Time to treatment initiation with oral antihyperglycaemic therapy in US patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

Treatment Dynamics in People Who Initiate Metformin or Sulfonylureas for Type 2 Diabetes: A National Cohort Study

Aim: To investigate the incidence of, and factors associated with addition and switching of glucose-lowering medications within 12-months of initiating metformin or a sulfonylurea for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We identified 109,573 individuals aged 18-99 years who initiated metformin or a sulfonylurea between July 2013 and April 2015 using Australian National Diabetes Service Scheme (NDSS) data linked with national dispensing data. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with time to addition to or switch from metformin or sulfonylurea over a 12-months follow-up. Results: Treatment addition or switching occurred in 18% and 4% of individuals who initiated metformin and in 28% and 13% of individuals who initiated sulfonylureas. Median time to addition was 104 days for metformin and 82 days for sulfonylureas. Median time to switching was 63 days for metformin and 52 days for sulfonylureas. Congestive heart failure, nicotine dependence, end stage renal disease and dispensing of systemic corticosteroids were associated with higher likelihood of treatment additions and switching in individuals initiating metformin. Antipsychotic dispensing was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment addition in individuals initiating sulfonylureas. Women initiating metformin were less likely to receive treatment additions but more likely to switch treatment than men. Conclusion: Nearly one quarter of Australians who initiate treatment for T2D with metformin or sulfonylureas switch or receive additional treatment within 12-months, with those who initiate sulfonylureas more likely to switch or receive additional treatment than those who initiate metformin.

Trends in HbA1c thresholds for initiation of hypoglycemic agents: Impact of changed recommendations for older and frail patients

Aims

Less strict glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) thresholds have been recommended in older and/or frail type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients than in younger and less frail patients for initiating hypoglycemic agents since 2011. We aimed to assess trends in HbA_1c thresholds at initiation of a first hypoglycemic agent(s) in T2D patients and the influence of age and frailty on these trends.

Materials and methods

The groningen initiative to analyze type 2 diabetes treatment (GIANTT) database was used, which includes primary care T2D patients from the north of the Netherlands. Patients initiating a first non‐insulin hypoglycemic agent(s) between 2008 and 2014 with an HbA_1c measurement within 120 days before initiation were included. The influence of calendar year, age, or frailty and the interaction between calendar year and age or frailty were assessed using multilevel regression analyses adjusted for confounders.

Results

We included 4588 patients. The mean HbA_1c threshold at treatment initiation was 7.4% up to 2010, decreasing to 7.1% in 2011 and increasing to 7.4% in 2014. This quadratic change over the years was significant (P < 0.001). Patients aged 60 to 79 initiated treatments at lower HbA_1c and patients of different frailty at similar HbA_1c levels. The interaction between year and age or frailty was not significant (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

HbA_1c thresholds at initiation of a first hypoglycemic agent(s) changed significantly over time, showing a decrease after 2010 and an increase after 2012. The HbA_1c threshold at initiation was not influenced by age or frailty, which is in contrast with recommendations for more personalized treatment.

The impact of phenotype, ethnicity and genotype on progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To conduct a comprehensive review of studies of glycaemic deterioration in type 2 diabetes and identify the major factors influencing progression.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search with terms linked to type 2 diabetes progression. All the included studies were summarized based upon the factors associated with diabetes progression and how the diabetes progression was defined.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2785 articles; based on title, abstract and full-text review, we included 61 studies in the review. We identified seven criteria for diabetes progression: 'Initiation of insulin', 'Initiation of oral antidiabetic drug', 'treatment intensification', 'antidiabetic therapy failure', 'glycaemic deterioration', 'decline in beta-cell function' and 'change in insulin dose'. The determinants of diabetes progression were grouped into phenotypic, ethnicity and genotypic factors. Younger age, poorer glycaemia and higher body mass index at diabetes diagnosis were the main phenotypic factors associated with rapid progression. The effect of genotypic factors on progression was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS); a PRS constructed from the genetic variants linked to insulin resistance was associated with rapid glycaemic deterioration. The evidence of impact of ethnicity on progression was inconclusive due to the small number of multi-ethnic studies.

CONCLUSION

We have identified the major determinants of diabetes progression-younger age, higher BMI, higher HbA1c and genetic insulin resistance. The impact of ethnicity is uncertain; there is a clear need for more large-scale studies of diabetes progression in different ethnic groups.

Factors Associated with Diabetes-Related Clinical Inertia in a Managed Care Population and Its Effect on Hemoglobin A1c Goal Attainment: A Claims-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence showing the benefits of treatment intensification following an elevated hemoglobin A1c (A1c), clinical inertia, or failure to establish and/or escalate treatment to achieve treatment goals, is a concern among patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Clinical inertia may contribute to increased health care utilization and costs due to poor clinical outcomes in MCOs.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) identify factors associated with clinical inertia in T2DM and (b) determine differences in A1c goal attainment between patients who experience clinical inertia versus treatment intensification in a commercially insured population.

METHODS

Medical and pharmacy claims data were used to identify commercially insured patients in a regional MCO with a recorded A1c ≥ 8.0% between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. In the 4 months following the first elevated A1c value (index date), patients were classified into 2 groups: treatment intensification or clinical inertia. Treatment intensification was defined as the addition of ≥ 1 new noninsulin antihyperglycemic medication, the addition of insulin, or a dose increase of any current noninsulin antihyperglycemic medication. Patients were required to have ≥ 1 follow-up A1c value 6-12 months after the index date and continuous enrollment in the health plan for 12 months before and after the index date. Patients were excluded if they had a diagnosis for gestational diabetes or type 1 diabetes or if they were on insulin in the pre-index period. The primary outcome of attaining A1c < 7.0% was compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM). Factors associated with clinical inertia were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

3,078 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 54.4 (10.6) years and a mean (SD) baseline A1c of 9.6% (1.7), were included in the study. Of these, 1,093 patients (36%) experienced clinical inertia. After PSM, 1,760 patients remained; 880 in each group. In the clinical inertia group, 23% of patients achieved an A1c < 7.0% in the post-index period, compared with 35% in the treatment intensification group (P < 0.001). A greater likelihood of experiencing clinical inertia was associated with baseline treatment with 2 (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.22-2.86; P < 0.001) or ≥ 3 (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.30-2.42; P < 0.001) antihyperglycemic medications (vs. none), baseline age ≥ 65 years (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.63-2.74; P < 0.001), and diagnosis of coronary heart disease (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.10-1.88; P = 0.007). A baseline A1c ≥ 9.0% (vs. 8.0%-8.9%) was associated with a lower likelihood of experiencing clinical inertia (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.48-0.66; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

More than a third of patients in a commercially insured population with T2DM and a baseline A1c ≥ 8% experienced clinical inertia. Clinical inertia resulted in worse A1c outcomes over the 12-month follow-up period. Results of this study suggest that treatment intensification should be monitored, with efforts made to educate health care providers on strategies aimed at improving glycemic control for high-risk patients.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by a grant from Janssen Scientific Affairs, which was involved in study design, interpretation of results, and manuscript review. Wander reports consulting fees from Sanofi Aventis outside the submitted work. McAdam-Marx reports grants from Sanofi Aventis and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Pesa and Bailey were employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs during the conduct of the study. Bailey also reports stock ownership in Johnson and Johnson. This study was presented as a poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017; October 16-19, 2017; Grapevine, TX.

Pharmacist Impact on Treatment Intensification and Hemoglobin A1C in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at an Academic Health Center

Background:

Achievement of treatment goals for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is suboptimal. This is in part driven by a lack of treatment intensification when warranted, termed “clinical inertia.”

Objectives:

To investigate time to treatment intensification and changes in A1C among pharmacist–physician managed (PPM) patients compared to usual medical care (UMC) in patients with T2DM.

Methods:

Retrospective matched cohort study at 2 academic family medicine clinics. Patients in each cohort were matched 1:1 based on age (±5 years), primary care provider, gender, and race.

Results:

A total of 50 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean time to treatment intensification was longer in the UMC cohort as compared with the PPM cohort (325 (66) days vs 200 (62) days [ P = .50]). A higher percentage of patients in the PPM cohort achieved ≥0.5% reduction in A1C in comparison to the UMC cohort (60% vs 44%, respectively [ P = .41]). Patients in the PPM cohort experienced a greater mean decrease in A1C from baseline when compared to patients in the UMC cohort (−1% (1.8%) vs −0.4% (2.2%) [ P = .24]).

Conclusion:

Patients exposed to a pharmacist in this retrospective matched cohort study experienced shorter time to treatment intensification and a greater reduction in A1C than those managed solely by a medical provider, although results were not statistically significant. Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of the pharmacist in improving clinical inertia in the management of T2DM.

Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fail to achieve glycaemic control promptly after diagnosis and do not receive timely treatment intensification. This may be in part due to 'clinical inertia', defined as the failure of healthcare providers to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated. Physician-, patient- and healthcare-system-related factors all contribute to clinical inertia. However, decisions that appear to be clinical inertia may, in fact, be only 'apparent' clinical inertia and may reflect good clinical practice on behalf of the physician for a specific patient. Delay in treatment intensification can happen at all stages of treatment for people with T2DM, including prescription of lifestyle changes after diagnosis, introduction of pharmacological therapy, use of combination therapy where needed and initiation of insulin. Clinical inertia may contribute to people with T2DM living with suboptimal glycaemic control for many years, with dramatic consequences for the patient in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality, and for public health because of the huge costs associated with uncontrolled T2DM. Because multiple factors can lead to clinical inertia, potential solutions most likely require a combination of approaches involving fundamental changes in medical care. These could include the adoption of a person-centred model of care to account for the complex considerations influencing treatment decisions by patients and physicians. Better patient education about the progressive nature of T2DM and the risks inherent in long-term poor glycaemic control may also reinforce the need for regular treatment reviews, with intensification when required.

Prescribing practices and clinical predictors of glucose-lowering therapy within the first year in people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes

AIM

To examine prescribing practices and predictors of glucose-lowering therapy within the first year following diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in a clinical care setting.

METHODS

We followed people enrolled in the Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (DD2) cohort from outpatient hospital clinics and general practices throughout Denmark in 2010-2013. We used Poisson regression to compute age- and gender-adjusted risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Among 1158 new Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, 302 (26%) did not receive glucose-lowering therapy within the first year, 723 (62%) received monotherapy [685 (95%) with metformin], and 133 (12%) received more than one drug. Predictors of receiving any vs. no therapy and combination vs. monotherapy were: age < 40 years [RR: 1.29 (95% CI: 1.16-1.44) and 3.60 (95% CI: 2.36-5.50)]; high Charlson Comorbidity Index [RRs: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.05-1.38) and 2.08 (95% CI: 1.16-3.72)]; central obesity [RRs: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.04-1.44) and 1.93 (95% CI: 0.76-4.94)]; fasting blood glucose of ≥ 7.5 mmol/l [RRs: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) and 1.94 (95% CI: 1.02-3.71)]; and HbA1c ≥ 59 mmol/mol (≥ 7.5%) [RR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.20-1.32) and 2.86 (95% CI: 1.97-4.14)]. Weight gain ≥ 30 kg since age 20, lack of physical exercise and C-peptide of < 300 pmol/l also predicted therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidity, young age, central obesity and poor baseline glycaemic control are important predictors of therapy one year after Type 2 diabetes mellitus debut.

Why physicians do not initiate dual therapy as recommended by AACE guidelines: A survey of clinicians in the United States

AIMS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) recommends initiating dual therapy with antihyperglycemic agents in untreated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and HbA1c between 7.6% (60 mmol/mol) and 9.0% (75 mmol/mol). In practice physicians do not always follow guidelines. This study assessed why physicians do not prescribe dual therapy when treating eligible patients.

METHODS

1235 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 290 specialists in the United States reviewed medical charts for 5995 patients whose HbA1c was between 7.6% (60 mmol/mol) and 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) at diagnosis and were being treated with metformin monotherapy. In an online survey physicians rated the relevance of 22 reasons for not initiating dual therapy using a 5-point Likert scale. Relevant reasons were compared between PCPs vs. specialists, and younger vs. older patients, using multivariate general linear regression and mixed-effect models.

RESULTS

Four relevant reasons for not following AACE guidelines were physician-related: (1) "Metformin monotherapy is sufficient to improve glycemic control"; (2) "Monotherapy is easier to handle than dual therapy"; (3) "I believe that monotherapy and changes in lifestyle are enough for hyperglycemia control"; and (4) "I recommend monotherapy before considering dual therapy." One relevant reason was patient-related: (5) "Patient has mild hyperglycemia." Regression analysis demonstrated that PCPs rated each physician-related reason as significantly more relevant than specialists. Three physician-related reasons were significantly more relevant for younger patients than older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians do not follow AACE guidelines due to physicians' beliefs toward therapy and the perception of mild hyperglycemia in patients.

Safety of sitagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 25 clinical studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sitagliptin 100 mg/day in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A post hoc pooled analysis of 25 randomized, double-blind, parallel group clinical studies with results available as of 1 December 2011.

SETTING

Multicenter, international clinical trials.

SUBJECTS

Patients with type 2 diabetes aged 65 years or older.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to sitagliptin 100 mg/day (n = 1,261) or a comparator (n = 1,185) for 12 weeks to 2 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In each study, investigators reported serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred during the study, and serious adverse events occurring within 14 days following the last dose of study drug. This analysis used patient-level data from each study to assess the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of specific adverse events that occurred following initiation of study drug.

RESULTS

Summary measures of adverse events overall were similar between the sitagliptin and non-exposed (active comparator or placebo) groups, except for higher incidences of deaths and drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were generally similar between the two groups, with the exception of hypoglycemia. A lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia was observed in the sitagliptin group compared with the non-exposed group [7.0 vs. 14.3 per 100 patient-years; difference -7.6 (95 % CI -11.2 to -4.3]), primarily due to greater use of sulfonylureas in the non-exposed group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled safety analysis of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated for up to 2 years.

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.

Predictors of insulin initiation in metformin and sulfonylurea users in primary care practices: the role of kidney function

The aims were to investigate predictors of insulin initiation in new users of metformin or sulfonylureas in primary care practices, in particular, its association with decreased renal function. Data from 9103 new metformin and 1120 sulfonylurea users with normal baseline glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >90 ml/min/1.73 m(2) from 1072 practices were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyzer Germany: 01/2003-06/2012). Cox regression models and propensity score matching was used to adjust for confounders (age, sex, practice characteristics, comorbidity). Insulin treatment was started in 394 (4.3%) metformin and in 162 (14.5%) sulfonylurea users within 6 years (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier curves (propensity score matched patients) showed that the metformin group was at a lower risk of insulin initiation compared to sulfonylurea users throughout the study period. A substantial eGFR decline (category: 15-<30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) was significantly associated with a higher likelihood to have insulin initiated (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.09-5.23) in metformin but not in sulfonylurea (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.16-1.30) users. New users of sulfonylurea monotherapy in primary care practices in Germany were about 3-fold more likely to start insulin therapy than those with metformin. Kidney function decline was associated with earlier insulin initiation in metformin but not in sulfonylurea users.

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.

Physician reasons for nonpharmacologic treatment of hyperglycemia in older patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

To identify reasons why primary care physicians (PCPs) do not treat older patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with antihyperglycemic agents following diagnosis.

METHODS

US PCPs were surveyed via the internet regarding their reasons for not treating patients aged >65 years diagnosed with T2DM and had not yet initiated antihyperglycemic therapy for ≥6 months after diagnosis. PCPs were requested to provide relevant clinical information for untreated older patients and select applicable reasons for not initiating treatment from a list of 35 possibilities, grouped into five categories.

RESULTS

A total of 508 PCPs completed the online survey and provided complete clinical data for 770 patients. The reasons provided by the first-ranked physician for not initiating antihyperglycemic therapy were related to diet and exercise (57.5%); mild hyperglycemia (23.8%); patient's concerns (13.4%); concerns about antihyperglycemic agents (3.0%); and comorbidities and polypharmacy (2.3%). The "diet and exercise" category was the most common first-ranked non-treatment reason, regardless of recent hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) stratum. Reasons within the "patient's concerns," "concerns related to antihyperglycemic agents," and "comorbidities and polypharmacy" categories tended to be selected more often as first-ranked reasons by physicians for patients with higher HbA(1c) values. Of the 158 patients whose physicians planned to initiate antihyperglycemic therapy within the next month, 54.4% already had a most recent HbA(1c) value above their physician-stated threshold for treatment initiation.

CONCLUSION

In the PCPs studied, there was a tendency to select appropriate reasons for non-treatment with antihyperglycemic agents given their patients' glycemic status. However, there was inertia related to the initiation of pharmacological therapy in some older patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. Important factors included physicians' perceptions of "mild" hyperglycemia and the HbA(1c) threshold for using antihyperglycemic agents.

Initial sulfonylurea use and subsequent insulin therapy in older subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

In type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), progressive loss of beta cell function over time requires treatment intensification and eventually initiation of insulin for many patients. Relative to metformin, a greater rate of decline in beta cell function over time has been observed with sulfonylurea treatment. The present study examined the association between initial monotherapy with metformin or sulfonylurea and subsequent initiation of insulin in older subjects with T2DM.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study using the GE electronic medical record database, eligible subjects with T2DM included those ≥65 years who received their first prescription of sulfonylurea or metformin as initial monotherapy between January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008. The follow-up period lasted to the end of 2009 or the subject's latest data available. Insulin initiation was determined by prescription records. Logistic regression analysis evaluated the likelihood of insulin addition. A Cox regression model estimated time to initiation of insulin. Differences in baseline characteristics were controlled for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,036 subjects were included in the analysis. Mean age was 75 years and 50% were male. Subjects who initiated with sulfonylurea had a significantly (P < 0.001) higher incidence of insulin addition (2.8% vs. 1.4%) compared to those initiated with metformin within 1 year of follow-up. The likelihood of initiating insulin was higher in subjects initiated with sulfonylurea than with metformin (adjusted odds ratio 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-2.38; P < 0.001). Sulfonylurea use was also significantly associated with a shorter time to insulin use compared to metformin (adjusted hazards ratio 2.10, 95% CI 1.83-2.39; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of older subjects with T2DM initiating antihyperglycemic therapy, new users of sulfonylurea monotherapy were more likely to receive insulin therapy and received it earlier than those starting with metformin.

Factors associated with initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

AIM

To assess the factors associated with antihyperglycaemic medication initiation in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were identified during the index period of 2003-2005. Eligible patients were ≥ 30 years old at the date of the first observed diabetes diagnosis (referred to as index date) and had at least 2 years of follow-up medical history (N = 9,158). Initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication (i.e., treatment) was assessed in the 2-year period following the index date. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to examine the association between time to medication initiation and patient age and other factors.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) HbA1c at diagnosis was 8.1% (2.3). Overall, 51% of patients initiated antihyperglycaemic medication within 2 years (65%, 55%, 46% and 40% for patients in the 30- < 45, 45- < 65, 65- < 75, 75+ age groups, respectively). Among the treated patients, median (25th, 75th percentile) time to treatment initiation was 63 (8, 257) days. Of the patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.5% at diagnosis, 87% initiated treatment within 2 years. These patients with a higher HbA1c also had shorter time to treatment initiation (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.44 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61, 3.70]; p < 0.0001). Increasing age (in years) was negatively associated with time to treatment initiation (HR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.99]; p < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with shorter time to treatment initiation included female gender and use of cardiovascular medications at baseline or initiated during follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this UK cohort of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, only 51% had antihyperglycaemic medication initiated over a 2-year period following diagnosis. Older patients were significantly less likely to have been prescribed antihyperglycaemic medications. Elevated HbA1c was the strongest factor associated with initiating antihyperglycaemic medication in these patients.

Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.

METHODS

In a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: Mild hyperglycaemia, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents, Comorbidities and polypharmacy, and Patient-related reasons. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.

RESULTS

Non-treatment reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents (46% vs. 38%) and Comorbidities and polypharmacy (33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the Patient-related reasons category. The GP-reported HbA1c threshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs selected reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA1c value ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.