Changing behaviour 'more or less'-do theories of behaviour inform strategies for implementation and de-implementation? A critical interpretive synthesis

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based care requires healthcare practitioners to do less of some things (de-implementation) and more of others (implementation). Variations in effectiveness of behaviour change interventions may result from failure to consider a distinction between approaches by which behaviour increases and decreases in frequency. The distinction is not well represented in methods for designing interventions. This review aimed to identify whether there is a theoretical rationale to support this distinction. METHODS: Using Critical Interpretative Synthesis, this conceptual review included papers from a broad range of fields (biology, psychology, education, business) likely to report approaches for increasing or decreasing behaviour. Articles were identified from databases using search terms related to theory and behaviour change. Articles reporting changes in frequency of behaviour and explicit use of theory were included. Data extracted were direction of behaviour change, how theory was operationalised, and theory-based recommendations for behaviour change. Analyses of extracted data were conducted iteratively and involved inductive coding and critical exploration of ideas and purposive sampling of additional papers to explore theoretical concepts in greater detail. RESULTS: Critical analysis of 66 papers and their theoretical sources identified three key findings: (1) 9 of the 15 behavioural theories identified do not distinguish between implementation and de-implementation (5 theories were applied to only implementation or de-implementation, not both); (2) a common strategy for decreasing frequency was substituting one behaviour with another. No theoretical basis for this strategy was articulated, nor were methods proposed for selecting appropriate substitute behaviours; (3) Operant Learning Theory makes an explicit distinction between techniques for increasing and decreasing frequency. DISCUSSION: Behavioural theories provide little insight into the distinction between implementation and de-implementation. Operant Learning Theory identified different strategies for implementation and de-implementation, but these strategies may not be acceptable in health systems. Additionally, if behaviour substitution is an approach for de-implementation, further investigation may inform methods or rationale for selecting the substitute behaviour

High-dose Insulin Therapy: is it Time for U-500 Insulin?

To provide an overview of U-500 regular insulin action, review published clinical studies with U-500 regular insulin, and offer guidance to practicing endocrinologists for identifying patients for whom U-500 regular insulin may be appropriate. This review has been produced through a synthesis of relevant published literature compiled via a literature search (MEDLINE search of the English-language literature published between January 1969, and July 2008, related to U-500, insulin resistance, concentrated insulin, high-dose insulin, insulin pharmacokinetics, and diabetes management) and the authors' collective clinical experience. The obesity epidemic is contributing to an increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as well as to increasing insulin requirements in insulin-treated patients. Many of these patients exhibit severe insulin resistance, manifested by daily insulin requirements of 200 units or greater or more than 2 units/kg. Delivering an appropriate insulin volume to these patients can be difficult and inconvenient and may be best accomplished with U-500 regular insulin by multiple daily injections or with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, rather than with standard U-100 insulin. Implementation of U-500 regular insulin in patients previously on other insulin formulations is described with a treatment algorithm covering dosage requirements ranging from 150 to more than 600 units per day on the basis of the authors' experience. Regimen conversion of appropriately selected patients from high-dose, U-100 insulin to U-500 regular insulin therapy on the basis of the recommendations presented in this article may potentially result in improved glycemic control and lower cost

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (DEPICT-1):24 week results from a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Background Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as an add-on to adjustable insulin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Methods DEPICT-1 was a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled, three-arm, phase 3, multicentre study done at 143 sites in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years and had inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (HbA1cbetween ≥7·7% and ≤11·0% [≥61·0 mmol/mol and ≤97·0 mmol/mol]) and had been prescribed insulin for at least 12 months before enrolment. After an 8 week lead-in period to optimise diabetes management, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to dapagliflozin 5 mg or 10 mg once daily, given orally, or matched placebo. Randomisation was stratified by current use of continuous glucose monitoring, method of insulin administration, and baseline HbA1c. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1cafter 24 weeks of treatment in the full analysis set, which consisted of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. An additional 55 patients who were incorrectly and non-randomly allocated to only dapagliflozin treatment groups were included in the safety analysis set. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02268214; data collection for the present analysis was completed on Jan 4, 2017, and a 28 week extension phase is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 11, 2014, and April 16, 2016, 833 patients were assigned to treatment groups and included in safety analyses (dapagliflozin 5 mg [n=277] vs dapagliflozin 10 mg [n=296] vs placebo [n=260]; 778 of these patients were randomly assigned and included in the full analysis set for efficacy analyses (259 vs 259 vs 260; difference due to randomisation error affecting 55 patients). Mean baseline HbA1cwas 8·53% (70 mmol/mol; SD 0·67% [7·3 mmol/mol]). At week 24, both doses of dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1ccompared with placebo (mean difference from baseline to week 24 for dapagliflozin 5 mg vs placebo was −0·42% [95% CI −0·56 to −0·28; p<0·0001] and for dapagliflozin 10 mg vs placebo was −0·45% [−0·58 to −0·31; p<0·0001]). Among patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg (n=277), dapagliflozin 10 mg (n=296), and placebo (n=260) groups, the most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (38 [14%] vs 36 [12%] vs 39 [15%]), urinary tract infection (19 [7%] vs 11 [4%] vs 13 [5%]), upper respiratory tract infection (15 [5%] vs 15 [5%] vs 11 [4%]), and headache (12 [4%] vs 17 [6%] vs 11 [4%]). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 220 (79%), 235 (79%), and 207 (80%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, and placebo groups, respectively; severe hypoglycaemia occurred in 21 (8%), 19 (6%), and 19 (7%) patients, respectively. Adjudicated definite diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in four (1%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg group, five (2%) in the dapagliflozin 10 mg group, and three (1%) in the placebo group. Interpretation Our results suggest that dapagliflozin is a promising adjunct treatment to insulin to improve glycaemic control in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Funding AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb