Dataset Information

Assessment of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with metformin-sulfonylurea combination: Results of a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study in Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Aims/introduction

To assess the current status of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea for >3 months, as measured by glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

Materials and methods

Data on patient demographics, diabetic complications, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and type of treatment were collected in this multicenter, cross-sectional, non-interventional study.

Results

From April 2008 to February 2009, 5,628 patients were recruited from 299 centers in Korea. Patients characteristics (mean ± SD) were as follows: age 58.4 ± 10.8 years, duration of diabetes 6.1 ± 4.7 years, body mass index 24.7 ± 2.9 kg/m(2), HbA1c 7.77 ± 1.22%, FBG 147.4 ± 46.5 mmol/L and FPG 164.0 ± 54.3 mmol/L. The most common diabetic complication was neuropathy (22.5%), followed by retinopathy (18.3%) and microalbuminuria (16.1%). Just 1,524 (27.1%) patients achieved HbA1c ?7%. A higher number of patients (32.6%) treated by endocrinologists achieved HbA1c ?7% than those treated by internists (24.4%) and primary care physicians (23.2%). In multivariate analyses, diabetic retinopathy (odds ratio 0.455, 95% confidence interval 0.341-0.606), nephropathy (odds ratio 0.639, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.949), diabetes for ?5 years (odds ratio 0.493, 95% confidence interval 0.4-0.606) and older age added by 1 year (odds ratio 1.019, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.029) was significantly associated with achieving target HbA1c. In addition, treatment by endocrinologists rather than internists significantly increased chances of achieving target HbA1c (odds ratio 1.417, 95% confidence interval 1.146-1.751).

Conclusions

The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes in Korea had inadequate glycemic control, despite receiving a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea.

SUBMITTER: Kim SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4420564 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMetformin may have a protective association against developing osteoarthritis (OA), but robust epidemiological data are lacking.ObjectiveTo determine the risk of OA and joint replacement in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin compared with a sulfonylurea.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Optum deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database between December 2003 and December 2019. Participants included individuals aged 40 years or older with at least 1 year of continuous enrollment and type 2 diabetes. Individuals with type 1 diabetes or a prior diagnosis of OA, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement were excluded. Time-conditional propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, race, Charlson comorbidity score, and treatment duration to create a prevalent new-user cohort. Data were analyzed from April to December 2021.ExposuresTreatment with metformin or a sulfonylurea.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes of interest were incident OA and joint replacement. Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of incident OA and joint replacement. In a sensitivity analysis, individuals only ever treated with metformin were compared with individuals only ever treated with a sulfonylurea, allowing for longer-term follow up of the outcome (even after stopping the medication of interest).ResultsAfter time-conditional propensity score matching, the metformin and control groups each included 20 937 individuals (mean [SD] age 62.0 [11.5] years; 24 379 [58.2%] males). In the adjusted analysis, the risk of developing OA was reduced by 24% for individuals treated with metformin compared with a sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85; P < .001), but there was no significant difference for risk of joint replacement (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27; P = .34). In the sensitivity analysis, the risk of developing OA remained lower in individuals treated with metformin compared with a sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90; P < .001) and the risk of joint replacement remained not statistically significant (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.82; P = .89).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of individuals with diabetes, metformin treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing OA compared with sulfonylurea treatment. These results further support preclinical and observational data that suggest metformin may have a protective association against the development of OA; future interventional studies with metformin for the treatment or prevention of OA should be considered.

Project description:The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in type 2 diabetes mellitus vs placebo and insulin glargine (A21Gly,B31Arg,B32Arg human insulin), all in combination with metformin and glimepiride.This randomised (using a telephone or web-based randomisation system), parallel-group, controlled 26 week trial of 581 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on prior monotherapy (HbA(1c) 7.5-10%) and combination therapy (7.0-10%) was conducted in 107 centres in 17 countries. The primary endpoint was HbA(1c). Patients were randomised (2:1:2) to liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily (n = 232), liraglutide placebo (n = 115) and open-label insulin glargine (n = 234), all in combination with metformin (1 g twice daily) and glimepiride (4 mg once daily). Investigators, participants and study monitors were blinded to the treatment status of the liraglutide and placebo groups at all times.The number of patients analysed as intention to treat were: liraglutide n = 230, placebo n = 114, insulin glargine n = 232. Liraglutide reduced HbA(1c) significantly vs glargine (1.33% vs 1.09%; -0.24% difference, 95% CI 0.08, 0.39; p = 0.0015) and placebo (-1.09% difference, 95% CI 0.90, 1.28; p < 0.0001). There was greater weight loss with liraglutide vs placebo (treatment difference -1.39 kg, 95% CI 2.10, 0.69; p = 0.0001), and vs glargine (treatment difference -3.43 kg, 95% CI 4.00, 2.86; p < 0.0001). Liraglutide reduced systolic BP (-4.0 mmHg) vs glargine (+0.5 mmHg; -4.5 mmHg difference, 95% CI 6.8, -2.2; p = 0.0001) but not vs placebo (p = 0.0791). Rates of hypoglycaemic episodes (major, minor and symptoms only, respectively) were 0.06, 1.2 and 1.0 events/patient/year, respectively, in the liraglutide group (vs 0, 1.3, 1.8 and 0, 1.0, 0.5 with glargine and placebo, respectively). A slightly higher number of adverse events (including nausea at 14%) were reported with liraglutide, but only 9.8% of participants in the group receiving liraglutide developed anti-liraglutide antibodies.Liraglutide added to metformin and sulfonylurea produced significant improvement in glycaemic control and bodyweight compared with placebo and insulin glargine. The difference vs insulin glargine in HbA(1c) was within the predefined non-inferiority margin.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00331851.The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.

Project description:AbstractThe comparative effectiveness of oral hypoglycemic agents on glycemic control and chronic complications in clinical practice is unknown in Korea. This study aimed to compare glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia and chronic complications among adult patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4I), and sulfonylurea (SU) as monotherapy or dual combination therapy.We retrospectively analyzed propensity-matched cohort data from 3 national university hospitals in Korea. All electronic health records were transformed into a unified Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model and analyzed using ATLAS, an open-source analytical tool, and R software. Glycemic control was assessed as the first observation of a reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level below 7% after prescription of the drug. Differences in the incidence of chronic complications were compared based on the first observation of each complication. Glycemic control and chronic complications were evaluated in patients who maintained the same prescription for at least 3 and 12 months, respectively.Patients who received metformin had lower hazard of reaching HbA1c levels below 7% as compared with those who received SU, and had higher hazard compared with those who received DPP4I (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.98; and HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.42-1.99, respectively). The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in the SU group than in the metformin and DPP4I groups (metformin vs SU; HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.21-0.43; SU vs DPP4I; HR, 4.42; 95% CI, 2.35-8.31). Metformin + DPP4I had similar hazard of reaching HbA1c levels below 7% compared with metformin + SU (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.99-1.43) and the incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly lower in the metformin + DPP4I group (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.30). There was no significant difference in the analysis of the occurrence of chronic complications.SU followed by metformin was effective, and both drugs showed an increased hazard of reaching HbA1c levels below 7% compared with DPP4I. Metformin + DPP4I is comparatively effective for HbA1c level reduction below 7% compared with metformin + SU. Hypoglycemia was high in the SU-containing therapy.