17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Control of glycemia and blood pressure in British adults with diabetes mellitus and subsequent therapy choices: a comparison across health states

      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

          Background

          To examine the intensity of glycemic and blood pressure control in British adults with diabetes mellitus and whether control levels or treatment deintensification rates differ across health states.

          Methods

          Retrospective cohort study using primary care electronic medical records (the United Kingdom Health Improvement Network Database) for adults with diabetes diagnosed at least 6 months before the index HbA1C and systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements (to give their primary care physicians time to achieve treatment goals). We used prescribing records for 6 months pre/post the index measurements to determine who had therapy subsequently deintensified (based on “glycemic therapy score” and “antihypertensive therapy score” derived from number and dosage of medications).

          Results

          Of 292,170 individuals with diabetes, HbA1C < 6% or SBP < 120 mmHg after at least 6 months of management was less common in otherwise fit patients (15.0 and 12.7%) than in those who were mildly frail (16.6 and 13.2%) or moderately–severely frail (20.2 and 17.0%, both p < 0.0001). In the next 6 months, only 44.7% of those with HbA1C < 6% had glycemic therapy reduced (44.4% of fit, 47.1% of mildly frail, and 41.5% of moderate-severely frail patients) and 39.8% of those with SBP < 120 had their antihypertensives decreased (39.3% of fit, 43.0% of mildly frail, and 46.7% of moderate-severely frail patients). On the other hand, more individuals exhibited higher than recommended levels for HbA1C or SBP after the first 6 months of therapy (37.3, 33.4, and 31.3% of fit, mildly frail, and moderately–severely frail patients had HbA1C > 7.5% and 46.6, 51.4, and 48.5% had SBP > 140 mmHg). The proportions of patients with HbA1C or SBP out of recommended treatment ranges changed little 6 months later despite frequent (median 14 per year) primary care visits.

          Conclusions

          Glycemic and hypertensive control exhibited statistically significant but small magnitude differences across frailty states. Medication deintensification was uncommon, even in frail patients below SBP and HbA1C targets. SBP levels were more likely to be outside recommended treatment ranges than glycemic levels.

          Trial registration As this study is a retrospective secondary analysis of electronic medical record data and not a health care intervention trial it was not registered

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-018-0673-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          Survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study.

          Results of intervention studies in patients with type 2 diabetes have led to concerns about the safety of aiming for normal blood glucose concentrations. We assessed survival as a function of HbA(1c) in people with type 2 diabetes. Two cohorts of patients aged 50 years and older with type 2 diabetes were generated from the UK General Practice Research Database from November 1986 to November 2008. We identified 27 965 patients whose treatment had been intensified from oral monotherapy to combination therapy with oral blood-glucose lowering agents, and 20 005 who had changed to regimens that included insulin. Those with diabetes secondary to other causes were excluded. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Age, sex, smoking status, cholesterol, cardiovascular risk, and general morbidity were identified as important confounding factors, and Cox survival models were adjusted for these factors accordingly. For combined cohorts, compared with the glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) decile with the lowest hazard (median HbA(1c) 7.5%, IQR 7.5-7.6%), the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality in the lowest HbA(1c) decile (6.4%, 6.1-6.6) was 1.52 (95% CI 1.32-1.76), and in the highest HbA(1c) decile (median 10.5%, IQR 10.1-11.2%) was 1.79 (95% CI 1.56-2.06). Results showed a general U-shaped association, with the lowest HR at an HbA(1c) of about 7.5%. HR for all-cause mortality in people given insulin-based regimens (2834 deaths) versus those given combination oral agents (2035) was 1.49 (95% CI 1.39-1.59). Low and high mean HbA(1c) values were associated with increased all-cause mortality and cardiac events. If confirmed, diabetes guidelines might need revision to include a minimum HbA(1c) value. Eli Lilly and Company. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            The effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on diabetes care remains unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of QI strategies on glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), vascular risk management, microvascular complication monitoring, and smoking cessation in patients with diabetes. We identified studies through Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database (from inception to July 2010), and references of included randomised clinical trials. We included trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, health-care professionals, or patients to improve management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. We reviewed 48 cluster randomised controlled trials, including 2538 clusters and 84,865 patients, and 94 patient randomised controlled trials, including 38,664 patients. In random effects meta-analysis, the QI strategies reduced HbA(1c) by a mean difference of 0·37% (95% CI 0·28-0·45; 120 trials), LDL cholesterol by 0·10 mmol/L (0·05-0.14; 47 trials), systolic blood pressure by 3·13 mm Hg (2·19-4·06, 65 trials), and diastolic blood pressure by 1·55 mm Hg (0·95-2·15, 61 trials) versus usual care. We noted larger effects when baseline concentrations were greater than 8·0% for HbA(1c), 2·59 mmol/L for LDL cholesterol, and 80 mm Hg for diastolic and 140 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure. The effectiveness of QI strategies varied depending on baseline HbA(1c) control. QI strategies increased the likelihood that patients received aspirin (11 trials; relative risk [RR] 1·33, 95% CI 1·21-1·45), antihypertensive drugs (ten trials; RR 1·17, 1·01-1·37), and screening for retinopathy (23 trials; RR 1·22, 1·13-1·32), renal function (14 trials; RR 128, 1·13-1·44), and foot abnormalities (22 trials; RR 1·27, 1·16-1·39). However, statin use (ten trials; RR 1·12, 0·99-1·28), hypertension control (18 trials; RR 1·01, 0·96-1·07), and smoking cessation (13 trials; RR 1·13, 0·99-1·29) were not significantly increased. Many trials of QI strategies showed improvements in diabetes care. Interventions targeting the system of chronic disease management along with patient-mediated QI strategies should be an important component of interventions aimed at improving diabetes management. Interventions solely targeting health-care professionals seem to be beneficial only if baseline HbA(1c) control is poor. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care and the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (now Alberta Innovates--Health Solutions). Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Antihypertensive medications and serious fall injuries in a nationally representative sample of older adults.

              IMPORTANCE The effect of serious injuries, such as hip fracture and head injury, on mortality and function is comparable to that of cardiovascular events. Concerns have been raised about the risk of fall injuries in older adults taking antihypertensive medications. The low risk of fall injuries reported in clinical trials of healthy older adults may not reflect the risk in older adults with multiple chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE To determine whether antihypertensive medication use was associated with experiencing a serious fall injury in a nationally representative sample of older adults. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND SETTING Competing risk analysis as performed with propensity score adjustment and matching in the nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey cohort during a 3-year follow-up through 2009. Participants included 4961 community-living adults older than 70 years with hypertension. EXPOSURES Antihypertensive medication intensity based on the standardized daily dose for each antihypertensive medication class that participants used. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Serious fall injuries, including hip and other major fractures, traumatic brain injuries, and joint dislocations, ascertained through Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims. RESULTS Of the 4961 participants, 14.1% received no antihypertensive medications; 54.6% were in the moderate-intensity and 31.3% in the high-intensity antihypertensive groups. During follow-up, 446 participants (9.0%) experienced serious fall injuries, and 837 (16.9%) died. The adjusted hazard ratios for serious fall injury were 1.40 (95% CI, 1.03-1.90) in the moderate-intensity and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.91-1.80) in the high-intensity antihypertensive groups compared with nonusers. Although the difference in adjusted hazard ratios across the groups did not reach statistical significance, results were similar in the propensity score-matched subcohort. Among 503 participants with a previous fall injury, the adjusted hazard ratios were 2.17 (95% CI, 0.98-4.80) for the moderate-intensity and 2.31 (95% CI, 1.01-5.29) for the high-intensity antihypertensive groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Antihypertensive medications were associated with an increased risk of serious fall injuries, particularly among those with previous fall injuries. The potential harms vs benefits of antihypertensive medications should be weighed in deciding to continue treatment with antihypertensive medications in older adults with multiple chronic conditions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (780) 492-9824 , Finlay.McAlister@ualberta.ca
                bcletheb@ucalgary.ca
                wrightcj@ucalgary.ca
                tyler.williamson@ucalgary.ca
                mwloweri@ucalgary.ca
                Journal
                Cardiovasc Diabetol
                Cardiovasc Diabetol
                Cardiovascular Diabetology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1475-2840
                12 February 2018
                12 February 2018
                2018
                : 17
                : 27
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.17089.37, Division of General Internal Medicine, , 5-134C Clinical Sciences Building, University of Alberta, ; 11350 83 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G3 Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.17089.37, Patient Health Outcomes Research and Clinical Effectiveness Unit, , 5-134C Clinical Sciences Building, University of Alberta, ; 11350 83 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G3 Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Clinical Research Unit, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; Calgary, Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7435-3341
                Article
                673
                10.1186/s12933-018-0673-4
                5808447
                29433515
                579eaa25-a309-48cf-bca0-c87107ce75e9
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 January 2018
                : 7 February 2018
                Categories
                Original Investigation
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                glycemic control,hypertension,database research,pharmaco-epidemiology,diabetes mellitus,treatment,targets,deintensification

                Comments

                Comment on this article