Search

Gérard Reach,1 Laurent Benarbia,2 Pierre-Yves Benhamou,3 Brigitte Delemer,4 Séverine Dubois,5 Didier Gouet,6 Bruno Guerci,7 Nathalie Jeandidier,8 Karim Lachgar,9 Gilles Le Pape,10 Rémy Leroy,11 Jean-Hugues Masgnaux,12 Philippe Raclet,13 Yves Reznik,14 Jean-Pierre Riveline,15,16 Pauline Schaepelynck,17 Anne Vambergue,18 Bruno Vergès19 1Health Education and Promotion Laboratory (LEPS EA 3412), Sorbonne Paris Nord University, Bobigny, France; 2Marketing Studio, Paris, France; 3Department of Endocrinology, Grenoble University Hospital; Grenoble Alpes University, INSERM U1055, LBFA, Grenoble, France; 4Service d’Endocrinologie – Diabète – Nutrition, CHU de Reims - Hôpital Robert Debré, and Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, UFR Sciences Exactes Et Naturelles, Reims, France; 5Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, CHU Angers, Angers, France; 6Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Saint Louis Hospital, La Rochelle, France; 7Department of Endocrinology, Diabetology and Nutrition, CHRU of Nancy, Brabois Hospital, and ILCV Lorraine University, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France; 8Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, and Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; 9Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Centre Hospitalier Simone Veil, Eaubonne, France; 10General Practice, Penmarc’h, France; 11Private Medical Practice, Endocrinology and Diabetology, Lille, France; 12M&M Conseil, Boulogne, France; 13Association Française des Diabétiques de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France; 14Department oEndocrinology and Diabetology, CHU Côte de Nacre, Caen, and University of Caen Basse-Normandie, Medical School, Caen, France; 15Department of Diabetology and Endocrinology, Lariboisière Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; 16Unité INSERM U1138 Immunity and Metabolism in Diabetes, ImMeDiab Team, Centre de Recherches des Cordeliers, and Université de Paris, Paris, France; 17Department of Nutrition-Endocrinology-Metabolic Diseases, Pôle ENDO, APHM-Hôpital la Conception, Marseille, France; 18Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, CHU Lille, and University Hospital European Genomic Institute for Diabetes, Lille, France; 19Department of Endocrinology-Diabetology,CHU Dijon, and University of Burgundy, INSERM LNC UMR1231, Dijon, FranceCorrespondence: Gérard Reach, Health Education and Promotion Laboratory (LEPS EA 3412), Sorbonne Paris Nord University, 74 Rue Marcel Cachin, Bobigny Cedex, 93017, France, Tel + 33 (0)6 60 84 53 25, Email gerardreach@icloud.comBackground: Support programs are provided to people with diabetes to help them manage their disease. However, adherence to and persistence in support programs are often low, making it difficult to demonstrate their effectiveness.Aim: To identify the determinants of patients’ perceived interest in diabetes support programs because it may be a powerful determinant of effective participation in such programs.Patients and Methods: An online study conducted in April 2021 in metropolitan France on 600 people with diabetes recruited from a consumer panel. A 64-item psychosocial questionnaire including a question asking to evaluate the helpfulness of a support program was used. Univariate, multivariate, and multiple correspondence analyses were performed.Results: The existence of a typology, known as Unsafe/Safe, was discovered, in which patients with type 2 diabetes respond in two distinct ways. Type U (unsafe) patients, who believe that a support program would be helpful, are more likely to be nonadherent to their treatment, have high hemoglobin A1c levels, have at least one diabetic complication, lack information regarding their disease and treatment, rate the burden of their disease and impairment of their quality of life as high, worry about their future, and are pessimistic. Type S (safe) patients have the opposite characteristics. Type U patients can be dichotomized into two broad classes: one in which they lack information regarding disease and treatment and the other in which alterations in the quality of life and burden of the disease predominate. Insulin-treated patients give more importance to the lack of information, whereas noninsulin-treated patients complain primarily about the burden of the disease and impairment of quality of life.Conclusion: This study describes this new U/S typology, proposes a simple method based on a nine-item questionnaire to identify type U patients by calculating a Program Helpfulness Score described herein, and clarifies the nature of the intervention to be provided to them. This novel approach could be applied to other chronic diseases.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, adherence, support programs, typology, personality traits, clinical outcomes, patients’ expectations

Introduction: The MiniMed™ 780G system uses an advanced hybrid closed loop algorithm to improve outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The MiniMed™ 780G Glycemic Control and Quality of Life (EQOL) study aimed to provide routine clinical practice data on system effectiveness and associated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in France., Methods: Individuals aged ≥ 7 years with T1D were enrolled. A 14-day run-in phase in Manual mode preceded a 12-month study phase using Auto mode. The primary endpoint was absolute change in time in range (TIR) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in glycemic targets, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and hypoglycemia. PROs included treatment satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and fear of hypoglycemia., Results: Two-hundred seventy participants formed the intent-to-treat population at 6 months. TIR increased by 11.8 percentage points (standard deviation [SD] 8.96, 95% confidence interval 10.7 to 12.9, p < 0.0001), from 61.9% (SD 11.0) to 73.7% (SD 7.4), equivalent to 2.8 h per day more in range. Time < 70 mg/dL decreased by 1.5 percentage points (p < 0.0001), from 4.0% to 2.5%. All glycemic parameters significantly improved. HbA1c decreased by 0.52% and 0.42% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. More patients met glycemic targets, while severe hypoglycemia was reduced. At 12 months, treatment satisfaction increased across age groups, and QoL improved in adults. Fear of hypoglycemia decreased in adults and children., Conclusion: In France, people with T1D initiating the MiniMed™ 780G system demonstrated sustained TIR and HbA1c improvements. System usage reduced hypoglycemia and fear of hypoglycemia, and increased treatment satisfaction., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04308291., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflicts of Interest: Laurence Kessler reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Vertex, Abbott, Novo Nordisk; honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations, and educational events from Johnson and Johnson, Lilly Boehringer, Brothier, GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, BMS, Elivie, Vertex, ASDIA, ISIS Santé, ADIRAL. Charles Thivolet reports personal fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Glooko, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Sanofi and is an advisory board member for Insulet and Medtronic. Alfred Penfornis reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Insulet, Abbott Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Medtrum, and Sanofi; honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, and educational events from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi Diabetes, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, and Diabeloop; payment for expert testimony and support for travel and attending meetings from Sanofi Diabetes and Isis. Didier Gouet reports honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations in symposium and for participation on advisory board from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Abbott, Medtronic, Roche, AstraZeneca, LVL, Vitalaire, Isis, NHC, and Dexcom. Christine Coffin reports honoraria or payment for presentations, speaker bureaus and educational events from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi Diabetes and Abbot Diabetes; support for travel and attending meetings from Novo Nordisk and Sanofi. Myriam Moret reports payment for support for travel and attending meetings from Lilly Diabetes, ISIS Diabetes, LVL Médical; was an investigator on studies from URGO Laboratories and from TIMKL. Sophie Borot reports honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, and educational events from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi Diabetes, and Dexcom. Saïd Bekka reports consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi, Medtronic, Dexcom, AstraZeneca; participation on advisory boards for Medtronic, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Emmanuel Sonnet reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott Diabetes, Glooko and Lilly Diabetes; honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, and educational events from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Dexcom, Tandem, Ypsomed, Sanofi Diabetes, and Glooko. Michael Joubert reports consultant and/or speaker fees and/or research support from Abbott, Air Liquide Santé International, Amgen, Asdia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Dinno Santé, Glooko, Insulet, Lifescan, Lilly, LVL Médical, Medtronic, MSD, Nestlé HomeCare, Novo Nordisk, Organon, Orkyn, Roche Diabetes, Sanofi, Tandem, Vitalaire, Voluntis, and Ypsomed as well as being an Editorial Board member of Diabetes Therapy (Michael Joubert was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions). Sandrine Lablanche reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Dexcom, Ypsomed and Sanofi; honoraria or payment for lectures, presentations, and educational events from Medtronic, Insulet, Lilly Diabetes, Sanofi Diabetes, Vitalaire, Abbott, and Boehringer. Geoffrey Burtin is a current employee of Medtronic. Fabio Di Piazza is a current employee of Medtronic. Tim van den Heuvel is a current employee of Medtronic. Ohad Cohen is a current employee of Medtronic. Ethics/Ethics Approval: All participants or, for minors, their guardians provided informed consent. The study was approved by the French Central Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Est II; 2019-A01668-49; January 8, 2020) and conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and its later amendments., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We assessed the performance and patient satisfaction of a new insulin patch pump, the A7+TouchCare (Medtrum), compared with the Omnipod system., Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study enrolled 100 adult patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (A1C ≥ 6.5% and ≤ 9.5%, i.e., 48 to 80 mmol/mol) who were assigned with the Omnipod or with the A7+TouchCare pump for 3 months. The primary study outcome was the glucose management indicator (GMI) calculated with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Results: Premature withdrawals occurs respectively in 2 and 9 participants in the Omnipod and TouchCare groups. In the Per Protocol analysis, the difference in GMI between groups was 0.002% (95% confidence interval -0.251; 0.255). The non-inferiority was demonstrated since the difference between treatments did not overlap the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.4%). There was no significant difference in CGM parameters between groups. On average, patients in both groups were satisfied/very satisfied with the insulin pump system. Patients preferred Omnipod as an insulin management system and especially the patch delivery system but preferred the A7+TouchCare personal diabetes manager to control the system., Conclusions: This study showed that the A7+TouchCare insulin pump was as efficient as the Omnipod pump in terms of performance and satisfaction., Clinical Trail Registration: The study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov protocol register (NCT04223973)., Competing Interests: C.A. declares congress invitations from Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, and Sanofi; has received speaker honoraria from Diabeloop SA and Eli Lilly; has served on advisory board panels/consulting services for Eli Lilly and Medtrum. V.M. has received congress invitations from: Novo-Nordisk, Isis, Sadir, Vitalaire, Orkyn, Medtronic, and speaker fees or consultancy for expertise from: Medtrum, ISIS, Novo-Nordis. J.A. has received congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees from Lilly, Sanofi and Medtronic and has served on advisory board panels for Novonordisk, Ypsomed, Medtrum and Glooko. S.C. has received no congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees over the last 24 months. D.G. has received congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees from Eli-Lilly, Novo-Nordisk, Sanofi-Diabète, Abbott, Medtronic, Astra Zeneca. L.C. declares that she has no engagement, fees or honoraria conflicting with her participation to the project. B.C. has received congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees from Medtronic Dexcom and Abbott. P.S.-B. has received conference invitations, honoraria and consultancies from Abbott Diabetes Care, Eli-Lilly, Novo-Nordisk, Roche Diabetes Care and Ypsomed. C.P. has received no congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees over the last 24 months. C.T. has received honoraria for consultancy, speaker for conferences and congress invitations, from Abbott, Janssen, Lilly, Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi. A.P. has received congress invitations, speaker honoraria, and consultancy fees from Abbott, Diabeloop, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet, Lifescan, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and has served on advisory board panels for Abbott, Insulet, Medtrum, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Amadou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)