Participant Experiences of Low-Dose Empagliflozin Use as Adjunct Therapy to Hybrid Closed Loop: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.
SGLT2 inhibitor
adjunctive therapy
closed-loop therapy
patient-reported outcomes
quality of life
type 1 diabetes
Journal
Journal of diabetes science and technology
ISSN: 1932-2968
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Sci Technol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101306166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
25
05
2024
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
25
5
2023
entrez:
25
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Very few patient-reported outcomes have been published in regard to opinions of individuals with type 1 diabetes concerning adjunctive therapy. The aim of this subanalysis was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the thoughts and experiences of participants with type 1 diabetes who have used low doses of empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Semi-structured interviews were performed with adult participants who completed a double-blinded, crossover, randomized controlled trial using low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Participant experiences were captured through qualitative and quantitative methods. A descriptive analysis was performed using a qualitative approach; attitudes toward relevant topics were extracted from interview transcripts. Twenty-four participants were interviewed; 15 (63%) perceived differences between interventions despite blinding, due to glycemic control or side effects. Advantages that arose were better glycemic control, in particular postprandially, requiring less insulin, and ease of use. Disadvantages were thought to be adverse effects, increased incidence of hypoglycemia, and increased pill burden. Thirteen (54%) participants were interested in using low-dose empagliflozin beyond the study. Many participants had positive experiences with low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to the hybrid closed-loop therapy. A dedicated study with unblinding would be beneficial to better characterize patient-reported outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Very few patient-reported outcomes have been published in regard to opinions of individuals with type 1 diabetes concerning adjunctive therapy. The aim of this subanalysis was to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the thoughts and experiences of participants with type 1 diabetes who have used low doses of empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were performed with adult participants who completed a double-blinded, crossover, randomized controlled trial using low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to hybrid closed-loop therapy. Participant experiences were captured through qualitative and quantitative methods. A descriptive analysis was performed using a qualitative approach; attitudes toward relevant topics were extracted from interview transcripts.
RESULTS
Twenty-four participants were interviewed; 15 (63%) perceived differences between interventions despite blinding, due to glycemic control or side effects. Advantages that arose were better glycemic control, in particular postprandially, requiring less insulin, and ease of use. Disadvantages were thought to be adverse effects, increased incidence of hypoglycemia, and increased pill burden. Thirteen (54%) participants were interested in using low-dose empagliflozin beyond the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Many participants had positive experiences with low-dose empagliflozin as an adjunct to the hybrid closed-loop therapy. A dedicated study with unblinding would be beneficial to better characterize patient-reported outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37226831
doi: 10.1177/19322968231176302
pmc: PMC10658702
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypoglycemic Agents
0
empagliflozin
HDC1R2M35U
Insulin
0
Blood Glucose
0
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1448-1455Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : DP3 DK106930
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.H. received research support and material support from Eli Lilly, Dexcom, Tandem, Adocia, AgaMatrix, YpsoMed, and Medtronic; consulting fees from Eli Lilly; IP acquisition fees from Eli Lilly and YpsoMed; and has pending patents in the diabetes technology field. M.A.T. received research support from AgaMatrix and speaker honoraria from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringher Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. No other authors have conflicts of interest.
Références
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Aug;23(8):565-576
pubmed: 33780640
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017 Jul;19(7):410-416
pubmed: 28537437
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Nov;22(11):2151-2160
pubmed: 32691513
Lancet. 2021 Jan 16;397(10270):208-219
pubmed: 33453783
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018 May;12(3):735-736
pubmed: 29277104
Diabet Med. 2020 Nov;37(11):1832-1840
pubmed: 32298490
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jul;41(7):1471-1477
pubmed: 29752345
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Feb;20(2):245-256
pubmed: 28675686
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Jan;3(1):17-26
pubmed: 25434967
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021 Feb;23(2):599-608
pubmed: 33217117
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jul;44(7):1630-1640
pubmed: 34099518
Diabetologia. 2021 May;64(5):1007-1015
pubmed: 33550442
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 31;381(18):1707-1717
pubmed: 31618560
Diabetes Educ. 2017 Apr;43(2):223-232
pubmed: 28340542
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8;383(15):1436-1446
pubmed: 32970396
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 May;22(5):857-865
pubmed: 31970881
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):11-22
pubmed: 26132939
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Apr;17(4):295-300
pubmed: 25549042
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Jun;21(6):336-343
pubmed: 31095422
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2015 Aug;3(8):595-604
pubmed: 26066705
Can J Diabetes. 2020 Oct;44(7):592-596
pubmed: 32972641
N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8;383(15):1413-1424
pubmed: 32865377
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2022 Jul;24(7):461-470
pubmed: 35255229
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377(7):644-657
pubmed: 28605608
Diabetes Care. 2019 Jun;42(6):1147-1154
pubmed: 30728224
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Nov;11(6):1080-1088
pubmed: 28367636
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019 Oct;35(7):e3169
pubmed: 30974510
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
pubmed: 10625273
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2117-28
pubmed: 26378978
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Jul;23(7):491-499
pubmed: 33566729
Diabetes Care. 2023 Jan 1;46(1):165-172
pubmed: 36331522
Diabetes Care. 2016 Oct;39(10):1702-10
pubmed: 27506222
Nat Med. 2022 Jun;28(6):1269-1276
pubmed: 35551290
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Dec;31(12):2925-2936
pubmed: 32998938
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Jan;23(1):31-40
pubmed: 32667835
Diabetes Care. 2016 Oct;39(10):1693-701
pubmed: 27493132
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Feb;21(2):66-72
pubmed: 30657336
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007 Jan;9(1):143-5
pubmed: 17199734
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 18;384(11):989-1002
pubmed: 33567185
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Jan;23(1):70-77
pubmed: 32721228