Lack of coordination between partners: investigation of Physician-Preferred and Patient-Preferred (4P) basal insulin titration algorithms in the real world
Authors Zhang T, Zhao Y, Du T, Zhang X, Li X, Liu R, Wang Y, Chen B, He L, Li W
Received 22 March 2018
Accepted for publication 13 May 2018
Published 18 July 2018 Volume 2018:12 Pages 1253—1259
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Lucy Goodman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu
Tong Zhang,1 Yunjuan Zhao,2 Tao Du,2 Xiaodan Zhang,2 Xiaowei Li,2 Ruike Liu,3 Yunlin Wang,4 Bo Chen,5 Ling He,6 Wangen Li2
1Department of Endocrinology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510630, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Endocrinology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510260, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Endocrinology, The Third People’s Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan 523326, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Endocrinology, Foshan Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan 528000, People’s Republic of China; 5Department of Endocrinology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou 510317, People’s Republic of China; 6Department of Endocrinology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou 510180, People’s Republic of China
Background: Patient-centered care is respectful to a patient’s preference. All prior clinical trials on patient self-titration algorithms for basal insulin were decided by physicians. We hypothesized that patients and physicians have different preferences.
Patients and methods: Physicians and diabetes patients were asked to choose their preferred insulin glargine self-titration algorithm among 5 algorithms. Algorithm 1, 1 U increase once daily; algorithm 2, 2 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 3, 3 U increase every 3 days; algorithm 4, titration every 3 days according to fasting blood glucose, and algorithm 5, weekly titration 2–8 U based on 3-day mean fasting blood glucose levels.
Results: Eleven (5.2%) out of 210 physicians and 180 (90.9%) out of 198 patients preferred algorithm 1 (χ2=300.4, p=0.000). In contrast, 195 (92.9%) physicians and 18 (9.1%) patients preferred algorithm 2 (χ2=286.6, p=0.000). In addition, 4 (1.9%) physicians but no patients preferred algorithm 3 (χ2=2.099, p=0.124). Neither physicians nor patients chose algorithms 4 or 5. Most physicians preferred algorithm 2 since it is recommended by guidelines, but most patients preferred algorithm 1 for its simplicity.
Conclusion: Patients had different preferences compared with physicians. Attention should be given to patients’ preferences to increase adherence and improve glycemic control.
Keywords: type 2 diabetes, titration algorithm, insulin glargine, basal insulin, self-adjustment, shared decision-making, adherence
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]