Search

Aim: To investigate factors associated with delays in receiving glucose‐lowering therapy in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and explore the preferential order and time of intensifications. Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study including 120 409 adults with T2DM initiating first‐ to fourth‐line glucose‐lowering therapy in primary care between 2000 and 2018, using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, Office of National Statistics death registration, and 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation data. Associations were investigated using time‐to‐event analysis. Results: The longest delays to prescription of first‐line therapy were observed in older patients, of black or other ethnicities, and with multimorbidity. People from the most deprived areas received earlier first‐line treatment than those from the least deprived areas. The majority were treated with metformin (82.4%) as the first‐line prescription, sulphonylurea (50.4%) as second‐line, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor (27.7%) as third‐line, and insulin (28.0%) as fourth‐line. In the past 5 years, there was an increase in prescriptions of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4‐inhibitor and sodium‐glucose transport protein‐2 inhibitor. The median time was 0.5 years for first‐line prescription, 4.1 for second‐line, 4.6 for third‐line and 4.7 for fourth‐line. After T2DM diagnosis, 25% of patients developed cardiovascular disease and non‐cardiovascular disease complications within a median time of 12‐14 years, and received intensification 5‐6 years later. Conclusions: Within the complex challenges of managing blood glucose levels and risk of additional comorbidities, future health care research and guidelines should focus on overcoming therapeutic inertia particularly at an earlier stage for older patients, from ethnic minorities and with multimorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide modified release (MR) to sitagliptin as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) treatments in a real‐world patient population. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The cohort consisted of adult patients with T2D newly treated with either gliclazide MR or sitagliptin as second‐line treatment added to metformin and with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of ≥7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Patients were 1:1 matched using high‐dimensional propensity score matching and followed to determine the time taken to reach an HbA1c <7.0%. Secondary outcomes included time to HbA1c ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol), time to ≥1% (11 mmol/mol) HbA1c reduction from baseline, treatment persistence and durability, and hypoglycaemic events. Results: Among the 1986 patients included, those on gliclazide MR more likely achieved an HbA1c <7.0% [hazard ratio (HR): 1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15‐1.57], HbA1c ≤6.5% (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.19‐1.92) or had an HbA1c reduction ≥1% from baseline (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00‐1.24) compared with patients on sitagliptin. Durability (log‐rank P =.135) and persistence (P =.119) were similar between the two groups. Hypoglycaemic events were uncommon (23 total severe and non‐severe events; incidence rate, 3.7 per 1000 patient years), with 4.7 and 2.6 events per 1000 patient years with gliclazide MR and sitagliptin treatment, respectively. Conclusions: In this real‐world study, second‐line gliclazide MR was more effective than sitagliptin in reducing HbA1c, with similar durability and persistence and low rates of hypoglycaemic events, in individuals with T2D on metformin treatment and HbA1c above the target of 7.0%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of accurate self-knowledge of a patient's own HbA1c level (HbA1cSK), as a component of structural education (University Hospital's of Leicester (UHL), 2013) and its association with glycaemic control.Methods: Data from the GUIDANCE study, a cross-sectional study involving 7597 participants from eight European countries was used. HbA1cSK was evaluated and compared with laboratory measured HbA1c levels (HbA1cLAB), which represented the measure of glycaemic control. Accuracy of the self-reported HbA1c was evaluated by using agreement statistical methods.Results: The prevalence of HbA1cSK was 49.4%. Within this group, 78.3% of the participants had accurately reported HbA1cSK. There was good level of agreement between HbA1cSK and HbA1cLAB (intra-class correlation statistic=0.84, p<0.0001). Participants with accurately reported HbA1cSK were found to have a statistically significantly lower HbA1cLAB compared to participants with inaccurately reported HbA1cSK (7.0% versus 7.3%, p<0.001).Conclusion: Nearly half of the patients had self-knowledge of their own HbA1c level. Moreover, the participants with accurately reported HbA1cSK were found to have associated better glycaemic control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]