Chen Liming, Xing Qiuling, Li Jing, Zhou Jianxin, Yuan Yi, Wan Ying, Pflug Brian K, Strauss Kenneth W, Hirsch Laurence J
NHC Key Laboratory of Hormone and Development, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Metabolic Diseases, Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital and Tianjin Institute of Endocrinology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Medical Affairs, Becton Dickinson and Company, Inc., Shanghai, China.
Diabetes Ther. 2021 Mar;12(3):813-826. doi: 10.1007/s13300-021-01013-1. Epub 2021 Feb 11.
The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the impact of providing intensive injection technique (IT) education to patients routinely injecting insulin into sites of lipohypertrophy (LH).
Between November 2016 and May 2018, insulin-injecting patients with LH treated at Tianjin Metabolism Hospital (a public tertiary medical institution), Tianjin, China, were included in a 6-month prospective randomized controlled trial and randomized into either the intervention (the IT-education group) or the control (control group) arm. The control and IT-education groups were seen by different groups of trained nurses on different clinic days. IT education emphasized moving injections to normal tissue sites, within-and between-site injection rotation, an initial reduction of insulin total daily dose (TDD), and stopping needle reuse. Needles were provided to the IT group, while controls acquired needles in their usual way. Differences in changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and insulin TDD were the primary and main secondary endpoints, respectively.
The control (n = 104) and IT-education (N = 106) groups had similar demographic parameters (97% with type 2 diabetes) and baseline IT behavior. HbA1c reduction was similar in the IT-education and control group in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (6-month between-group difference 0.16% [1.7 mmol/mol], 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.11, 0.43 [- 1.2, 4.7]; p = 0.239) but was significant by the per-protocol (PP) analysis (difference 0.31% [3.4 mmol/mol], 95% CI 0.02, 0.60 [0.2, 6.6]; p = 0.038). Changes in TDD insulin in the IT-education group were approximately - 7 and - 8 IU by the ITT and PP analyses, respectively, versus - 1 IU (nonsignificant) in the controls (both between-group differences p ≤ 0.05). Despite the study design, IT education "contamination" (unplanned adoption of IT-intervention behaviors) was documented in 63 control patients. By post hoc analyses, HbA1c in "contaminated" controls decreased by 0.70% (7.7 mmol/mol) vs. 0.20% (2.2 mmol/mol) in "non-contaminated' patients (p = 0.019) at 6 months.
Proper IT, including learning to not inject into sites of LH, proper within- and between site rotation, needle reuse reduction, and the use of 4-mm, 32-G needles in Chinese patients injecting into sites of LH enables a safe reduction of TDD insulin while maintaining overall glycemic control.
Trial registration: ChiCTR-IOR-16009270 in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry.
本随机对照试验的目的是评估为常规在脂肪增生(LH)部位注射胰岛素的患者提供强化注射技术(IT)教育的影响。
2016年11月至2018年5月,在中国天津的天津医科大学代谢病医院(一家公立三级医疗机构)接受治疗的LH胰岛素注射患者被纳入一项为期6个月的前瞻性随机对照试验,并随机分为干预组(IT教育组)或对照组。对照组和IT教育组由不同组的经过培训的护士在不同的门诊日进行诊治。IT教育强调将注射部位转移到正常组织部位、部位内和部位间的注射轮换、初始减少胰岛素每日总剂量(TDD)以及停止重复使用针头。为IT组提供针头,而对照组以其通常的方式获取针头。糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)变化和胰岛素TDD差异分别是主要和次要主要终点。
对照组(n = 104)和IT教育组(N = 106)具有相似的人口统计学参数(97%为2型糖尿病患者)和基线IT行为。在意向性分析(ITT)中,IT教育组和对照组的HbA1c降低情况相似(6个月组间差异为0.16% [1.7 mmol/mol],95%置信区间[CI] -0.11, 0.43 [-1.2, 4.7];p = 0.239),但按符合方案(PP)分析具有显著性差异(差异为0.31% [3.4 mmol/mol],95% CI 0.02, 0.60 [0.2, 6.6];p = 0.038)。通过ITT和PP分析,IT教育组的TDD胰岛素变化分别约为-7和-8 IU,而对照组为-1 IU(无显著性差异)(两组间差异p≤0.05)。尽管有研究设计,但在63名对照患者中记录到了IT教育“污染”(意外采用IT干预行为)。通过事后分析,“受污染”对照组的HbA1c在6个月时下降了0.70%(7.7 mmol/mol),而“未受污染”患者下降了0.20%(2.2 mmol/mol)(p = 0.019)。
适当的IT,包括学会不在LH部位注射、正确的部位内和部位间轮换、减少针头重复使用以及在中国LH部位注射的患者中使用4毫米、32G针头,能够在维持总体血糖控制的同时安全降低TDD胰岛素。
在中国临床试验注册中心注册,注册号为ChiCTR-IOR-16009270。