High reported treatment satisfaction in people with type 1 diabetes switching to latest generation insulin pump regardless of previous therapy

Abstract

The effects of transition by individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to more recently available continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-enabled insulin pumps from either multiple daily insulin injections (MDI) or older insulin pumps on treatment satisfaction have not been well studied. We conducted a survey to assess treatment satisfaction among users of the Animas(®) Vibe™ insulin pump, a latest generation insulin pump (LGIP) system (CGM-enabled), after switching from MDI or earlier generation insulin pumps. Individuals with T1D from 141 centers in 5 countries and 4 language areas participated in the survey. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (ITSQ), which was included in a 50-item online questionnaire that also assessed preference for using the LGIP compared with previous treatment and satisfaction with key LGIP features. A total of 356 individuals, ages 12-79 years, responded to the survey: mean (SD) age 38.4 (16.1) years; diabetes duration 19.1 (13.3) years; female 59%; previously treated with MDI 58%. Overall mean (SD) ITSQ scores were high among all respondents regardless of prior treatment: 95.1 (23.2) (scale: 0-132). No differences between previous-treatment groups were seen. Most (83%) of respondents rated the LGIP to be better than their previous insulin delivery system: "much better" (65%), "a bit better" (18%) regardless of age, and 95% would recommend using the LGIP to others. Use of the Animas Vibe was associated with high treatment satisfaction and perceived as a better method of insulin delivery regardless of previous insulin therapy or age.

Keywords: CGM; CSII; ITSQ; continuous glucose monitoring; insulin pump; treatment satisfaction.

Figure 1.

Total ITSQ scores showed no between-group difference in treatment satisfaction related to prior insulin delivery system use. Thirty-two respondents did not complete the ITSQ questions; data from the 4 respondents who indicated “no previous treatment” were excluded from this analysis.

Figure 2.

Respondent ratings of LGIP use (much better/a bit better) by prior treatment group. Nineteen respondents did not complete this portion of the questionnaire; data from the 4 respondents who indicated “no previous treatment” were excluded from this analysis.