Identifying targets to improve treatment in type 2 diabetes; the Groningen Initiative to aNalyse Type 2 diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) observational study

A retrospective cohort study of a community-based primary care program's effects on pharmacotherapy quality in low-income Peruvians with type 2 diabetes and hypertension

Little is known about the effects of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) and community health workers (CHWs) on pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in resource-poor settings. This retrospective cohort implementation study evaluated the effects of a community-based program consisting of CCM, CHWs, guidelines-based treatment protocols, and inexpensive freely accessible medications on type 2 diabetes and hypertension pharmacotherapy quality. A door-to-door household survey identified 856 adults 35 years of age and older living in a low-income Peruvian community, of whom 83% participated in screening for diabetes and hypertension. Patients with confirmed type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension participated in the program's weekly to monthly visits for < = 27 months. The program was implemented as two care periods employed sequentially. During home care, CHWs made weekly home visits and a physician made treatment decisions remotely. During subsequent clinic care, a physician attended patients in a centralized clinic. The study compared the effects of program (pre- versus post-) (N = 262 observations), and home versus clinic care periods (N = 211 observations) on standards of treatment with hypoglycemic and antihypertensive agents, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, and low-dose aspirin. During the program, 80% and 50% achieved hypoglycemic and antihypertensive standards, respectively, compared to 35% and 8% prior to the program, RRs 2.29 (1.72-3.04, p <0.001) and 6.64 (3.17-13.9, p<0.001). Achievement of treatment standards was not improved by clinic compared to home care (RRs 1.0 +/- 0.08). In both care periods, longer retention in care (>50% of allowable time) was associated with achievement of all treatment standards. 85% compared to 56% achieved the hypoglycemic treatment standard with longer and shorter retention, respectively, RR 1.52 (1.13-2.06, p<0.001); 56% compared to 27% achieved the antihypertensive standard, RR 2.11 (1.29-3.45, p<0.001). In a dose-dependent manner, the community-based program was associated with improved guidelines-based pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Sex disparities in treatment patterns after metformin initiation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

To assess sex differences in treatment patterns after metformin initiation among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) patients.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using the Groningen Initiative to ANalyze Type 2 diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) primary care database. Patients aged ≥18 years initiating metformin were followed 2-5 years. Markov modeling was conducted to estimate treatment transition rates and calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing men with women adjusted for age, HbA1c level at initiation, and cardiovascular disease history. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the time to and likelihood of getting treatment intensification. HbA1c levels at initiation and intensification were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

In total, 11 508 metformin initiators were included (50.1% women). The most common transition after initiation was a dose increase (probability women 0.52, men 0.59, no significant difference). Women were more likely than men to switch to any other non-insulin hypoglycemic agent after initiation (aHR 1.66; 95% CI 1.31-2.12), after dose increase (aHR 1.48; 95% CI 1.10-1.98) and after dose decrease (aHR 2.64; 95% CI 1.28-5.46). Time to intensification was longer, time to switching was shorter, and HbA1c levels at initiation and intensification were lower for women than men.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex disparities were observed in treatment transitions after metformin initiation. Women more often switched treatment than men, which suggest that prescribers acknowledge more tolerance or other problems for metformin in women. Men intensified treatment earlier and at higher HbA1c levels, indicative of a higher need for treatment intensification.

Sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed in primary care

BACKGROUND

Sex differences in clinical outcomes have been observed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These could be related to sex disparities in treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there are sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using the Groningen Initiative to ANalyze Type 2 diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database, which includes data from primary care patients with T2DM from the north of the Netherlands. Data on demographics, physical examinations, laboratory measurements and prescribing were extracted. A set of validated prescribing quality indicators assessing the prevalence, start, intensification and safety of glucose-, lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering medication was applied for the calendar year 2019. Univariate logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

We included 10,456 patients (47% females). Females were less often treated with metformin (81.7% vs. 86.5%; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61-0.80), and were less often prescribed a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor (RAAS-i) when treated with multiple blood pressure-lowering medicines (81.9% vs. 89.3%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) or when having albuminuria (74.7% vs. 82.1%; OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.85) than males. Statin treatment was less frequently started (19.7% vs. 24.7%; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.96) and prescribed (58.7% vs. 63.9%; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89) in females. There were no differences in starting and intensifying glucose-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst T2DM patients were seen, including less starting with statins and potential undertreatment with RAAS-i in females. Such disparities may partly explain higher excess risks for cardiovascular and renal complications associated with diabetes observed in females.

Sex Differences in Lipid Profile across the Life Span in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Primary Care-Based Study

We assessed sex differences across the life span in the lipid profile of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients treated and not treated with statins. We used the Groningen Initiative to ANalyze Type 2 diabetes Treatment database, which includes T2D patients from the north of the Netherlands. Patients with a full lipid profile determined between 2010 and 2012 were included. We excluded patients treated with other lipid-lowering drugs than statins. Sex differences in low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c and HDL-c) and triglyceride (TG) levels across 11 age groups stratified by statin treatment were assessed using linear regression. We included 26,849 patients (51% women, 55% treated with statins). Without statins, women had significantly lower LDL-c levels than men before the age of 45 years, similar levels between 45 and 49 years, and higher levels thereafter. With statins, similar LDL-c levels were shown up to the age of 55, and higher levels in women thereafter. Women had significantly higher HDL-c levels than men, regardless of age or statin treatment. Men had significantly higher TG levels up to the age of 55 and 60, depending on whether they did not take or took statins, respectively, and similar levels thereafter. When managing cardiovascular risk in patients with T2D, attention is needed for the menopausal status of women and for TG levels in younger men.

Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with less need for insulin therapy after 10 years

INTRODUCTION

With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that early detection (eg, by population-based screening) and treatment of hyperglycemia will postpone the indication for insulin treatment. A treatment legacy effect of population-based screening for type 2 diabetes of about 3 years is estimated. Therefore, we aim to compare insulin prescription and glycemic control in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes after 10 years with data from people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes seven (treatment legacy effect) and 10 years before during care-as-usual.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Three cohorts were compared: one screen-detected cohort with 10 years diabetes duration (Anglo-Danish-Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary care (ADDITION-NL): n=391) and two care-as-usual cohorts, one with 7-year diabetes duration (Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) and Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available Care (ZODIAC): n=4473) and one with 10-year diabetes duration (GIANTT and ZODIAC: n=2660). Insulin prescription (primary outcome) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of people with a known diabetes duration of 7 years or 10 years at the index year 2014 were compared using regression analyses.

RESULTS

Insulin was prescribed in 10.5% (10-year screen detection), 14.7% (7-year care-as-usual) and 19.0% (10-year care-as-usual). People in the 7-year and 10-year care-as-usual groups had a 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) higher adjusted odds for getting insulin prescribed than those after screen detection. Lower HbA1c values were found 10 years after screen detection (mean 50.1 mmol/mol (6.7%) vs 51.8 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 52.8 mmol/mol (7.0%)), compared with 7 years and 10 years after care-as-usual (MD_adjusted: 1.6 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.6 to 2.6); 0.1% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) and 1.8 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.7 to 2.9); and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)).

CONCLUSION

Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes is associated with less need for insulin after 10 years compared with people diagnosed during care-as-usual. Glycemic control was better after screen detection but on average good in all groups.

Medication Adherence Does Not Explain Black-White Differences in Cardiometabolic Risk Factor Control among Insured Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Among patients with diabetes, racial differences in cardiometabolic risk factor control are common. The extent to which differences in medication adherence contribute to such disparities is not known. We examined whether medication adherence, controlling for treatment intensification, could explain differences in risk factor control between black and white patients with diabetes.

METHODS

We identified three cohorts of black and white patients treated with oral medications and who had poor risk factor control at baseline (2009): those with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >8 % (n = 37,873), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 mg/dl (n = 27,954), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >130 mm Hg (n = 63,641). Subjects included insured adults with diabetes who were receiving care in one of nine U.S. integrated health systems comprising the SUrveillance, PREvention, and ManagEment of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) consortium. Baseline and follow-up risk factor control, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics were obtained from electronic health records. Pharmacy-dispensing data were used to estimate medication adherence (i.e., medication refill adherence [MRA]) and treatment intensification (i.e., dose increase or addition of new medication class) between baseline and follow-up. County-level income and educational attainment were estimated via geocoding. Logistic regression models were used to test the association between race and follow-up risk factor control. Models were specified with and without medication adherence to evaluate its role as a mediator.

RESULTS

We observed poorer medication adherence among black patients than white patients (p < 0.01): 50.6 % of blacks versus 39.7 % of whites were not highly adherent (i.e., MRA <80 %) to HbA1c oral medication(s); 58.4 % of blacks and 46.7 % of whites were not highly adherent to lipid medication(s); and 33.4 % of blacks and 23.7 % of whites were not highly adherent to BP medication(s). Across all cardiometabolic risk factors, blacks were significantly less likely to achieve control (p < 0.01): 41.5 % of blacks and 45.8 % of whites achieved HbA1c <8 %; 52.6 % of blacks and 60.8 % of whites achieved LDL-C <100; and 45.7 % of blacks and 53.6 % of whites achieved SBP <130. Adjusting for medication adherence/treatment intensification did not alter these patterns or model fit statistics.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication adherence failed to explain observed racial differences in the achievement of HbA1c, LDL-C, and SBP control among insured patients with diabetes.

Is albuminuria screening and treatment optimal in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care? Observational data of the GIANTT cohort

BACKGROUND

Failure of diagnosing and treatment of albuminuria play a role in morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We evaluated guideline adherence and factors associated with albuminuria screening and treatment in T2DM patients in primary care.

METHODS

Guidelines recommend annual measurement of albuminuria and, if increased, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers. We performed a cohort study of T2DM patients managed by 182 Dutch general practitioners (GPs; Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 diabetes Treatment database), and evaluated guideline adherence in the years 2007-2009. We assessed whether demographic, clinical, organizational or provider factors determined guideline adherence with multilevel analyses.

RESULTS

Data were available for 14 120 T2DM patients [47.6% male, mean age 67.3 ± 11.7 years, median diabetes duration 6 (IQR: 3-10) years]. The albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) was measured in 45.2% in 2007, 57.4% in 2008 and 56.8% in 2009. Only 23.7% of all patients were measured every year and 21.4% were never measured. The ACR was more often measured in patients <75 years, with a previous ACR measurement, using anti-diabetic medication, and receiving additional care by a diabetes support facility. RAAS treatment was prescribed to 78.4% of patients with prevalent micro/macroalbuminuria, 66.5% with incident micro/macroalbuminuria, 59.3% with normoalbuminuria and 52.1% of those without ACR measurements. In those not treated with RAAS blockers, it was initiated in 14.3, 12.3, 3.0 and 2.3%, respectively. The presence of micro/macroalbuminuria, higher blood pressure, incidence of cardiovascular events and treatment with antihypertensive medication were the determinants of RAAS-treatment initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline implementation regarding the management of albuminuria in T2DM patients in primary care should be further improved.

Representativeness of diabetes patients participating in a web-based adverse drug reaction monitoring system

PURPOSE

Lareb Intensive Monitoring, LIM, is a non-interventional observational cohort method which follows first-time users of certain drugs during a certain period of time and collects information about adverse drug reactions, ADRs. In order for LIM to be a useful pharmacovigilance tool, it is important to know whether the LIM population is comparable to the whole population using the drug. The aim of this study is to compare the LIM diabetes population with an external diabetes reference population on characteristics that may influence the patient's susceptibility for ADRs.

METHODS

In this study, a LIM diabetes population was compared to a reference diabetes population derived from The Groningen Initiative to ANalyse Type 2 diabetes Treatment project. Comparisons were made regarding age, gender, body mass index and polypharmacy, as well as diabetes medication used and disease/treatment duration.

RESULTS

LIM patients were more often men (58.5% vs 50.8%) and in general younger (59.1 vs 64.7 years) and healthier, by that meaning they had a higher percentage of de novo treated patients (55.5% vs 53.2%), a shorter diabetes treatment duration (3.7 vs 5.5 years) and used less co-medication than patients in the reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that diabetes patients participating in a web-based intensive monitoring system differ from a reference population. The observed differences might lead to an underestimation of ADRs, but it is not clear whether this would also influence the type or time-course of the reported ADRs. When interpreting results from LIM studies, one should take these differences into account.

Differential effects of comorbidity on antihypertensive and glucose-regulating treatment in diabetes mellitus--a cohort study

Background

Comorbidity is often mentioned as interfering with “optimal” treatment decisions in diabetes care. It is suggested that diabetes-related comorbidity will increase adequate treatment, whereas diabetes-unrelated comorbidity may decrease this process of care. We hypothesized that these effects differ according to expected priority of the conditions.

Methods

We evaluated the relationship between comorbidity and treatment intensification in a study of 11,248 type 2 diabetes patients using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. We formed a cohort of patients with a systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (6,820 hypertensive diabetics), and a cohort of patients with an HbA1c ≥7% (3,589 hyperglycemic diabetics) in 2007. We differentiated comorbidity by diabetes-related or unrelated conditions and by priority. High priority conditions include conditions that are life-interfering, incident or requiring new medication treatment. We performed Cox regression analyses to assess association with treatment intensification, defined as dose increase, start, or addition of drugs.

Results

In both the hypertensive and hyperglycemic cohort, only patients with incident diabetes-related comorbidity had a higher chance of treatment intensification (HR 4.48, 2.33–8.62 (p<0.001) for hypertensives; HR 2.37, 1.09–5.17 (p = 0.030) for hyperglycemics). Intensification of hypertension treatment was less likely when a new glucose-regulating drug was prescribed (HR 0.24, 0.06–0.97 (p = 0.046)). None of the prevalent or unrelated comorbidity was significantly associated with treatment intensification.

Conclusions

Diabetes-related comorbidity induced better risk factor treatment only for incident cases, implying that appropriate care is provided more often when complications occur. Diabetes-unrelated comorbidity did not affect hypertension or hyperglycemia management, even when it was incident or life-interfering. Thus, the observed “undertreatment” in diabetes care cannot be explained by constraints caused by such comorbidity.

A longitudinal study examining adherence to guidelines in diabetes care according to different definitions of adequacy and timeliness

BACKGROUND

Performance indicators assessing quality of diabetes care often look at single processes, e.g. whether an HbA1c test was conducted. Adequate care, however, consists of consecutive processes which should be taken in time (clinical pathways). We assessed quality of diabetes care by looking at single processes versus clinical pathways. In addition, we evaluated the impact of time period definitions on this quality assessment.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a cohort study in 2007-2008 using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. Proportions of patients adequately managed for HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), and albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) were calculated for the pathway of (1) risk factor level testing, (2) treatment intensification when indicated, (3) response to treatment evaluation. Strict and wide time periods for each step were defined. Proportions of patients adequately managed regarding the overall pathway and single steps, using strict or wide time periods were compared using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

FINDINGS

Of 11,176 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, 9439 with complete follow-up were included. The majority received annual examination of HbA1c (86%) and SBP (86%), whereas this was 67% for LDL-C and 49% for ACR. Adequate management regarding the three-step pathway was observed in 73%, 53%, 46%, 41% of patients for HbA1c, SBP, LDL-C, and ACR respectively. Quality scores reduced significantly due to the second step (OR 0.43, 0.18, 0.44, 0.74), but were not much further reduced by the third step. Timely treatment evaluation occurred in 88% for HbA1c, 87% for SBP, 83% for LDL-C, and 76% for ACR. The overall score was not significantly changed by using strict time windows.

CONCLUSION

Quality estimates of glycemic, blood pressure and cholesterol management are substantially reduced when looking at clinical pathways as compared to estimates based on commonly used simple process measures.