for PWD age (≥4 rather than ≥18 years). The present report is a descriptive analysis of data from France.Among PWD who had ever discussed SHEs with an HCP, 38.9% of T1D PWD and 50.0% of T2D PWD reported that SHEs were discussed at every consultation; 26.3% and 8.8%, respectively, had not discussed the most recent SHE with an HCP. In total, 35.7% of T1D PWD and 53.8% of T2D PWD reported that glucagon was not available to them at the time of their most recent SHE. Only 16.9% of T1D PWD and 6.5% of T2D PWD who had discussed their most recent SHE with an HCP reported that the HCP recommended obtaining a glucagon kit or asked them to confirm that they already had one. High proportions of PWD and CGs reported that the most recent SHE had made them feel unprepared, scared and helpless and had affected mood, emotional state and activities.CRASH survey data from France identify a need for greater discussion about SHEs between HCPs and PWD and the CGs of such people, and reveal gaps in the diabetes education of PWDs and CGs.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
