15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Glycaemic control and antidiabetic treatment trends in primary care centres in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during 2007–2013 in Catalonia: a population-based study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To assess trends in prescribing practices of antidiabetic agents and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

          Design

          Cross-sectional analysis using yearly clinical data and antidiabetic treatments prescribed obtained from an electronic population database.

          Setting

          Primary healthcare centres, including the entire population attended by the Institut Català de la Salut in Catalonia, Spain, from 2007 to 2013.

          Participants

          Patients aged 31–90 years with a diagnosis of T2DM.

          Results

          The number of registered patients with T2DM in the database was 257 072 in 2007, increasing up to 343 969 in 2013. The proportion of patients not pharmacologically treated decreased by 9.7% (95% CI −9.48% to −9.92%), while there was an increase in the percentage of patients on monotherapy (4.4% increase; 95% CI 4.16% to 4.64%), combination therapy (2.8% increase; 95% CI 2.58% to 3.02%), and insulin alone or in combination (increasing 2.5%; 95% CI 2.2% to 2.8%). The use of metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors increased gradually, while sulfonylureas, glitazones and α-glucosidase inhibitors decreased. The use of glinides remained stable, and the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists was still marginal. Regarding glycaemic control, there were no relevant differences across years: mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value was around 7.2%; the percentage of patients reaching an HbA1c≤7% target ranged between 52.2% and 55.6%; and those attaining their individualised target from 72.8% to 75.7%.

          Conclusions

          Although the proportion of patients under pharmacological treatment increased substantially over time and there was an increase in the use of combination therapies, there have not been relevant changes in glycaemic control during the 2007–2013 period in Catalonia.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.

          Treatment with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin is known to improve glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but which treatment most frequently attains target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) below 7% is unknown. To assess how often each therapy can achieve the glycemic control target levels set by the American Diabetes Association. Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1977 and 1997. Patients were recruited between 1977 and 1991 and were followed up every 3 months for 3, 6, and 9 years after enrollment. Outpatient diabetes clinics in 15 UK hospitals. A total of 4075 patients newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes ranged in age between 25 and 65 years and had a median (interquartile range) FPG concentration of 11.5 (9.0-14.4) mmol/L [207 (162-259) mg/dL], HbA1c levels of 9.1% (7.5%-10.7%), and a mean (SD) body mass index of 29 (6) kg/m2. After 3 months on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet, patients were randomized to therapy with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin. Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c levels, and the proportion of patients who achieved target levels below 7% HbA1c or less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) FPG at 3, 6, or 9 years following diagnosis. The proportion of patients who maintained target glycemic levels declined markedly over 9 years of follow-up. After 9 years of monotherapy with diet, insulin, or sulfonylurea, 8%, 42%, and 24%, respectively, achieved FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 9%, 28%, and 24% achieved HbA1c levels below 7%. In obese patients randomized to metformin, 18% attained FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 13% attained HbA1c levels below 7%. Patients less likely to achieve target levels were younger, more obese, or more hyperglycemic than other patients. Each therapeutic agent, as monotherapy, increased 2- to 3-fold the proportion of patients who attained HbA1c below 7% compared with diet alone. However, the progressive deterioration of diabetes control was such that after 3 years approximately 50% of patients could attain this goal with monotherapy, and by 9 years this declined to approximately 25%. The majority of patients need multiple therapies to attain these glycemic target levels in the longer term.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of antidiabetic drugs in the U.S., 2003-2012.

            To describe market trends for antidiabetic drugs, focusing on newly approved drugs, concomitant use of antidiabetic drugs, and effects of safety concerns and access restrictions on thiazolidinedione use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases.

              General practice computers have been widely used in the United Kingdom for the last 10 years and there are over 30 different systems currently available. The commercially available databases are based on two of the most widely used systems--VAMP Medical and Meditel. These databases provide both longitudinal and cross-sectional data on between 1.8 and 4 million patients. Despite their availability only limited use has been made of them for epidemiological and health service research purposes. They are a unique source of population-based information and deserve to be better recognized. The advantages of general practice databases include the fact that they are population based with excellent prescribing data linked to diagnosis, age and gender. The problems are that their primary purpose is patient care and the database population is constantly changing, as well as the usual problems of bias and confounding that occur in any observational studies. The barriers to the use of general practice databases include the cost of access, the size of the databases and that they are not structured in a way that easily allows analysis. Proper utilization of these databases requires powerful computers, staff proficient in writing computer programs to facilitate analysis and epidemiologists skilled in their use. If these structural problems are overcome then the databases are an invaluable source of data for epidemiological studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                5 October 2016
                : 6
                : 10
                : e012463
                Affiliations
                [1 ]DAP-Cat group. Unitat de Suport a la Recerca Barcelona Ciutat, Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP Jordi Gol) , Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Diabetes y Enfermedades Metabólicas Asociadas (CIBERDEM), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) , Spain
                [3 ]Primary Health Care Center La Mina, Gerència d’Àmbit d'Atenció Primària Barcelona Ciutat, Institut Català de la Salut , Sant Adrià de Besòs, Spain
                [4 ]Primary Health Care Center Raval Sud, Gerència d’Àmbit d'Atenció Primària Barcelona Ciutat, Institut Català de la Salut , Barcelona, Spain
                [5 ]Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Epidemiologia i Salut Pública , Sant Cugat, Spain
                [6 ]Department of Endocrinology & Nutrition, Health Sciences Research Institute & Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol , Badalona, Spain
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Dídac Mauricio; didacmauricio@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-012463
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012463
                5073475
                27707830
                40862abc-3d8f-478f-8e52-8467cd230b55
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 29 April 2016
                : 3 August 2016
                : 13 September 2016
                Categories
                Diabetes and Endocrinology
                Research
                1506
                1843
                1723

                Medicine
                antidiabetics,prescription,glycemic control,type 2 diabetes mellitus,primary care
                Medicine
                antidiabetics, prescription, glycemic control, type 2 diabetes mellitus, primary care

                Comments

                Comment on this article