Initial and subsequent therapy for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients treated in primary care using data from a vendor-based electronic health record

Patterns of initial and first-intensifying antidiabetic drug utilization among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Scotland, 2010-2020: A retrospective population-based cohort study

AIM

To evaluate the utilization and prescribing patterns of antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at treatment initiation and first intensification.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using linked routinely collected data of patients with T2DM who received ADDs between January 2010 and December 2020 in Scotland. The prescribing patterns were quantified using frequency/percentages, absolute/relative change, and trend tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 145 909 new ADD users were identified, with approximately 91% (N = 132 382) of patients receiving a single ADD at first treatment initiation. Metformin was the most often prescribed monotherapy (N = 118 737, 89.69%). A total of 50 731 patients (39.40%) who were started on metformin (N = 46 730/118 737, 39.36%) or sulphonylurea (SU; N = 4001/10 029, 39.89%) monotherapy had their treatment intensified with one or more additional ADD. Most initial-metformin (45 963/46 730; 98.36%) and initial-SU users (3894/4001; 97.33%) who added further drugs were intensified with single ADDs. SUs (22 197/45 963; 48.29%) were the most common first-intensifying monotherapy after initial metformin use, but these were replaced by sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in 2019 (SGLT2 inhibitors: 2039/6065, 33.62% vs. SUs: 1924/6065, 31.72%). Metformin was the most frequently added monotherapy to initial SU use (2924/3894, 75.09%). Although the majority of patients received a single ADD, the use of combination therapy significantly increased over time. Nevertheless, there was a significant increasing trend towards prescribing the newer ADD classes (SGLT2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors) as monotherapy or in combination compared with the older ones (SUs, insulin, thiazolidinediones) at both drug initiation and first intensification.

CONCLUSIONS

An overall increasing trend in prescribing the newer ADD classes compared to older ADDs was observed. However, metformin remained the most commonly prescribed first-line ADD, while SGLT2 inhibitors replaced SUs as the most common add-on therapy to initial metformin use in 2019.

Meta-analysis of factors associated with antidiabetic drug prescribing for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus on prescribing alternatives to initial metformin therapy and intensification therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management. This review aimed to identify/quantify factors associated with prescribing of specific antidiabetic drug classes for T2DM.

METHODS

Five databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched using the synonyms of each concept (patients with T2DM, antidiabetic drugs and factors influencing prescribing) in both free text and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) forms. Quantitative observational studies evaluating factors associated with antidiabetic prescribing of metformin, sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, Dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-I), sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I), Glucagon-Like peptide receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) and insulin in outpatient settings and published from January 2009 to January 2021 were included. Quality assessment was performed using a Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The validation was done for 20% of identified studies. The pooled estimate was measured using a three-level random-effect meta-analysis model based on odds ratio [95% confidence interval]. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), glycaemic control (HbA1c) and kidney-related problems were quantified.

RESULTS

Of 2331 identified studies, 40 met the selection criteria. Of which, 36 and 31 studies included sex and age, respectively, while 20 studies examined baseline BMI, HbA1c and kidney-related problems. The majority of studies (77.5%, 31/40) were rated as good and despite that the overall heterogeneity for each studied factor was more than 75%, it is mostly related to within-study variance. Older age was significantly associated with higher sulfonylurea prescription (1.51 [1.29-1.76]), yet lower prescribing of metformin (0.70 [0.60-0.82]), SGLT2-I (0.57 [0.42-0.79]) and GLP1-RA (0.52 [0.40-0.69]); while higher baseline BMI showed opposite significant results (sulfonylurea: 0.76 [0.62-0.93], metformin: 1.22 [1.08-1.37], SGLT2-I: 1.88 [1.33-2.68], and GLP1-RA: 2.35 [1.54-3.59]). Both higher baseline HbA1c and having kidney-related problems were significantly associated with lower metformin prescription (0.74 [0.57-0.97], 0.39 [0.25-0.61]), but more insulin prescriptions (2.41 [1.87-3.10], 1.52 [1.10-2.10]). Also, DPP4-I prescriptions were higher for patients with kidney-related problems (1.37 [1.06-1.79]) yet lower among patients with higher HbA1c (0.82 [0.68-0.99]). Sex was significantly associated with GLP1-RA and thiazolidinedione prescribing (F:M; 1.38 [1.19-1.60] and 0.91 [0.84-0.98]).

CONCLUSION

Several factors were identified as potential determinants of antidiabetic drug prescribing. The magnitude and significance of each factor differed by antidiabetic class. Patient's age and baseline BMI had the most significant association with the choice of four out of the seven studied antidiabetic drugs followed by the baseline HbA1c and kidney-related problems which had an impact on three studied antidiabetic drugs, whereas sex had the least impact on prescribing decision as it was associated with GLP1-RA and thiazolidinedione only.

First-line pharmacotherapy for incident type 2 diabetes: Prescription patterns, adherence and associated costs

AIMS

To use real-world prescription data from Alberta, Canada to: (a) describe the prescribing patterns for initial pharmacotherapy for those with newly diagnosed uncomplicated type 2 diabetes; (b) describe medication-taking behaviours (adherence and persistence) in the first year after initiating pharmacotherapy; and (c) explore healthcare system costs associated with prescribing patterns.

METHODS

We employed a retrospective cohort design using linked administrative datasets from 2012 to 2017 to define a cohort of those with uncomplicated incident diabetes. We summarized the initial prescription patterns, adherence and costs (healthcare and pharmaceutical) over the first year after initiation of pharmacotherapy. Using multivariable regression, we determined the association of these outcomes with various sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The majority of individuals for whom metformin was indicated as first-line therapy received a prescription for metformin monotherapy (89%). Older individuals, those with higher baseline A1C and those with no comorbidities, were most likely to be started on non-metformin agents. Adherence with the initially prescribed regimen was suboptimal overall, with nearly half (48%) being non-adherent over the first year. One-third of those who started metformin discontinued it in the first 3 months. Those started on non-metformin agents had roughly twice the healthcare costs, and five to seven times higher medication costs, compared to those started on metformin, in the first year after starting therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

With the addition of new classes of medications, healthcare providers who look after those with type 2 diabetes have more pharmaceutical options than ever. Most individuals continue to be prescribed metformin monotherapy. However, adherence is suboptimal, and drops off considerably within the first 3 months.

Combining Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors to Target Multiple Organ Defects in Type 2 Diabetes

Long-term risks of macro- and microvascular complications may be reduced in people with type 2 diabetes who achieve early and sustained glycemic control. Delays in attaining A1C goals are associated with poor long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are glucose-lowering therapies that act through complementary mechanisms of action with regard to the pathophysiologic defects of type 2 diabetes. Trials of agents in both drug classes have demonstrated improvements in CV and renal outcomes. This review discusses the rationale for combination therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor, including early initiation of this combination in newly diagnosed patients. This combination may lead to timely glycemic control and potentially additive CV and renal benefits. Clinical studies of the combination have shown partially additive effects on A1C reduction, additive effects on weight reduction, and potentially synergistic effects on blood pressure reduction. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether the combination provides an additional effect on CV and renal outcomes compared with agents from either drug class when used alone.

Evaluation of effectiveness of treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients in Chin: A nationwide prospective cohort study

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Data of nationwide glycemic control and hypoglycemic treatment patterns in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients in China are absent. The aim of this study was to assess the evolution of treatment patterns for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients and the clinical outcomes during 12-month follow up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow up. Patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for <6 months were enrolled. Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and hypoglycemic treatment patterns were collected at baseline and at every 3 months of follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 79 hospitals were recruited, consisting of 5,770 participants. The mean HbA1c was 8.4 ± 2.5% at baseline, and decreased to 6.7 ± 1.2% at 12 months with 68.5% of patients achieving HbA1c <7%. At baseline, 44.6% of the patients were without hypoglycemic medications, 37.7% had oral hypoglycemic agents and 17.7% received insulin treatment. Determinants of change in HbA1c were treatment patterns, comorbidities, baseline characteristics such as obesity and smoking, regions, and tiers of hospitals. Associated factors with treatment alterations were time of follow up, treatment patterns, patient-reported reasons such as the economic factors and poor efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients, compared with patients without medications, patients with one oral hypoglycemic agent had higher possibilities of reaching glycemic control, whereas patients using insulin had lower possibilities of reaching the target. Factors associated with change in HbA1c and treatment alterations were also revealed.

Combination therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as complementary agents that address multi-organ defects in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has a complex pathophysiology composed of multiple underlying defects that lead to impaired glucose homeostasis and the development of macrovascular and microvascular complications. Of the currently available glucose-lowering therapies, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) both provide effective glycemic control and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with T2D and a high CV risk or established CV disease. Because these agents have complementary mechanisms of action, they are able to act on multiple defects of T2D when used in combination. This review discusses the rationale for and potential benefits of SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA combination therapy in patients with T2D. A search of the PubMed database was conducted for studies and reviews describing the combined use of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, with a specific focus on identifying clinical studies of combination therapy in patients with T2D. In clinical studies, glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was significantly reduced over 28-52 weeks with SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy versus the individual agents or baseline. Several CV risk factors, including body weight, blood pressure, and lipid parameters, were also improved. SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and no unexpected findings. Taken together with results from large CV outcomes trials of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, combination therapy with these agents potentially provides effective durable glycemic control and CV benefits due to their complementary actions on the defects of T2D.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus worldwide: Baseline patient characteristics in the global DISCOVER study

AIMS

To describe the characteristics and treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating a second-line glucose-lowering therapy in the global DISCOVER study programme.

METHODS

DISCOVER comprises two similar 3-year prospective observational studies (NCT02322762 and NCT02226822), involving 15,992 patients initiating a second-line glucose-lowering therapy in 38 countries across six regions (Africa, Americas, South-East Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and Western Pacific).

RESULTS

Overall, 54.2% of patients were male (across region range [ARR]: 37.7-58.6%). At baseline, mean age and time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus were 57.2 (ARR: 53.1-61.9)and 5.6 (ARR: 4.6-6.9) years, respectively. Median glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) was 63.9 mmol/mol (8.0%; ARR: 7.6-8.3%). Microvascular and macrovascular complications were reported in 18.9% (ARR: 14.5-23.5%) and 12.7% (ARR: 5.0-26.6%) of patients, respectively. First-line treatments were mostly metformin monotherapy (55.6%; ARR: 42.5-83.6%) and combinations of metformin with a sulfonylurea (14.4%; ARR: 5.8-31.1%). The most commonly prescribed second-line therapies were combinations of metformin with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (23.5%; ARR: 2.2-29.6%) or a sulfonylurea (20.9%; ARR: 13.6-57.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

DISCOVER demonstrates considerable global variation in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and a need for more aggressive risk factor control.

Reduced Glucose Variability With Glucose-Dependent Versus Glucose-Independent Therapies Despite Similar Glucose Control and Hypoglycemia Rates in a Randomized, Controlled Study of Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not using injectable therapy. CGM is useful for investigating hypoglycemia and glycemic variability, which is associated with complications in T2DM.

METHODS

A CGM substudy of Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER patIents in a randomized trial in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM)) was conducted. Patients were vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) older (≥65 years) individuals with suboptimally controlled T2DM. Strategy A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 26) with a nonsulfonylurea oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 21) with sulfonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable. Primary endpoints were duration and percentage of time spent with blood glucose (BG) ≤70 mg/dL over 24 hours at week 24.

RESULTS

Duration and percentage of time spent with hypoglycemia at ≤70 mg/dL were similar for Strategy A and Strategy B; glycemic control improved similarly in both arms (LSM change in HbA1c at week 24; A = -1.2%, B = -1.4%). Duration and percentage time spent with euglycemia and hyperglycemia were also similar in both arms. However, Strategy A was associated with lower within-day (21.1 ± 1.2 vs 25.1 ± 1.4, P = .046) and between-day (5.4 ± 1.0 vs 9.1 ± 1.3, P = .038) BG variability (coefficient of variance [LSM ± SE]) at week 24.

CONCLUSIONS

This CGM substudy in older patients with T2DM showed lower within- and between-day BG variability with glucose-dependent therapies but similar HbA1c reductions and hypoglycemia duration with glucose-independent strategies.

Interrogation of a longitudinal, national pharmacy claims dataset to explore factors that predict the need for add-on therapy in older and socioeconomically disadvantaged Australians with type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (T2DM)

PURPOSE

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is complex. The aim of this work is to explore factors that predict the need for add-on therapy in patients with T2DM in the community.

METHODS

We accessed longitudinal, pharmacy payment claim records from the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) (Subsidises costs of medicines: government pays difference between patient co-payments, lower in concessional patients, and additional cost of drug.) for the period January 2006 to September 2014 (EREC/MI3127) from a 10% random sample of the Australian population validated to be representative of the population by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Likely, T2DM patients were identified as those having been dispensed a single anti-hyperglycaemic drug (monotherapy). The time taken and possible factors that might lead to the addition of a second therapy were examined. An examination was made of trends in the co-prescription of either antihypertensive or anti-hyperlipidaemic agents in relation to the time (± 3 years) of initiating an anti-hyperglycaemic agent.

RESULTS

Most (83%) presumed T2DM patients were initiated with metformin. The average time until the second agent was added was 4.8 years (95% CI 4.7-4.9). Satisfactory adherence, age, male gender, initiating therapy after 2012 and initiating with a sulphonylurea drug all were significant risks for add-on therapy. There was no overall trend in the initiation of antihypertensive and/or anti-hyperlipidaemic agents with respect to the time of anti-hyperglycaemic initiation.

CONCLUSION

The usefulness of a longitudinal dataset of pharmacy-claim records is demonstrated. Over half of all older and socioeconmically disadvantaged T2DM patients captured in this longitudinal claims database will be prescribed a second anti-hyperglycaemic agent within 5 years of their first drug therapy. Several factors can predict the risk of prescription of add-on therapy, and these should be considered when prescribing medications to treat T2DM.

Glycaemic outcomes of an Individualized treatMent aPproach for oldER vulnerable patIents: A randomized, controlled stUdy in type 2 diabetes Mellitus (IMPERIUM)

AIMS

To compare the glycaemic outcomes of 2 glucose-lowering treatment strategies in vulnerable (moderately ill and/or frail) patients aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes whose individual HbA1c targets were not met with diet/exercise and/or oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications (OAMs).

METHODS

The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of achieving/maintaining individualized HbA1c targets without "clinically significant" hypoglycaemia (severe hypoglycaemia or repeated hypoglycaemia causing interruption of patients' activities or blood glucose <54 mg/dL). Strategy-A comprised glucose-dependent therapies (n = 99) with a non-sulphonylurea OAM and a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist as the first injectable. Strategy-B comprised non-glucose-dependent therapies (n = 93) with sulphonylurea as the preferred OAM and insulin glargine as the first injectable.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between Strategy-A and Strategy-B in percentages of patients achieving the primary endpoint (64.5% vs 54.9%; P = .190). Mean incidences (A vs B) of total (10.2% vs 53.8%), documented symptomatic (5.1% vs 36.6%), and asymptomatic (8.2% vs 32.3%) hypoglycaemia were lower for Strategy-A (P < .001 each). Proportions of patients achieving/maintaining HbA1c target (A, 63.3% vs B, 55.9%) were similar.

CONCLUSION

Similar proportions of older, vulnerable aged ≥65 years patients with type 2 diabetes achieved/maintained glycaemic treatment goals without clinically significant hypoglycaemia with Strategies A or B. However, Strategy-A resulted in lower risk of total, documented symptomatic, and asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. These results identify an approach of potential clinical benefit in this age group and will inform future clinical research in older patients with type 2 diabetes.

Short-term intensive insulin therapy could be the preferred option for new onset Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with HbA1c > 9

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a heterogeneous disease. Currently, the typical clinical therapeutic pathway for the disease consists of the stepwise addition of antihyperglycemic preparations over time, followed lastly by insulin therapy when functional β-cell capacity is severely deteriorated. Recognizing the complexity of disease management, personalized (precision) medicine approaches may enable the physician to tailor diabetes treatment based on HbA1c levels, body mass index (BMI), efficacy, risk of hypoglycemia, risk of weight gain, age, safety, cost, and even genetic characteristics. Although insulin therapy has traditionally been recommended as the last option in the sequential treatment algorithm of T2DM, it is notable that several guidelines and consensus statements suggest consideration of insulin as part of a first-line regimen. In the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE)/American College of Endocrinology (ACE) comprehensive T2DM 2017 management algorithm, insulin is recommended for T2DM patients presenting with symptoms and an HbA1c >9.0%. In addition, the American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) consensus statement recommends initial insulin therapy as an option when HbA1c ≥9%, and definite consideration with HbA1c ≥10-12%, and mentions that it may be possible to taper off insulin once initial glucotoxicity is reversed and to consider transfer to other types of non-insulin therapies. Based on accumulating evidence, an expert group has endorsed the concept of short-term intensive insulin (STII) therapy as an option for some patients with T2DM at the time of diagnosis. Notably, the latest Israeli guidelines suggest considering immediate, sometimes short-term, insulin treatment for patients with HbA1c >9% or with symptoms. It has been reported that nearly one-quarter (23%) of newly diagnosed T2DM patients in the US had an HbA1c ≥9.0% prior to initiation of treatment. For such patients, initiating insulin is difficult, although it has been almost 10 years since the ACE/AACE Diabetes Road Map suggested insulin therapy for treatment-naïve patients with high HbA1c. Lack of patient education resources in primary care and of provider knowledge as to approaches to insulin treatment (insulin initiation dosage, multiple daily injection or basal insulin supplement, insulin treatment duration) are major obstacles to selecting appropriately intensive but also timely therapy for newly diagnosed T2DM patients in clinical practice so as to minimize avoidable glycemic exposure. Treatment with STII early in the course of T2DM is of considerable interest. There is a wide range of evidence currently available supporting the use of STII therapy in newly diagnosed T2DM. For example, STII can quickly normalize glycemic control, improve β-cell function, restore first-phase insulin secretion, and even reduce glucagonemia in newly diagnosed T2DM, suggesting that it may provide unique capacity for modification of the natural process of diabetes. The largest and most robust clinical trial of STII therapy enrolled 382 newly diagnosed people with T2DM at nine centers in China and randomized them to either insulin (short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII] or multiple daily injections [MDI]) or oral anti-hyperglycemic therapy. First-phase insulin secretion was increased in all three groups after 2 weeks of normoglycemia. Remission rates at 1 year were higher in the two insulin-treated groups (51.1% in the CSII group, 44.9% in the MDI group) than in the oral therapy group (26.7%). Furthermore, the increase in first-phase insulin response was maintained at 1 year in the two insulin-treated groups, but declined in the group allocated to oral medication (Fig. ). A beneficial effect of insulin therapy over oral anti-diabetic agents was also observed by Chen et al. [Figure: see text] A meta-analysis, including seven studies and 839 participants, further underscored the robustness of the evidence supporting STII therapy by showing that the proportion of patients in drug-free remission was 66.2% at 3 months, 58.9% at 6 months, 46.3% at 12 months, and 42.1% at 24 months. All but one study showed an improvement in β-cell function, as assessed by homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-B), and all but one study showed a decrease in insulin resistance, as assessed by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Therefore, STII has beneficial effects on both the fundamental pathophysiological mechanisms of T2DM (β-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance). Recent animal studies suggest a potential mechanism for such clinical benefits: β-cells dedifferentiate to endocrine progenitor-like cells during stress-induced hyperglycemia, and strictly normalizing blood glucose by insulin therapy could induce dedifferentiated cell redifferentiation to mature β-cells, and hence restoration of drug responsivity. In addition to its glucose-lowering activity, insulin may contribute to improved β-cell function by its antilipolytic, anti-inflammatory, and antiapoptotic effects. We recognized that not all newly diagnosed people with T2DM would experience improved β-cell function or achieve long-term remission following cessation of STII. It would be worthwhile to precisely identify the subpopulation more likely to benefit from this strategy. Previous studies have suggested that lower baseline fasting glucose, higher BMI, better early phase insulin secretion, and lower exogenous insulin requirements may be predictors of diabetes remission in newly diagnosed patients treated with STII therapy. A recent study demonstrated that a shorter duration of diabetes supplanted baseline HbA1c and β-cell function as an independent predictor of remission. In particular, diabetes duration <2 years predicted sustained remission, suggesting that the key determinant of inducing persistent drug-free diabetes remission with STII is early intervention. Although reluctance to initiate insulin treatment in T2DM is well described, it is interesting to see that when introduced early in the course of the disease as a short-term treatment, STII resulted in significant improvement in patient-reported quality of life and treatment satisfaction, demonstrating the patient acceptability of early insulin therapy. In our clinical experience, patients often request insulin resumption after a trial has ended because of the good clinical outcomes and the recognition that such treatment is much easier and better tolerated than expected. The pros and cons of STII therapy for new-onset T2DM patients with HbA1c >9%, based on current evidence and our understanding, are listed in Table . It is important that STII be considered an option at this early stage of the disease. Existing studies and clinical experience do indicate that this concept is very well received by patients and clinicians alike, especially when they realize that insulin only needs to be used for a few weeks, and that STII at that point in time does not necessarily require continuing long-term insulin therapy. Numerous public health, clinical efficacy and effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness questions need to be better understood before widespread adoption of this novel treatment regimen can be more endorsed. [Table: see text].

Factors influencing the development of primary care data collection projects from electronic health records: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Primary care data gathered from Electronic Health Records are of the utmost interest considering the essential role of general practitioners (GPs) as coordinators of patient care. These data represent the synthesis of the patient history and also give a comprehensive picture of the population health status. Nevertheless, discrepancies between countries exist concerning routine data collection projects. Therefore, we wanted to identify elements that influence the development and durability of such projects.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed database to identify worldwide current primary care data collection projects. The gray literature was also searched via official project websites and their contact person was emailed to obtain information on the project managers. Data were retrieved from the included studies using a standardized form, screening four aspects: projects features, technological infrastructure, GPs' roles, data collection network organization.

RESULTS

The literature search allowed identifying 36 routine data collection networks, mostly in English-speaking countries: CPRD and THIN in the United Kingdom, the Veterans Health Administration project in the United States, EMRALD and CPCSSN in Canada. These projects had in common the use of technical facilities that range from extraction tools to comprehensive computing platforms. Moreover, GPs initiated the extraction process and benefited from incentives for their participation. Finally, analysis of the literature data highlighted that governmental services, academic institutions, including departments of general practice, and software companies, are pivotal for the promotion and durability of primary care data collection projects.

CONCLUSION

Solid technical facilities and strong academic and governmental support are required for promoting and supporting long-term and wide-range primary care data collection projects.

Critérios de decisão para a definição de exames médicos ocupacionais em atividades críticas: proposição de modelo e exemplos de aplicação no trabalho em altura

Resumo Introdução: no Brasil, tem-se observado uma grande disparidade entre os protocolos de exames médicos utilizados para avaliar trabalhadores que exercem atividades críticas. Objetivo: propor e verificar a aplicabilidade de um modelo baseado em critérios para a tomada de decisão na definição de exames médicos ocupacionais na avaliação de aptidão de trabalhadores que executam atividades críticas de trabalho. Métodos: ensaio baseado em pesquisa bibliográfica. O modelo proposto baseia-se no princípio As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP), do Health and Safety Executive (HSE). O modelo foi aplicado a duas condições clínicas que podem resultar em eventos agudos de perda de consciência e levar à queda durante o trabalho em altura, caso falhem ou não tenham sido adotadas medidas de segurança: diabetes e epilepsia. Discussão: verificou-se que o modelo proposto se mostrou aplicável para os dois exemplos analisados, oferecendo subsídios para a tomada de decisão do médico do trabalho em relação à necessidade de se investigar condições clínicas que podem ocasionar acidentes fatais durante a realização de atividades críticas de trabalho.

Prescription of oral antidiabetic drugs in Tyrol - Data from the Tyrol diabetes registry 2012-2015

Diabetes mellitus affects 9% of the adult population worldwide and the economic burden of the disease is growing exponentially. In type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), when life style interventions fail to achieve treatment targets, oral antidiabetic drugs are prescribed to improve glycemic control. Several new oral antidiabetics have been launched in the last few years, which enlarged the spectrum of available treatment options in T2DM. The present study aimed to examine T2DM treatment patterns in a cohort of 7769 patients recruited from the Diabetes Registry Tyrol (DRT) with at least one visit from 2012–2015. Secondly, the study aimed to evaluate the use of new oral antidiabetics compared to older oral antidiabetics (OAD). It was found that 43.4% of all patients were treated with OAD alone while 21.2% had oral antidiabetics combined with insulin. 19.9% of the study population were treated with insulin or insulin analogs only. 15.3% had no pharmacological treatment. Metformin was used most frequently (47.9% of the study population), followed by gliptines (27.2%). The most common treatment regimen in this population was the dual therapy of metformin and another OAD (17.2%), followed by metformin monotherapy (16.6%) and triple therapy of metformin and two additional OAD (11.0%).

The impact of initial antidiabetic agent and use of monitoring agents on prescription costs in newly treated type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort analysis

AIMS

To measure the costs associated with the use of antidiabetic agents, monitoring materials and cardiovascular disease (CVD) agents in the management of newly treated type 2 diabetes, and to investigate the factors associated with these costs.

METHODS

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Irish national pharmacy claims database. Newly treated patients were identified for 2012 and followed for one year post treatment initiation. Factors associated with costs were assessed using a generalised linear model with gamma family and log-link function. Cost ratios (CR) and 95% CIs were used to determine the contributors of prescription costs. Adjusted odd ratios (OR) and 95% CIs were used to investigate factors associated with high frequency self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).

RESULTS

Mean prescription costs for the 12,941 subjects was €871, while total costs were €11 million. CVD agents accounted for 58% of total costs; 22% of costs were for SMBG; antidiabetic agents accounted for 17% of costs. SMBG resulted in costs that were 80% higher than those without, CR 1.80 (95% CI 1.76-1.84). No significant differences were observed between initiation on metformin or sulphonylureas and high frequency SMBG (OR 1.01 95% CI 0.97-1.04 vs reference). Initiation on newer antidiabetic agents was a significant positive predictors of prescription costs (CR 2.36 95% CI 2.21-2.51 vs metformin).

CONCLUSIONS

Type of initial antidiabetic agent, and SMBG were significant predictors of prescription costs. SMBG represent a major proportion of total costs; however, its use in combination with antidiabetic agents that do not cause hypoglycaemia is questionable.

Initial therapy, persistence and regimen change in a cohort of newly treated type 2 diabetes patients

AIMS

The aim was to describe the utilization of antidiabetic agents, in terms of persistence and regimen change, in the management of a cohort of newly treated type 2 diabetes patients and to investigate associated socio-demographic and treatment factors.

METHODS

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using the national pharmacy claims database in Ireland. Subjects were analyzed for persistence and regimen change. Cox proportional hazards regression examined associations of socio-demographic and treatment factors on treatment patterns. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 20947 subjects were identified in the study over a 2 year period. Most were initiated on metformin (76%) or sulphonylureas (22%) and 77% were persistent with therapy 12 months after initiation. The likelihood of non-persistence was significantly lower in the youngest (40-49 years) age groups (reference 60-69 years) (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84) and those on sulphonylureas (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.36, 1.64). The likelihood of receiving a regimen change was significantly lower in the older (80+ years) age groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56, 0.71), females (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86, 0.95), and those with pre-existing CVD (1 vs. 0 CVD medicines) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74, 0.90), and higher in those on sulphonylureas (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.73, 1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Type of treatment, pre-existing CVD and demographic factors are shown to be associated with the observed treatment patterns. Guideline recommended agents were widely used on treatment initiation though a substantial minority were not initiated on the recommended first line agent. Use of guideline recommended agents was not as evident during treatment progression. Further optimization of initial and subsequent antidiabetic agent prescribing may be possible.

Short-term intensive insulin therapy at diagnosis in type 2 diabetes: plan for filling the gaps

Short-term intensive insulin therapy is unique amongst therapies for type 2 diabetes because it offers the potential to preserve and improve beta-cell function without additional pharmacological treatment. On the basis of clinical experience and the promising results of a series of studies in newly diagnosed patients, mostly in Asian populations, an expert workshop was convened to assess the available evidence and the potential application of short-term intensive insulin therapy should it be advocated for inclusion in clinical practice. Participants included primary care physicians and endocrinologists. We endorse the concept of short-term intensive insulin therapy as an option for some patients with type 2 diabetes at the time of diagnosis and have identified the following six areas where additional knowledge could help clarify optimal use in clinical practice: (1) generalizability to primary care, (2) target population and biomarkers, (3) follow-up treatment, (4) education of patients and providers, (5) relevance of ethnicity, and (6) health economics.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Adverse Drug Events: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The 2014 National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention has recognized adverse drug events (ADEs) as a national priority in order to facilitate a nationwide reduction in patient harms from these events. Throughout this effort, it will be integral to identify populations that may be at particular risk in order to improve care for these patients. We have undertaken a systematic review to evaluate the evidence regarding racial or ethnic disparities in ADEs with particular emphasis on anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids due to the clinical significance and preventability of ADEs associated with these medication classes. From an initial search yielding 3302 studies, we identified 40 eligible studies. Twenty-seven of these included studies demonstrated the presence of a racial or ethnic disparity. There was no consistent evidence for racial or ethnic disparities in the eight studies of ADEs in general. Asians were most frequently determined to be at higher risk of anticoagulant-related ADEs, and black patients were most frequently determined to be at higher risk for diabetes agents-related ADEs. Whites were most frequently identified as at increased risk for opioid-related ADEs. However, few of these studies were specifically designed to evaluate racial or ethnic disparities, lacking a standardized approach to racial/ethnic categorization as well as control for potential confounders. We suggest the need for targeted interventions to reduce ADEs in populations that may be at increased risk, and we suggest strategies for future research.

Patterns and determinants of new first-line antihyperglycaemic drug use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

We evaluated the patterns and determinants that influence the selection, timing and duration of first-line antihyperglycaemic drug (AHD) treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany, focusing specifically on treatment-naive AHD initiators.

METHODS

Pharmacy dispensing claims data were linked with a cohort of patients newly enrolled in a German Disease Management Program for type 2 diabetes (DMP-DM2) between 2003 and 2009. We examined uptake of first-line pharmacotherapy in previously unmedicated patients and identified predictors of receiving AHD therapy in general and metformin in particular using multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

There were 27,138 unmedicated patients with type 2 diabetes and 47.0% of them were started on AHD treatment within 5 years after enrollment. Initial severity of diabetes was the major predictor of receiving first-line pharmacotherapy. Metformin accounted for 63% of newly prescribed AHD in 2003 and more than 80% in 2009 while sulfonylureas accounted for only 10%. Initiating metformin as first-line AHD was associated with younger age, higher BMI, lower HbA1c, and shorter diabetes duration (multivariate p<0.001 for all). Therapy switch or step-up was less frequent among metformin initiators than sulfonylurea initiators.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients were not started on AHD therapy within 5 years after enrollment. In line with recent therapy guidelines, current first-line antihyperglycaemic treatment was increasingly based on metformin. AHD initiators started on sulfonylurea were generally more advanced in their disease and were started later on primary pharmacotherapy.

Health care provider management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: analysis of trends in attitudes and practices

OBJECTIVE

To identify attitudes and practices of endocrinologists (ENDOs), family practitioners (FPs), internists (IMs), primary care nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), certified diabetes educators (CDEs), retail pharmacists (R-PHs), and hospital pharmacists (H-PHs) with respect to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management; to compare current study data with results from a similar 2011 study.

METHODS

A nominal group technique focus group identified barriers to optimal management of patients with T2DM. Five case-vignette surveys were created, 1 for each group of health care professionals (HCPs): ENDOs; FPs and IMs; NPs and PAs; CDEs; and R-PHs and H-PHs. Surveys were tailored to each group. Versions were as similar as possible to each other and to the 2011 surveys to facilitate comparisons. Questions assessed guideline familiarity; knowledge of insulin formulations, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; patterns of referral to ENDOs and CDEs; as well as cultural barriers and communication barriers. Surveys were distributed by e-mail/fax to a nationally representative, random sample of US HCPs during January and February 2013.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Notable shifts from 2011 included NPs' increased familiarity with American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines; FPs, IMs, NPs, and PAs continued comfort with prescribing long-acting basal insulin but less with basal-bolus, Neutral Protamine Hagedorn insulin alone, or human premixed insulin; increased pharmacists' comfort in discussing long-acting basal insulin; increased likelihood that FPs will refer patients with recurrent hypoglycemia unable to achieve target glycated hemoglobin level to an ENDO; and continued incorporation of insulin and incretins into treatment regimens. The trends suggest gaps in perception, knowledge, and management practices to be addressed by education. Most HCPs lack confidence in using insulin regimens more complex than long-acting insulin alone. All providers need education on T2DM management guidelines, differences between GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors, and how to intensify therapy for patients not reaching goal blood glycemic level with use of multiple agents. Pharmacists might benefit from education on glycemic treatment goals.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: efficacy and safety in a randomised, double-blind 1-year extension study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This 1-year randomised, double-blind study was an extension of a 6-month randomised controlled trial, in which adults with type 2 diabetes received one of six treatment regimens (linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 2.5 mg plus metformin mg 1000 bid, metformin 1000 mg bid, metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo). In the extension, patients in the first three treatment groups continued their regimen (non-switched group, n = 333) while the metformin 500 mg bid, linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo groups were re-randomised to one of the three continuing regimens (switched group, n = 233).

RESULTS

All three non-switched groups maintained reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c; mean ± standard deviation reductions across the 1.5-year period: linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 1000 bid, -1.63 ± 1.05%; linagliptin 2.5 plus metformin 500 bid, -1.32 ± 1.06%; metformin 1000 bid, -1.25 ± 0.91%) while the switched groups showed additional HbA1c reductions. During the extension, there were no clinically meaningful changes in body weight in any group. Adverse event rates were similar between groups, with most events being mild or moderate, and the incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycaemia was low, with no severe events.

DISCUSSION

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin was well tolerated over the 1-year extension period, with low risk of hypoglycaemia, and improved glycaemic control vs. metformin alone.

CONCLUSION

The initial combination of linagliptin and metformin appears to provide a useful treatment option in patients whose blood glucose levels are increased to an extent that metformin monotherapy may not achieve treatment targets.

Time to initiation of oral antihyperglycemic and statin therapy in previously untreated patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess the time from the first observed diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) to initiation of an oral antihyperglycemic agent (OAHA) and statin.

METHODS

In a retrospective US cohort study using the GE electronic medical record database, patients ≥18 years were included if they had a T2DM diagnosis between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005 (index period), had a last pre-index HbA1c value ≥7%, and had not received antihyperglycemic agents within one year prior to diagnosis (index date). Patients were eligible for statin therapy but not on a statin within one year before the index date. Patients had medical records for one year prior to (baseline) and two years after (follow up) diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of the 2254 eligible patients, 58% were male, mean age was 58 years, mean HbA1c was 8.5%, and mean LDL cholesterol was 115 mg/dL (2.97 mmol/L) at baseline. Additionally, 21% of patients had pre-existing overt cardiovascular disease, 40% had dyslipidemia, 37% were obese, and 11% were smokers. During follow-up, 66.1% and 41.9% of patients initiated an OAHA and a statin, respectively. Among the treated patients, median time from the first observed diabetes diagnosis to therapy initiation was 3 months (interquartile range: 1, 9) for OAHAs and 6 months (2, 13) for statins.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment initiation with injectable antihyperglycemic agents and/or non-statin lipid-modifying therapies as well as contraindications to OAHAs or statins were not assessed, therefore their impact on our study results cannot be determined. Laboratory measurements were not available for every patient and thus many patients were excluded from the analysis.

CONCLUSION

Treatment initiation with OAHAs and/or statins was suboptimal in patients with T2DM who were treatment eligible and previously untreated with OAHAs and statins. Of those treated, patients initiated treatment with an OAHA more often and earlier than with a statin.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin versus linagliptin or metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial, 791 patients were randomized to one of six treatment arms. Two free combination therapy arms received linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) + either low (500 mg) or high (1000 mg) dose metformin bid. Four monotherapy arms received linagliptin 5 mg once daily, metformin 500 mg or 1000 mg bid or placebo. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥11.0% were not eligible for randomization and received open-label linagliptin + high-dose metformin.

RESULTS

The placebo-corrected mean (95% confidence interval) change in HbA1c from baseline (8.7%) to week 24 was -1.7% (-2.0, -1.4) for linagliptin + high-dose metformin, -1.3% (-1.6, -1.1) for linagliptin + low-dose metformin, -1.2% (-1.5, -0.9) for high-dose metformin, -0.8% (-1.0, -0.5) for low-dose metformin and -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3) for linagliptin (all p < 0.0001). In the open-label arm, the mean change in HbA1c from baseline (11.8%) was -3.7%. Hypoglycaemia occurred at a similar low rate with linagliptin + metformin (1.7%) as with metformin alone (2.4%). Adverse event rates were comparable across treatment arms. No clinically significant changes in body weight were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus metformin was superior to metformin monotherapy in improving glycaemic control, with a similar safety and tolerability profile, no weight gain and a low risk of hypoglycaemia.