Dataset Information

Early Glycemic Response Predicts Achievement of Subsequent Treatment Targets in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Post hoc Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

American Diabetes Association consensus guidelines emphasize individualized treatment in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Early glycemic response is a clinical marker that may predict longer term efficacy for individual patients and provide a clinical tool to enhance personalized treatment. This analysis evaluated whether glycemic response measured at week 12 ("early") could serve as a reliable predictor of glycemic control at weeks 24 and 52 of therapy in patients with T2DM.

Methods

We used data from 3 randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated patients with T2DM treated with 3 commonly prescribed glucose-lowering medications: metformin (n = 597), sulfonylurea (n = 626), and insulin glargine (n = 1046). The gradient boosting method was used to identify predictors of subsequent response; predictive accuracy was represented by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Treatment success at weeks 24 and 52 was assessed for each patient and defined as achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of <7.0% or a reduction from baseline of ≥1.0%.

Results

The predictive parameters (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV) for improvements in HbA1c at week 24 for metformin were 0.83, 0.81, 0.44, and 0.96; for sulfonylurea, 0.79, 0.94, 0.71, and 0.96; and for insulin glargine, 0.67, 0.89, 0.65, and 0.90. The predictive parameters for improvements in HbA1c at week 52 for metformin were 0.73, 0.84, 0.56, and 0.92 and for sulfonylurea, 0.45, 0.94, 0.74, and 0.82.

Conclusion

High predictive values identified in this analysis support "early" response as an appropriate tool for predicting treatment success at weeks 24 and 52. The high NPV (lack of early glycemic response) appears to be an effective indicator of the likely need for change in (or intensification of) therapy. These data support the current guideline recommendations that clinicians evaluate therapeutic responses to pharmacologic interventions with metformin, sulfonylureas, or insulin glargine as early as week 12.

SUBMITTER: Fu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4575302 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlthough depression is often associated with poor glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this observation has been inconsistent. This exploratory, post hoc analysis investigated associations between depression parameters and glycemic control using data from a 24-month, prospective, observational, non-interventional study evaluating glycemic response following insulin initiation for T2DM.MethodsWe analyzed data from a 24-month, prospective, observational study that evaluated glycemic response in patients with T2DM who initiated insulin therapy (N = 985) in 5 European countries. Secondary measures included patient-reported diagnosis of depression at baseline, severity of depressed/anxious mood (EuroQol (EQ)-5D item) and diabetes-related distress (Psychological Distress domain of the Diabetes Health Profile, DHP-18). The latter two measures were assessed at baseline and 5 time points throughout the study. Glycemic control was measured by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at these same time points. Analyses employed t tests to assess the unadjusted baseline difference in HbA1c between patients with and without the respective depression parameter. The potential effect of demographic and clinical confounding variables was controlled through a linear model structure. Patient HbA1c levels were analyzed by presence/absence of a history of diagnosed depression, depressed mood, and diabetes-related distress.ResultsPatients with higher depression parameters or distress at baseline had significantly higher rates of microvascular complications at baseline. Patients with a history of diagnosed depression or high diabetes-related distress had higher HbA1c than patients without. HbA1c of patients with or without depressed mood was not significantly different at baseline. The proportion of patients with depressed mood declined after insulin initiation, whereas the proportion of patients with high diabetes-related distress did not significantly change. HbA1c improved following insulin initiation, regardless of presence/absence of studied depression/distress parameters at baseline.ConclusionHistory of diagnosed depression, diabetes-related distress, and depressed mood were associated with a higher rate of microvascular complications. Diagnosed depression and diabetes-related distress also showed higher HbA1c at baseline when insulin was initiated. Insulin therapy improved glycemic control, while preexisting depressed mood declined and diabetes-related distress remained unchanged.

Project description:The identification of biomarkers that predict optimal and individual choices of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis gains increasing attention. The purpose of this study was to investigate if the proto-oncogene survivin might aid in treatment decisions in early rheumatoid arthritis.Serum survivin levels were measured in 302 patients who completed the Swedish pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. Survivin levels > 0.45 ng/mL were considered positive. Based on the survivin status, core set outcomes measuring disease activity, functional disability, as well as global health and pain were evaluated after methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy at 3 months, and at 12 and 24 months of follow-up. Treatment of non-responders was randomly intensified with either a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (triple therapy: MTX, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) or by adding antibodies against tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF).Antirheumatic treatment resulted in an overall decrease of serum survivin levels. Survivin-positive patients at baseline who initially responded to MTX had a higher risk of disease re-activation (OR 3.21 (95% CI 1.12-9.24), P?=?0.032) and failed to improve in their functional disability (P?=?0.018) if having continued on MTX monotherapy compared to survivin-negative patients. Ever-smokers who were survivin-positive were less likely to respond to MTX than those who were survivin-negative (OR 1.91 (1.01-3.62), P?=?0.045). In survivin-positive patients, triple therapy led to better improvements in disease activity than did MTX?+?anti-TNF. At 24 months, survivin-positive patients randomized to anti-TNF had a higher risk of active disease than those randomized to triple therapy (OR 3.15 (1.09-9.10), P?=?0.037).We demonstrate for the first time that survivin is a valuable serologic marker that can distinguish drug-specific clinical responses in early rheumatoid arthritis through the pragmatic clinical setting of the care-based SWEFOT trial. Although treatment response cannot solely be attributable to survivin status, per protocol sensitivity analyses confirmed the superior effect of triple therapy on survivin-positive patients.Survivin-positive patients have poor outcomes if treated with MTX monotherapy. A decrease of survivin levels during treatment is associated with better clinical responses. For survivin-positive patients who fail MTX, triple therapy is associated with better outcomes than anti-TNF therapy.WHO database at the Karolinska University Hospital: CT20080004 ; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00764725, registered 1 October 2008.

Project description:ObjectiveThis post-hoc analysis of the EDGE (Effectiveness of Diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin) study assessed inter-regional differences in baseline characteristics and response to treatment intensification with dual oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsPatients with T2DM inadequately controlled with first-line monotherapy were assigned to receive a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, vildagliptin, or comparator OADs as add-on dual therapy. The primary effectiveness end point (PEP) was achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction >0.3% without hypoglycemia, peripheral edema, discontinuation owing to gastrointestinal events or weight gain ?5% at 12 months. The secondary effectiveness end point (SEP) was achieving HbA1c of <7% without hypoglycemia or weight gain ?3% at 12 months.ResultsBaseline characteristics of patients (N=43?791), including mean HbA1c (8.2%), varied across regions. Baseline age (62.3 years) and T2DM duration (6.3 years) were greater in patients from Europe than those from India and the Middle East (age: 51.8 and 52.1 years; T2DM duration: 4.3 and 4.2 years, respectively). The probability of achieving PEP with dual therapy was higher in India (odds ratio (OR): 1.5), Latin America (OR: 1.2) and Middle East (OR: 2.0) than in Europe (OR: 0.8) and East Asia (OR: 0.3). Achievement of SEP in patients receiving dual therapy was greater in Latin America (OR: 1.7) and Middle East (OR: 1.7). Vildagliptin add-on therapy allowed more patients to achieve SEP across regions. Women aged ?45 years less often attained glycemic target (HbA1c<7%) without significant weight gain ?5% compared with women aged <45 years (OR: 0.876, 95% confidence interval: 0.774, 0.992; P=0.037).ConclusionsBaseline HbA1c and T2DM duration differed considerably across all regions. Treatment intensification with second OAD, particularly with a DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin, resulted in good treatment response without tolerability issues despite delayed intensification of failing monotherapy across regions.

Project description:Importance:Diabetes guidelines recommend considering specific factors, such as diabetes duration and life expectancy, to individualize treatment in older adults. These individualized glycemic targets inform decisions on whether to intensify or deintensify medication treatment plans. How older adults with diabetes perceive these factors used to individualize glycemic targets is unknown. Objectives:To examine how older adults perceive factors used in diabetes guidelines for individualizing glycemic targets. Design, Setting, and Participants:A cross-sectional national survey was conducted from December 13, 2018, to January 3, 2019, of a nationally representative, probability-based online survey panel (KnowledgePanel). A total of 1364 KnowledgePanel members who were 65 years or older and had type 2 diabetes were invited to participate in the survey; 836 (61.3%) responded, and 818 (60.0%) completed the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures:The study randomized participants to 2 vignettes: one about adding and the other about removing diabetes medications from treatment plans. Participants rated the importance of 7 factors (diabetes duration, established diabetes complications, other health conditions, life expectancy, risk of adverse effects, cost, and treatment effort) in these treatment decisions using binary (yes/no) responses and the best-worst scaling method to quantify the factors' relative importance. All participants then answered questions on how different levels of each factor were associated with aggressiveness of diabetes treatment. Results:The sample included 818 participants (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.8] years; 469 [53.7%] male; and 668 [67.7%] white). A total of 410 participants answered questions about adding medicine, whereas 408 participants answered questions about stopping medicine. Of the 7 factors to consider for adding a diabetes medication to the treatment plan, the number who deemed each factor important ranged from 197 (45.6%) to 263 (62.8%). In contrast, these same factors were considered important by only 29 (8.4%) to 146 (37.7%) of participants when deciding to stop use of a diabetes medication. In both decisions, participants perceived the risk of adverse effects as the most important factor (relative importance was 22.8 for adding a medicine and 25.0 for stopping a medicine on a ratio scale in which, for each decision, the relative importance of the 7 factors adds up to 100, with 0 indicating complete indifference and 100 complete priority). In contrast to current guideline recommendations, most participants believed that patients with longer disease duration (498 [60.1%]), more established complications (632 [75.6%]), and greater number of other health conditions (545 [67.5%]) should receive more aggressive diabetes treatment. Conclusions and Relevance:Many older adults do not place high importance on factors recommended by guidelines to individualize diabetes treatment, especially when deciding to stop use of diabetes medications. Moreover, when considering treatment aggressiveness, many older adults weighted several factors in the opposite direction than suggested by the guidelines. Individualizing diabetes care in older adults will require effective communication regarding the benefits and consequences of making changes to treatment plans.