An assessment of physician reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml in Germany

ABSTRACT

Objective

To understand physicians’ reasons for prescribing Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml (IL200) and their experience with IL200 treatment in Germany.

Methods

The survey consisted of 28 questions on physician’s profile, average IL200 patients’ characteristics and rationales for prescribing IL200. Questions were rated on a scale of 0 (‘not at all important’/‘strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘absolutely important’/‘strongly agree’).

Results

The surveyed physicians had a mean (SD) experience of 18.1 (7.0) years managing diabetes, consulted an average of 226.8 patients with diabetes/month and prescribed IL200 to 56.1% of their patients on mealtime insulin (MTI). About 80.0% of IL200 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, were overweight/obese, and received >20 units/day of MTI. More than 70.0% of physicians rated patient’s insulin dose, pattern of self-measured glucose levels, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (clinical); adherence, hypoglycemia knowledge, motivation to improve lifestyle, desire to reduce injection volume and emotional struggle with controlling HbA1c (behavioral) as ‘very important’/‘absolutely important’ factors when prescribing IL200.

Conclusion

Physicians considered IL200 a promising treatment option that reduces the injection burden for patients on MTI. Physicians adopted a patient-centered perspective by aligning IL200 prescribing decisions with each patient’s medical needs and non-clinical preferences, with an aim to encourage treatment adherence through resorting to IL200’s advantageous attributes.

KEYWORDS:

• Concentrated insulin
• diabetes mellitus
• injection burden
• Insulin Lispro 200 units/ml
• mealtime insulin
• physician survey

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dirk Lennartz for his diligent management and contribution on conducting this research and Paranjoy Saharia and Sanowar Sayeed from IQVIA for their writing and editing support.

Author contribution

MPN, CPO, BO, NS, NL, and LGA made substantial contributions to the concept and design of the study. JC, ES, and MR analyzed the data. JC, ES, BO, JLP, NS, and MR provided interpretation of the data. JC, NS, and NL drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the manuscript for publication.

Declaration of interest

JC, MPN, CPO, BO, and JLP are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. JC, MPN, and JLP are minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. NS is an employee of Lilly Deutschland GmbH. ES received personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company. LGA, NL, and MR are employees of IQVIA, a vendor supporting Eli Lilly and Company for the study.

Additional information

Funding

This research was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.