PurposeTreatment guidelines recommend insulin progression (switching from basal to a premixed insulin regimen, adding bolus doses, and/or increasing dosing frequency) to achieve A1C targets as type 2 diabetes progresses, but fewer patients are being progressed than would be indicated based on their disease status. This systematic review proposes 2 questions regarding insulin progression among patients with type 2 diabetes: (1) What are the patient, provider, and health system barriers to insulin progression? (2) Do insulin progression barriers differ between insulin-naive and insulin-experienced patients?MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases through July 2011.ResultsOf 745 potentially relevant articles, 10 met inclusion criteria: 7 evaluated patient and 2 evaluated provider barriers, and 1 was an intervention to reduce barriers among physicians. Patients with prior insulin experience had fewer barriers arising from injection-related concerns and worries about the burden of insulin progression than did insulin-naive patients. Physician barriers included concerns about patients' ability to follow more complicated regimens as well as physicians' own inexperience with insulin and progression algorithms. The cross- sectional nature, narrow scope, and failure of all studies to examine patient, provider, and health systems barriers concurrently limited both barrier identification and an assessment of their impact on progression.ConclusionsPatient and physician experience with insulin and diabetes/insulin education were associated with fewer perceived barriers to insulin progression. Future studies should use multilevel longitudinal designs to quantify the relative impact of potential patient, provider, and health system factors on progression and health outcomes.

n/a

A substantial threat to the overall health of the American public is nonadherence to medications used to treat diabetes, as well as physicians' failure to initiate patients' use of those medications. To address this problem, we evaluated an integrated, pharmacy-based program to improve patients' adherence and physicians' initiation rates. The study included 5,123 patients with diabetes in the intervention group and 24,124 matched patients with diabetes in the control group. The intervention consisted of outreach from both mail-order and retail pharmacists who had specific information from the pharmacy benefit management company on patients' adherence to medications and use of concomitant therapies. The interventions improved patients' medication adherence rates by 2.1 percent and increased physicians' initiation rates by 38 percent, compared to the control group. The benefits were greater in patients who received counseling in the retail setting than in those who received phone calls from pharmacists based in mail-order pharmacies. This suggests that the in-person interaction between the retail pharmacist and patient contributed to improved behavior. The interventions were cost-effective, with a return on investment of approximately $3 for every $1 spent. These findings highlight the central role that pharmacists can play in promoting the appropriate initiation of and adherence to therapy for chronic diseases.

n/a

OBJECTIVES: To propose standardized methods for measuring concurrent adherence to multiple related medications and to apply these definitions to a cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 7567 subjects with diabetes prescribed 2 or more classes of oral hypoglycemic agents in 2005. METHODS: For each medication class, adherence for each patient was estimated using prescription-based and interval-based measures of proportion of days covered (PDC) from cohort entry until December 31, 2006. Concurrent adherence was calculated by applying these 2 measures in the following 3 ways: (1) the mean of each patient's average PDC, (2) the proportion of days during which patients had at least 1 of their medications available to them, and (3) the proportion of patients with a PDC of at least 80% for all medication classes. Because patients taking multiple related medications have distinct patterns of use, the analysis was repeated after classifying patients into mutually exclusive groups. RESULTS: Concurrent medication adherence ranged from 35% to 95% depending on the definition applied. Interval-based measures provide lower estimates than prescription-based techniques. Definitions that require the use of at least 1 drug class categorize virtually all patients as adherent. Requiring patients to have a PDC of at least 80% for each of their drugs results in only 30% to 40% of patients being defined as adherent. The variability in adherence is greatest for patients whose treatment regimen changed the most during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in adherence estimates derived from different definitions may substantially impact qualitative conclusions about concurrent adherence to related medications. Because the measures we propose have different underlying assumptions, the choice of technique should depend on why adherence is being evaluated.

CONTEXT: Thiazolidenediones (TZDs) are selective ligands of peroxisome-proliferator-activated receptor-gamma and have been shown to reduce bone mineral density. Recent results from several randomized controlled trials find an increased risk of fracture with TZDs compared with other oral antidiabetic agents. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the association between TZD use and fracture risk among older adults with diabetes. DESIGN: We conducted a cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with at least one diagnosis of diabetes initiating monotherapy for an oral hypoglycemic agent participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME: We measured the incidence of fracture within the cohort. RESULTS: Among the 20,964 patients with diabetes eligible for this study, 686 (3.3%) experienced a fracture during the median follow-up of approximately 10 months. Although not statistically significant, patients using only a TZD were more likely to experience a fracture than those using metformin (adjusted relative risk, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.77; P = 0.071) or a sulfonylurea (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.55; P = 0.12). Each individual TZD was associated with an increased risk, with confidence intervals overlapping unity, compared with both metformin and sulfonylureas. The adjusted risk of any fracture associated with TZD use compared with metformin was elevated for non-insulin-using patients, women and men. If TZD use is associated with fractures, the number needed for one excess fracture when comparing TZD users to sulfonylurea users was 200, and the number was 111 when comparing TZDs with metformin. CONCLUSIONS: As has been found with other analyses, our data suggest that TZDs may be associated with an increased risk of fractures compared with oral sulfonylureas and metformin.

BACKGROUND: Several disease-specific information exchanges now exist on Facebook and other online social networking sites. These new sources of knowledge, support, and engagement have become important for patients living with chronic disease, yet the quality and content of the information provided in these digital arenas are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively evaluate the content of communication in Facebook communities dedicated to diabetes. DESIGN: We identified the 15 largest Facebook groups focused on diabetes management. For each group, we downloaded the 15 most recent "wall posts" and the 15 most recent discussion topics from the 10 largest groups. PATIENTS: Four hundred eighty unique users were identified in a series of 690 comments from wall posts and discussion topics. MAIN MEASURES: Posts were abstracted and aggregated into a database. Two investigators evaluated the posts, developed a thematic coding scheme, and applied codes to the data. KEY RESULTS: Patients with diabetes, family members, and their friends use Facebook to share personal clinical information, to request disease-specific guidance and feedback, and to receive emotional support. Approximately two-thirds of posts included unsolicited sharing of diabetes management strategies, over 13% of posts provided specific feedback to information requested by other users, and almost 29% of posts featured an effort by the poster to provide emotional support to others as members of a community. Approximately 27% of posts featured some type of promotional activity, generally presented as testimonials advertising non-FDA approved, "natural" products. Clinically inaccurate recommendations were infrequent, but were usually associated with promotion of a specific product or service. Thirteen percent of posts contained requests for personal information from Facebook participants. CONCLUSIONS: Facebook provides a forum for reporting personal experiences, asking questions, and receiving direct feedback for people living with diabetes. However, promotional activity and personal data collection are also common, with no accountability or checks for authenticity.