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]

Background: Pre-existing comorbidities have been linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection but evidence is sparse on the importance and pattern of multimorbidity (2 or more conditions) and severity of infection indicated by hospitalisation or mortality. We aimed to use a multimorbidity index developed specifically for COVID-19 to investigate the association between multimorbidity and risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods: We used data from the UK Biobank linked to laboratory confirmed test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality data from Public Health England between March 16 and July 26, 2020. By reviewing the current literature on COVID-19 we derived a multimorbidity index including: (1) angina; (2) asthma; (3) atrial fibrillation; (4) cancer; (5) chronic kidney disease; (6) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; (7) diabetes mellitus; (8) heart failure; (9) hypertension; (10) myocardial infarction; (11) peripheral vascular disease; (12) stroke. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to assess the association between multimorbidity and risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (hospitalisation/death). Potential effect modifiers of the association were assessed: age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, smoking status, body mass index, air pollution, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, cardiorespiratory fitness, high sensitivity C-reactive protein.Results: Among 360,283 participants, the median age was 68 [range 48-85] years, most were White (94.5%), and 1706 had severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. The prevalence of multimorbidity was more than double in those with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (25%) compared to those without (11%), and clusters of several multimorbidities were more common in those with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. The most common clusters with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection were stroke with hypertension (79% of those with stroke had hypertension); diabetes and hypertension (72%); and chronic kidney disease and hypertension (68%). Multimorbidity was independently associated with a greater risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted odds ratio 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.70, 2.15] compared to no multimorbidity). The risk remained consistent across potential effect modifiers, except for greater risk among older age. The highest risk of severe infection was strongly evidenced in those with CKD and diabetes (4.93 [95% CI 3.36, 7.22]).Conclusion: The multimorbidity index may help identify individuals at higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and provide guidance for tailoring effective treatment. [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]

In this study we aim to identify the factors associated with treatment inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have been recently started on basal insulin (BI). Using UK CPRD GOLD, we identified adults with T2DM with suboptimal glycaemia (HbA1c within 12 months of BI ≥ 7% (≥53 mmol/mol)). We used multivariable Cox regression model to describe the association between patient characteristics and the time to treatment intensification. A total of 12,556 patients were analysed. Compared to individuals aged < 65 years, those aged ≥ 65 years had lower risk of treatment intensification (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.64–0.73). Other factors included being female (0.93, 0.89–0.99), longer T2DM duration (0.99, 0.98–0.99), living in the most deprived areas (0.90, 0.83–0.98), being a current smoker (0.91, 0.84–0.98), having one (0.91, 0.85–0.97) or more than one comorbidity (0.88, 0.82–0.94), and patients who were on metformin (0.71, 0.63–0.80), or 2nd generation sulphonylureas (0.85; 0.79–0.92) or DPP4 inhibitors (0.87, 0.82–0.93) compared to those who were not. Therapeutic inertia still remains a major barrier, with multiple factors associated with delay in intensification. Interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia need to be implemented at both patient and health care professional level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]