Dataset Information

Progression to insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sitagliptin or sulphonylurea plus metformin dual therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To assess time to insulin initiation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with sitagliptin versus sulphonylurea as add-on to metformin.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used GE Centricity electronic medical records and included patients aged ≥18 years with continuous medical records and an initial prescription of sitagliptin or sulphonylurea (index date) with metformin for ≥90 days during 2006-2013. Sitagliptin and sulphonylurea users were matched 1 : 1 using propensity score matching, and differences in insulin initiation were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. We used conditional logistic regression to examine the likelihood of insulin use 1-6 years after the index date for each year.

Results

Propensity score matching produced 3864 matched pairs. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that sitagliptin users had a lower risk of insulin initiation compared with sulphonylurea users (p = 0.003), with 26.6% of sitagliptin users initiating insulin versus 34.1% of sulphonylurea users over 6 years. This finding remained significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.90). Conditional logistic regression analyses confirmed that sitagliptin users were less likely to initiate insulin compared with sulphonylurea users [odds ratios for years 1-6: 0.77, 0.79, 0.81, 0.57, 0.29 and 0.75, respectively (p < 0.05 for years 4 and 5)].

Conclusions

In this real-world matched cohort study, patients with T2DM treated with sitagliptin had a significantly lower risk of insulin initiation compared with patients treated with sulphonylurea, both as add-on to metformin.

SUBMITTER: Inzucchi SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5033027 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Progression to insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sitagliptin or sulphonylurea plus metformin dual therapy.

Inzucchi S E SE Tunceli K K Qiu Y Y Rajpathak S S Brodovicz K G KG Engel S S SS Mavros P P Radican L L Brudi P P Li Z Z Fan C P S CP Hanna B B Tang J J Blonde L L

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20150622 10

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess time to insulin initiation among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with sitagliptin versus sulphonylurea as add-on to metformin.<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective cohort study used GE Centricity electronic medical records and included patients aged ≥18 years with continuous medical records and an initial prescription of sitagliptin or sulphonylurea (index date) with metformin for ≥90 days during 2006-2013. Sitagliptin and sulphonylurea users were matched ...[more]

PMID: 25962401

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of co-administering sitagliptin to patients with inadequate glycemic control following treatment with metformin (MET), sulfonylurea (SU), or MET + SU. METHODS:A cohort of 25,386 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1C] >53 mmol/mol or 7%), newly treated with sitagliptin between 2007 and 2013, was sourced from UK general practices via The Health Improvement Network database. Among these, eligible patients were segregated into three groups: MET (n = 3364), SU (n = 509), or MET + SU therapy (n = 5929). The relative efficacy of sitagliptin added to SU or MET + SU compared with sitagliptin added to MET monotherapy was assessed with regards to HbA1c and body weight changes from baseline up to 52 weeks. The glycemic efficacy was a measure of average treatment effects obtained from multivariable linear regression models and propensity score-matching analysis. RESULTS:A total of 9802 patients were included in the study. Overall, addition of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily resulted in 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) HbA1c reduction (P < 0.001) and 0.8 kg weight reduction at 1 year (P < 0.001). Efficacy was similar across the treatment groups, but in patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9% adding sitagliptin to MET + SU produced a significantly smaller reduction in HbA1c when compared to the reference group MET (MET + SU vs. MET only: -0.5% vs. -0.7%, P < 0.001). The mean HbA1c reduction from baseline within this subgroup of patients was not significantly different between SU and MET monotherapies (-0.8% vs. -0.7%, respectively, P = 0.4). Across treatment groups, HbA1c reductions with add-on sitagliptin occurred after 24 weeks of treatment with a peak reduction occurring between 36 and 48 weeks, and receded after week 48. CONCLUSION:In a real-world general practice setting, sitagliptin was effective in patients with suboptimal glycemic control with MET, SU or dual therapy, maximum between 36 and 48 weeks, but in patients with HbA1c of >9% receiving MET + SU therapy, adding sitagliptin, as a third agent, conferred minimal benefit.

Project description:ObjectiveThere is currently a lack of evidence from direct comparisons of treatment outcomes with lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with suboptimal glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Hence, the current analysis indirectly compared available evidence on the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight change between lixisenatide and NPH-insulin based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with exenatide, insulin glargine and placebo as common references.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical registries identified English- and German-language articles published from January 1980 to October 2012 reporting data from RCTs. Only publications of trials that reported outcomes from 24 to 30 weeks comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or basal insulin versus another antidiabetic agent or placebo were included. Hypoglycaemia, patients at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were treated as binary variables, with risk ratios and odds ratios (ORs) calculated. HbA1c and body weight were treated as continuous variables with difference in mean change from baseline (MD) calculated. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models and indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher's method.ResultsSeven RCTs (n=3,301 patients) comparing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and NPH-insulin with different antidiabetic treatments in adult patients with T2DM were included in the final analysis. In the adjusted indirect comparison, there was a significant difference in symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = [0.17, 0.85]) and in confirmed hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = [0.22, 0.96]) favouring lixisenatide over NPH-insulin and comparable changes in HbA1c from baseline (MD = 0.07%; 95% CI = [-0.26%, 0.41%]). In contrast to NPH-insulin, there was a significant reduction in body weight with lixisenatide (MD = -3.62 kg; 95% CI = [-5.86 kg, -1.38 kg]) at study completion. The number of discontinuations due to AEs numerically favoured NPH-insulin over lixisenatide (OR = 2.64; 95% CI = [0.25, 27.96]), with a broad confidence interval.ConclusionsLixisenatide treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a greater weight loss compared with NPH-insulin. Glycaemic control with lixisenatide treatment was comparable with NPH-insulin. These data suggest that lixisenatide is a beneficial treatment option for T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control on OADs, and is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Dataset Information

Progression to insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sitagliptin or sulphonylurea plus metformin dual therapy.

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Progression to insulin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sitagliptin or sulphonylurea plus metformin dual therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets