Clare Bradley, J Stewart and E Witthaus (2001)
Treatment satisfaction and psychological well-being with insulin glargine compared with NPH in patients with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 18 (8).
Full text access: Open
Aims: To assess satisfaction with treatment and psychological well-being associated with insulin glargine and NPH. Insulin glargine, a new long-acting insulin analogue, provides constant, peakless insulin release following once-daily administration and is associated with fewer hypoglycaemic episodes, despite metabolic control equivalent to that achieved with NPH human basal insulin.
Methods: The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) and Well-being Questionnaire (W-BQ) were completed at baseline and at weeks 8, 20 or 28 by 517 patients with Type 1 diabetes participating in a randomized, controlled European trial comparing insulin glargine and NPH. Analysis of covariance was performed on change from baseline scores (main effects: treatment and pooled site; covariate: baseline scores).
Results: Treatment Satisfaction improved with insulin glargine at all time points, including endpoint, but deteriorated slightly with NPH. These differences were significant throughout the study (change from baseline to endpoint: +1.27 vs. –0.56; p = 0.0001). Outcomes were better with insulin glargine for the DTSQ items, Perceived Frequency of Hyperglycaemia and Hypoglycaemia, with statistically significant differences at week 28 and endpoint for hyperglycaemia (p = 0.0373 and 0.0379) and at week 20 for hypoglycaemia (p = 0.0024). There was no difference in psychological well-being between the treatment groups, with mean scores increasing in both.
Conclusions: Study participants had treatment-independent improvements in General Well-being. Advantages for insulin glargine were seen in significantly improved Treatment Satisfaction throughout the study, together with lower Perceived Frequency of Hyperglycaemia than for patients on NPH, without a significant increase in Perceived Frequency of Hypoglycaemia.
This is a Published version
This version's date is:
is not peer reviewed
Deposited by () on
in Royal Holloway Research Online.Last modified on 12-May-2010
1. Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, Cowper PA, Shortliffe EA, Simel DL, Feussner JR: The relationship between glycemic control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Medical Care 32: 1173-1181, 1994
2. Petterson T, Lee P, Hollis S, Young B, Newton P, Dornan T: Well-being and treatment satisfaction in older people with diabetes. Diabetes Care 21: 930-935, 1998
3. Bradley C: The Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire: DTSQ. In: Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes: A Guide to Psychological Measurement in Diabetes Research and Practice. Bradley C, Ed. Chur/Switzerland, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994, p. 111-132
4. Seipke G, Geisen K, Neubauer HP, Pittius C, Rosskamp R, Schwabe D. New insulin preparations with prolonged action profiles: A21-modified arginine insulins (Abstract). Diabetologia 1992; 35 [Suppl 1]: A4.
5. Ratner RE, Hirsch IB, Neifing JL, Garg SK, Mecca TE, Wilson CA. Less hypoglycemia with insulin glargine in intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. US Study Group of Insulin Glargine in Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 639-643.
6. Matthews DR, Pfeiffer C. Comparative clinical trial of a new long-acting insulin (HOE 901) vs. protamine insulin demonstrates less nocturnal hypoglycaemia (Abstract). Diabetes 1998; 47 [Suppl 1]: A92.
7. Pieber TR, EugÃ¨ne-Jolchine I, Derobert E and the European Study Group of HOE 901 in Type 1 Diabetes. Efficacy and safety of HOE 901 versus NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 157-162.
8. Yki-JÃ¤rvinen H, Ziemen M, Dressler A and the HOE 901/3002 Study Group. Less nocturnal hypoglycemia and better post-dinner glucose control with bedtime insulin glargine compared with bedtime NPH insulin during insulin combination therapy in Type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000, 23: 1130-1136.
9. Bradley C. The Well-being Questionnaire. In: Bradley C, ed. Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes: A Guide to Psychological Measurement in Diabetes Research and Practice. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994: 89-109.
10. Plowright R, Witthaus E, Bradley C. Psychometric evaluation of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionaire in 8 languages. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society 2000; Vol. 8(2): 43.
11. Plowright R, Witthaus E, Bradley C.: Evaluating the 12-item Well-being Questionnaire for use in multinational trials. Quality of Life Research 1999; Vol. 8 (No. 7): 650
12. Janes JM, Bradley C, Rees A. Preferences for, and improvements in aspects of quality of life (QoL) with, insulin lispro in a multiple injection regimen (Abstract). Diabetologia 1997; 40 [Suppl 1]: A 353.
13. Bradley C, Gamsu DS. Guidelines for encouraging psychological well-being: Report of a Working Group of the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe and International Diabetes Federation European Region St. Vincent Declaration Action Programme for Diabetes. Diabetic Med 1994; 11: 510-516.
14. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care 1989; 27 (Supplement 3): S178-S189.
15. Howorka K, Pumpria J, Schlusche C, Wagner-Nosiska M, Reischle S, Bradley C. Insulin lispro changes treatment satisfaction under flexible, functional insulin treatment (Abstract). Diabetes 1997; 6 [Suppl 1]: 13A.
16. Kinmonth A-L, Woodcock A, Griffin S, Spiegal N, Campbell MJ. Randomised controlled trial of patient-centred care in general practice: impact on current well-being and future disease risk. Br Med J 1998; 317: 1202-1208.
17. Renner R, PfÃ¼tzner A, Trautmann M, Harzer O, Sauter K, Landgraf R, on behalf of the German Humalog-CSII Study Group. Use of insulin lispro in continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion treatment. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:784-788.
18. Bradley C. Measuring quality of life in diabetes. In: Marshall SM, Home PD, Rizza RA, eds. The Diabetes Annual (volume 10). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 1996: 207-224.
19. Pouwer F, Snoek FJ, Heine RJ. Ceiling effect reduces the validity of the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 2039.
20. Bradley C. Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire: change version for use alongside status version provides appropriate solution where ceiling effects occur. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 530-532.
21. Bradley C. On calculating treatment satisfaction. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 1760.
22. PfÃ¼tzner A. Response to Bradley. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 1760.