Dataset Information

Glycemic Control in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Oral Antihyperglycemic Medication-Only or Insulin-Only Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The primary aim of this analysis was to explore whether glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <7%) and the incidence of hypoglycemia are different between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM)-only or insulin-only regimens.

Methods

Physicians in nine Chinese cities completed surveys (Adelphi Real World Diabetes Disease Specific Programme) from October 2011 to March 2012. Key information collected included patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, HbA1c levels, and hypoglycemia incidence. Patients receiving OAM-only (n = 1077) or insulin-only (n = 292) regimens for ≥6 months who had most recent HbA1c results available and measured within 3 months of survey completion were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia. Primary (multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders) and sensitivity analyses (propensity score matching method) were performed.

Results

A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group achieved glycemic control than patients in the OAM-only group (41.8% vs 35.9%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P = 0.013) better glycemic control than OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.48 [1.09, 2.01]). A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group experienced hypoglycemia (overall) than patients in the OAM-only group (33.3% vs 14.4%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P < 0.001) increased overall hypoglycemia compared with OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.38 [1.72, 3.29]). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary analysis results.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis provide important real-world information on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM, which may be useful for guiding evidenced-based management. Notably, Chinese patients with T2DM receiving OAM-only had poorer glycemic control compared with those receiving insulin-only therapy, although patients receiving OAM-only were less likely to experience hypoglycemic events.

SUBMITTER: Chen Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4478183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPrevious research has demonstrated a correlation among patient preferences, dosing burden, and medication nonadherence, a well-recognized challenge in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to elicit preferences for alternative dosing regimens for oral antihyperglycemic therapies among patients with T2DM and to quantify differences in dosing preferences among patients with different characteristics.MethodsPreferences for dosing of oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OAD) were evaluated by surveying patients with T2DM in the United States (US). Survey participants were adult US patients with T2DM who were taking no or only 1 OAD and no injectable therapies. Each patient completed a web-enabled discrete-choice experiment (DCE) including a series of 8 pairs of hypothetical OAD profiles. Each profile was defined by reductions in average glucose, dosing schedule (e.g., once-weekly, once-daily, or twice-daily dosing), chance of mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal side effects, frequency of hypoglycemia, weight change, incremental risk of congestive heart failure, and cost. Each participant also answered a direct question about dosing preference. Random-parameters logit was used to analyze the DCE data. Prespecified subgroups were analyzed.ResultsOf 2,262 patients invited to participate, 923 were included in the analysis (mean age 63 years, 45% male, 79% white). Reducing dosing frequency was statistically significantly important to patients; however, it was relatively less important than medication cost or clinical outcomes. On average, patients preferred once-weekly to once-daily dosing. Patients not currently taking an OAD had a stronger preference for once-weekly dosing than patients on treatment (P = 0.012). Patients younger than 45 years had a stronger preference for weekly dosing than older patients (P < 0.075).ConclusionsFor younger patients and patients not currently on treatment, once-weekly dosing may provide additional incentive to initiate and adhere to antihyperglycemic treatment; however, additional research will be required to confirm this hypothesis.

Project description:Diabetes mellitus, heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease are common comorbidities, but overall use and safety of antihyperglycemic medications (AHMs) among patients with these comorbidities are poorly understood.Using Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure and linked Medicare Part D data, we assessed AHM use within 90 days of hospital discharge among HF patients with diabetes mellitus discharged from Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure hospitals between January 1, 2006, and October 1, 2011. We further summarized use by renal function and assessed renal contraindicated AHM use for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73m(2). Among 8791 patients meeting inclusion criteria, the median age was 77 (interquartile range 71-83), 62.3% were female, median body mass index was 29.7 (interquartile range 25.5-35.3), median hemoglobin A1c was 6.8 (interquartile range 6.2-7.8), and 34% had ejection fraction <40%. 74.9% of patients filled a prescription for an AHM, with insulin (39.5%), sulfonylureas (32.4%), and metformin (17%) being the most commonly used AHMs. Insulin use was higher and sulfonylurea/metformin use was lower among patients with lower renal function classes. Among 1512 patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73m(2), 35.4% filled prescriptions for renal contraindicated AHMs per prescribing information, though there was a trend toward lower renal contraindicated AHM use over time (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean score test P=0.048). Although use of other AHMs was low overall, thiazolidinediones were used in 6.6% of HF patients, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were used in 5.1%, with trends for decreasing thiazolidinedione use and increased dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use over time (P<0.001).Treatment of diabetes mellitus in patients with HF and chronic kidney disease is complex, and these patients are commonly treated with renal contraindicated AHMs, including over 6% receiving a thiazolidinedione, despite known concerns regarding HF. More research regarding safety and efficacy of various AHMs among HF patients is needed.

Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists are glucose-lowering agents associated with weight loss, cardiovascular benefits, and low hypoglycemic risk and are recommended by recent guidelines as first-line therapy for some patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis of the AWARD-CHN1 study compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide with glimepiride in oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM)-naïve Chinese patients with T2D.MethodsAWARD-CHN1 was a phase 3, double-blind study with 737 patients randomized 1:1:1 to once-weekly dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or glimepiride (1-3 mg/day). This is a post hoc analysis of AWARD-CHN1 based on mixed-model repeated measures using a modified intent-to-treat analysis set with only the OAM-naïve Chinese population.ResultsThere were 264 OAM-naïve Chinese patients included in this analysis (dulaglutide 1.5 mg, n = 87; dulaglutide 0.75 mg, n = 90; glimepiride, n = 87). A greater glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction from baseline was observed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg compared to glimepiride (- 2.02% and - 1.84% vs - 1.37%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Significantly more patients in dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg groups achieved HbA1c targets < 7.0% compared to glimepiride (86.2% and 81.1% vs 65.5%; P = 0.002 and P = 0.026, respectively). Beta cell function was significantly increased for dulaglutide groups compared to glimepiride. Mean body weight was significantly reduced for dulaglutide 1.5 mg and 0.75 mg compared to glimepiride (- 1.40 kg and - 0.96 kg vs + 0.73 kg, respectively; both P < 0.001). Through 26 weeks, 7.9%, 4.2%, and 18.2% of patients reported hypoglycemia, and 40.4%, 23.2%, and 8.0% of patients reported at least one gastrointestinal treatment emergent adverse event, in dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 0.75 mg, and glimepiride groups, respectively.ConclusionsIn this post hoc analysis, dulaglutide was effective in reducing both HbA1c and weight with favorable tolerability and safety profile, which is consistent with results seen in larger international dulaglutide monotherapy studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01644500.

Project description:BackgroundMedication nonadherence in patients with chronic diseases, particularly in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with comorbidity, has continued to be the cause of treatment failure. The current study assessed medication adherence and its impact on glycemic control in T2DM patients with comorbidity.MethodsAn institutional-based multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted among T2DM patients with comorbidity at the selected hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia. Medication adherence was measured using a structured questionnaire of the General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS). A logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of the level of medication adherence and glycemic control. P < 0.05 at 95% confidence interval (CI) was statistically significant.ResultsA total of 403 samples were included in the final study. This study showed that more than three-fourths (76.9%) of the participants were under a low level of medication adherence. Source of medication cost coverage [AOR = 10.593, 95% CI (2.628-41.835; P = 0.003], monthly income (P < 0.00), self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) practice [AOR = 0.266, 95% CI (0.117-0.604); P = 0.002], number of medications [AOR = 0.068, 95% CI (0.004-0.813); P = 0.014] and medical conditions [AOR = 0.307, 95% CI (0.026-0.437); P = 0.018] were found to be significant predictors of medication adherence. Significantly, majority (74.7%) of participants had poor levels of glycemic control. Patients who had a high level of medication adherence [AOR = 0.003, 95% CI (0.000-0.113); P = 0.002] were found less likely to have poor glycemic control compared with patients who were low adherent to their medications.ConclusionThe current study concluded that medication adherence was low and significantly associated with poor glycemic control. Number of medical conditions and medications were found to be associated with medication adherence. Management interventions of T2DM patients with comorbidity should focus on the improvement of medication adherence.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have identified postprandial glycemic excursions as risk factors for diabetes complications. This study aimed to compare the effects of nateglinide and acarbose treatments on postprandial glycemic excursions in Chinese subjects with type 2 diabetes.Subjects and methodsThis was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group study. One hundred three antihyperglycemic agent-naive subjects with type 2 diabetes (hemoglobin A1c range, 6.5-9.0%) were prospectively recruited from four hospitals in China. The intervention was nateglinide (120 mg three times a day) or acarbose (50 mg three times a day) therapy for 2 weeks. A continuous glucose monitoring system was used to calculate the incremental area under the curve of postprandial blood glucose (AUCpp), the incremental glucose peak (IGP), mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, SD of blood glucose, the mean of daily differences, and 24-h mean blood glucose (MBG). Subjects' serum glycated albumin and the plasma insulin levels were also analyzed.ResultsBoth agents caused significant reductions on AUCpp and IGP. Similarly, both treatment groups showed significant improvements in the intra- and interday glycemic excursions, as well as the 24-h MBG and serum glycated albumin compared with baseline (P<0.001). However, neither of the agents produced a significantly better effect (P>0.05). Moreover, the nateglinide-treated group had significantly increased insulin levels at 30 min and at 120 min after a standard meal compared with baseline, whereas the acarbose-treated group decreased. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. The rates of hypoglycemic episodes were comparable in the two groups, and no severe hypoglycemic episode occurred in either group.ConclusionsNateglinide and acarbose were comparably effective in reducing postprandial glycemic excursions in antihyperglycemic agent-naive Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly through different pathophysiological mechanisms.