Success of CME on Appropriate Clinical Use of Inhaled Insuli

[lakers]

Success of Continuing Medical Education on Appropriate Clinical Use of Inhaled Insulin Therapy
Program: Abstracts - Orals, Poster Previews, and Posters
Session: SUN 756-770-Endocrine Healthcare Delivery and Education (posters)
Clinical
Sunday, April 3, 2016: 1:15 PM-3:15 PM
Exhibit/Poster Hall (BCEC)

Poster Board SUN 759
Amy Larkin1, Michael LaCouture*2 and Anne Le1
1Medscape Education, 2Medscape Education, Mount Laurel, NJ
Introduction
Postprandial hyperglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes is difficult to control, as traditional forms of rapid-acting insulin are unable to replicate the sharp insulin spike experienced after a meal by healthy individuals. We sought to determine if participating in a series of educational interventions related to the clinical use of a new rapid-acting insulin formulation could improve the knowledge, competence, and clinical decision-making of primary care physicians (PCPs) and diabetologists/endocrinologists (diab/endos) in the United States (US).


bit.ly/1VFOV4m
Methods

PCPs and diab/endos participated in at least 1 of 3 online CME activities within a curriculum on clinical use of inhaled insulin. Activities launched online between April and June, 2015, and data were collected through June (for posting dates in April) or September (for posting dates in June), 2015. The effects of education were assessed using knowledge- and case-based matched pre- and post-assessments. McNemar’s chi-squared test was used to assess whether the mean post-assessment score differed from the mean pre-assessment score; P values <.05 are statistically significant.

Major Results

Improved knowledge, competence, and clinical-decision making was seen among PCPs (n = 2040; P <.05 all activities) and diab/endos (n = 815; P <.05 all activities). Significant changes were seen in the following areas (all P < .05):

37% increase by PCPs and 40% increase by diab/endos in recognizing the mechanism of action of inhaled insulin
30% increase by PCPs and 19% increase by diab/endos in differentiating inhaled insulin and other forms of rapid acting insulin
33% increase by PCPs (and 34% increase by diab/endos understanding how modern inhaled insulin differs from older inhaled insulin formulations
20% increase by PCPs and 19% increase by diab/endos in making correct clinical decisions about the clinical use of inhaled insulin
35% increase by PCPs and 31% increase by diab/endos in selecting strategies to improve patient adherence
Areas identified as needing additional education include:

31% of PCPs and 41% of diab/endos remain unclear on strategies for engaging the patient in their care plan
33% of PCPs and 32% of diab/endos remain unclear on efficacy of modern inhaled insulin
22% of PCPs and 24% of diab/endos remain unclear on safety profile of modern inhaled insulin
Conclusions

This study demonstrates the success of a targeted educational intervention with multiple educational components in multiple formats on improving knowledge, competence, and clinical decision-making of PCPs and diab/endos regarding a new rapid-acting insulin formulation.

[mnholdem]

Presented at the Endocrine Society Endo 2016 Conference, held in Boston April 1-4, this educational study appears to indicate that education needs to be a priority. It's disturbing that, even after the CME training, which I was glad to read contains a component that addresses the differences between inhaled insulin (i.e. Afrezza v Exubera), that such a large percentage of attendees remain unclear of the medical benefits of what clearly had to be Afrezza.

Areas identified as needing additional education include:

31% of PCPs and 41% of diab/endos remain unclear on strategies for engaging the patient in their care plan
33% of PCPs and 32% of diab/endos remain unclear on efficacy of modern inhaled insulin
22% of PCPs and 24% of diab/endos remain unclear on safety profile of modern inhaled insulin

If this was after training, imagine how unclear Afrezza treatment must be to those diab/endos and PCP who have received no training. I think that Mike & the marketing team have some work ahead of them.

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2016 10:58:45 GMT -5 mnholdem said:

Presented at the Endocrine Society Endo 2016 Conference, held in Boston April 1-4, this educational study appears to indicate that education needs to be a priority. It's disturbing that, even after the CME training, which I was glad to read contains a component that addresses the differences between inhaled insulin (i.e. Afrezza v Exubera), that such a large percentage of attendees remain unclear of the medical benefits of what clearly had to be Afrezza.

Areas identified as needing additional education include:

31% of PCPs and 41% of diab/endos remain unclear on strategies for engaging the patient in their care plan
33% of PCPs and 32% of diab/endos remain unclear on efficacy of modern inhaled insulin
22% of PCPs and 24% of diab/endos remain unclear on safety profile of modern inhaled insulin

If this was after training, imagine how unclear Afrezza treatment must be to those diab/endos and PCP who have received no training. I think that Mike & the marketing team have some work ahead of them.

Maybe 2-4 bullets as to why Afrezza is different and better than Exubera and then 2-4 bullets as to why Afrezza is different than the other prandial products.  Their agency will tell them if they need to address how Afrezza is different than Exubera.