Glycaemic control after treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on two or more non‐insulin antidiabetic drugs in a real‐world setting

Abstract

Aim: To assess glycaemic control after treatment intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on ≥2 non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADS).Methods: A retrospective cohort study, using electronic health records from the SIDIAP database (2010-2014), was conducted. Intensification was defined as the prescription of any new antidiabetic drug in patients treated with ≥2 NIADS and HbA1c >7%. The primary outcome was the absolute change in HbA1c 6-12 months after any intensification. Secondary analyses included the percentage of patients reaching HbA1c <7%, HbA1c <8%, and a reduction of HbA1c >1% after the first intensification.Results: There were 21 241 intensifications in 15 205 patients with a mean (SD) HbA1c of 9.02% (±1.35). Insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) were the most frequently added therapies. The mean baseline-adjusted HbA1c reduction was 0.78% (95% CI, −0.80 to −0.76), varying from −0.69% with DPP4i to −0.85% with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists while the addition of insulin was associated with a reduction >1%.After the first intensification, 48.9% of patients achieved HbA1c <8%, 16.2% HbA1c <7%, and 43.1% a reduction >1%. High previous HbA1c was positively associated with the reduction of HbA1c >1% [odds ratio (OR) 2.13 (95% CI: 2.05-2.21)], but inversely associated with the attainment of HbA1c <7% [OR 0.64 (0.61-0.67)] or < 8% [OR 0.63 (0.60-0.65)]. Older age, male gender, higher Charlson index, and short diabetes duration were associated with achievement of HbA1c <7%.Conclusions: Despite intensification, most patients failed the glycaemic goal of HbA1c <7%. The reduction depended mainly on preintensification HbA1c values, with small differences between drugs. K E Y W O R D Sglycaemic control, intensification, observational, type 2 diabetes mellitus *Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Episodic Real-Time CGM Use in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Within 3-4 years of initiating metformin, most patients require a second-line antidiabetic drug [4]. However, data from real-world studies show that intensification of therapy is commonly delayed [5][6][7][8][9] and, even when insulin is introduced, adherence is poor and optimal glycemic control is often not obtained or sustained [6,[10][11][12][13][14].…”

Empagliflozin treatment effects across categories of baseline HbA1c, body weight and blood pressure as an add‐on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

“…Despite advances in our understanding and evidence‐based effects of various medications, in particular on CV and HF outcomes, 8 a significant proportion of patients with T2D remain poorly controlled (e.g. glycaemic, body weight and blood pressure targets), with large proportions not meeting treatment targets as recommended by professional societies 9–11 . Individualization of therapy is now a widely recommended strategy in the management of patients with T2D.…”

The burden of type 2 diabetes in Europe: Current and future aspects of insulin treatment from patient and healthcare spending perspectives

“…Therefore, insulin therapy should be initiated as soon as indicated by current recommendations, whilst avoiding lengthy periods of clinical inertia resulting in less time in good glycaemic control and at increased risk of complications. Albeit being one of the most potent blood glucose-lowering substances next to GLP-1 receptor agonists [49,50], it should be kept in mind that intensification of therapy does not guarantee attainment of glycaemic targets [51,52]. Several factors such as patient education, patient satisfaction and patient-physician interaction as well as insulin-related treatment aspects are of importance in a patient-centred diabetes management process [12].…”