Automated bolus advisor control and usability study (ABACUS): does use of an insulin bolus advisor improve glycaemic control in patients failing multiple daily insulin injection (MDI) therapy? [NCT01460446]

David A Cavan, Ralph Ziegler, Iain Cranston, Katharine Barnard, Jacqueline Ryder, Claudia Vogel, Christopher G Parkin, Walter Koehler, Iris Vesper, Bettina Petersen, Robin S Wagner, David A Cavan, Ralph Ziegler, Iain Cranston, Katharine Barnard, Jacqueline Ryder, Claudia Vogel, Christopher G Parkin, Walter Koehler, Iris Vesper, Bettina Petersen, Robin S Wagner

Abstract

Background: People with T1DM and insulin-treated T2DM often do not follow and/or adjust their insulin regimens as needed. Key contributors to treatment non-adherence are fear of hypoglycaemia, difficulty and lack of self-efficacy associated with insulin dose determination. Because manual calculation of insulin boluses is both complex and time consuming, people may rely on empirical estimates, which can result in persistent hypoglycaemia and/or hyperglycaemia. Use of automated bolus advisors (BA) has been shown to help insulin pump users to more accurately meet prandial insulin dosage requirements, improve postprandial glycaemic excursions, and achieve optimal glycaemic control with an increased time within optimal range. Use of a BA containing an early algorithm based on sliding scales for insulin dosing has also been shown to improve HbA1c levels in people treated with multiple daily insulin injections (MDI). We designed a study to determine if use of an automated BA can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people treated with MDI.

Methods/design: The Automated Bolus Advisor Control and Usability Study (ABACUS) is a 6-month, prospective, randomised, multi-centre, multi-national trial to determine if automated BA use improves glycaemic control as measured by a change in HbA1c in people using MDI with elevated HbA1c levels (#62;7.5%). A total of 226 T1DM and T2DM participants will be recruited. Anticipated attrition of 20% will yield a sample size of 90 participants, which will provide #62;80% power to detect a mean difference of 0.5%, with SD of 0.9%, using a one-sided 5% t-test, with 5% significance level. Other measures of glycaemic control, self-care behaviours and psychosocial issues will also be assessed.

Discussion: It is critical that healthcare providers utilise available technologies that both facilitate effective glucose management and address concerns about safety and lifestyle. Automated BAs may help people using MDI to manage their diabetes more effectively and minimise the risk of long-term diabetes related complications. Findings from a recent study suggest that BA use positively addresses both safety and lifestyle concerns; however, randomised trials are needed to confirm these perceptions and determine whether bolus advisor use improves clinical outcomes. Our study is designed to make these assessments.

Trial registration: NCT01460446.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT Diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study Visit Schedule.

References

    1. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Study Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):977–986.
    1. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, Raskin P, Zinman B. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2643–2653.
    1. Group UKPDS. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33) Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–853.
    1. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-Year Follow-up of Intensive Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–1589. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470.
    1. Heinemann L. Overcoming obstacles: new management options. Eur J Endocrinol. 2004;151(Suppl 2):T23–T27.
    1. Di Battista AM, Hart TA, Greco L, Gloizer J. Type 1 diabetes among adolescents: reduced diabetes self-care caused by social fear and fear of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Educ. 2009;35(3):465–475. doi: 10.1177/0145721709333492.
    1. Morris AD, Boyle DI, McMahon AD, Greene SA, MacDonald TM, Newton RW. Adherence to insulin treatment, glycaemic control, and ketoacidosis in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The DARTS/MEMO Collaboration. Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland. Medicines Monitoring Unit. Lancet. 1997;350(9090):1505–1510. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)06234-X.
    1. Smith CB, Choudhary P, Pernet A, Hopkins D, Amiel SA. Hypoglycemia unawareness is associated with reduced adherence to therapeutic decisions in patients with type 1 diabetes: evidence from a clinical audit. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(7):1196–1198. doi: 10.2337/dc08-2259.
    1. Cramer JA. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(5):1218–1224. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.5.1218.
    1. Ahola AJ, Makimattila S, Saraheimo M, Mikkila V, Forsblom C, Freese R, Groop PH. Many patients with Type 1 diabetes estimate their prandial insulin need inappropriately. J Diabetes. 2010;2(3):194–202. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-0407.2010.00086.x.
    1. Cox DJ, Irvine A, Gonder-Frederick L, Nowacek G, Butterfield J. Fear of hypoglycemia: quantification, validation, and utilization. Diabetes Care. 1987;10(5):617–621. doi: 10.2337/diacare.10.5.617.
    1. Irvine AA, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick L. Fear of hypoglycemia: relationship to physical and psychological symptoms in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Health Psychol. 1992;11(2):135–138.
    1. Polonsky WH, Davis CL, Jacobson AM, Anderson BJ. Hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia, and blood glucose control in diabetes: symptom perceptions and treatment strategies. Diabet Med. 1992;9(2):120–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.1992.tb01747.x.
    1. Wild D, von Maltzahn R, Brohan E, Christensen T, Clauson P, Gonder-Frederick L. A critical review of the literature on fear of hypoglycemia in diabetes: Implications for diabetes management and patient education. Patien Educ Couns. 2007;68(1):10–15. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.003.
    1. Cavanaugh K, Huizinga MM, Wallston KA, Gebretsadik T, Shintani A, Davis D, Gregory RP, Fuchs L, Malone R, Cherrington A. et al.Association of numeracy and diabetes control. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):737–746.
    1. Pickup J, Keen H. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion at 25 years: evidence base for the expanding use of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(3):593–598. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.3.593.
    1. Bode BW, Sabbah HT, Gross TM, Fredrickson LP, Davidson PC. Diabetes management in the new millennium using insulin pump therapy. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2002;18(Suppl 1):S14–S20.
    1. Klupa T, Benbenek-Klupa T, Malecki M, Szalecki M, Sieradzki J. Clinical usefulness of a bolus calculator in maintaining normoglycaemia in active professional patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. J Int Med Res. 2008;36(5):1112–1116.
    1. Gross TM, Kayne D, King A, Rother C, Juth S. A bolus calculator is an effective means of controlling postprandial glycemia in patients on insulin pump therapy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2003;5(3):365–369. doi: 10.1089/152091503765691848.
    1. Garg SK, Bookout TR, McFann KK, Kelly WC, Beatson C, Ellis SL, Gutin RS, Gottlieb PA. Improved glycemic control in intensively treated adult subjects with type 1 diabetes using insulin guidance software. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2008;10(5):369–375. doi: 10.1089/dia.2007.0303.
    1. Barnard KD, Parkin CG, Young A, Ashraf M. Use of an automated bolus calculator reduces fear of hypoglycemia and improves confidene in dosage accuracy in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated with multiple daily insulin injections. J Diab Sci Tech. 2012;6(1):144–149.
    1. Schmidt S, Meldgaard M, Serifovski N, Storm C, Christensen TM, Gade-Rasmussen B, Norgaard K. Use of an Automated Bolus Calculator in MDI-Treated Type 1 Diabetes: The BolusCal Study, a randomized controlled pilot study. Diabetes Care. 2012;35:984–990. doi: 10.2337/dc11-2044.
    1. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 1997;277(11):925–926.
    1. Zisser H, Wagner R, Pleus S, Haug C, Jendrike N, Parkin C, Schweitzer M, Freckmann G. Clinical performance of three bolus calculators in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a head-to-head-to-head comparison. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2010;12(12):955–961. doi: 10.1089/dia.2010.0064.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
    1. Polonsky WH, Anderson BJ, Lohrer PA, Welch G, Jacobson AM, Aponte JE, Schwartz CE. Assessment of diabetes-related distress. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(6):754–760. doi: 10.2337/diacare.18.6.754.
    1. Bradley C. In: Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes: A Guide to Psychological Measurement in Diabetes Research and Practice. Bradley C, editor. Hardwood Academic, Chur, Switzerland; 1994. The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) pp. 111–132.
    1. Gold AE, Macleod KM, Frier BM. Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care. 1994;17(7):697–703. doi: 10.2337/diacare.17.7.697.
    1. Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62) Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):340–349.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe