Comparison of standard (self-directed) versus intensive patient training for the human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivery system in patients with type 2 diabetes: efficacy, safety, and training measures.

Author(s): Rosenstock J, Nakano M, Silverman BL, Sun B, de la Pena A, Suri A, Muchmore DB

Affiliation(s): Dallas Diabetes and Endocrine Center at Medical City, Dallas, Texas 75230, USA. juliorosenstock@dallasdiabetes.com

Publication date & source: 2007-02, Diabetes Technol Ther., 9(1):80-8.

Publication type: Clinical Trial, Phase II; Comparative Study; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND: The Lilly/Alkermes human insulin inhalation powder (HIIP) delivery system [AIR (a registered trademark of Alkermes, Inc., Cambridge, MA) Inhaled Insulin System] was designed to be easy to use. Training methods were compared in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n = 102) were randomized to standard or intensive training. With standard training, patients learned how to use the HIIP delivery system by reading directions for use (DFU) and trying on their own. Intensive training included orientation to the HIIP delivery system with individual coaching and inspiratory flow rate training. Both groups received preprandial HIIP + metformin with or without a thiazolidinedione for 4 weeks. Overall 2-h postprandial blood glucose (PPBG) excursion was the primary measure. Noninferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between groups being 1.2 < or = mmol/L. RESULTS: Overall 2-h PPBG excursions (least squares mean +/- SE) at endpoint were -0.11 +/- 0.38 (standard training) and 0.23 +/- 0.36 (intensive training) mmol/L. The mean difference (standard minus intensive training) and two-sided 95% confidence interval were -0.35 (-1.02, 0.33) mmol/L. No statistically or clinically significant differences were observed between training methods in premeal, postmeal, or bedtime blood glucose values, HIIP doses at endpoint, or blood glucose values after a test meal. No discontinuations occurred because of difficulty of use or dislike of the HIIP system. DFU compliance was >90% in both training groups. There were no significant differences between training methods in safety measures. CONCLUSIONS: The HIIP delivery system is easy to use, and most patients can learn to use it by reading the DFU without assistance from health care professionals.