Search

Objective: The choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes after metformin is guided by overall estimates of glycemic response and side effects seen in large cohorts. A stratified approach to therapy would aim to improve on this by identifying subgroups of patients whose glycemic response or risk of side effects differs markedly. We assessed whether simple clinical characteristics could identify patients with differing glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones.Research Design and Methods: We studied 22,379 patients starting sulfonylurea or thiazolidinedione therapy in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify features associated with increased 1-year HbA1c fall with one therapy class and reduced fall with the second. We then assessed whether prespecified patient subgroups defined by the differential clinical factors showed differing 5-year glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones using individual randomized trial data from ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) (first-line therapy, n = 2,725) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) (second-line therapy, n = 2,222). Further replication was conducted using routine clinical data from GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland) (n = 1,977).Results: In CPRD, male sex and lower BMI were associated with greater glycemic response with sulfonylureas and a lesser response with thiazolidinediones (both P < 0.001). In ADOPT and RECORD, nonobese males had a greater overall HbA1c reduction with sulfonylureas than with thiazolidinediones (P < 0.001); in contrast, obese females had a greater HbA1c reduction with thiazolidinediones than with sulfonylureas (P < 0.001). Weight gain and edema risk with thiazolidinediones were greatest in obese females; however, hypoglycemia risk with sulfonylureas was similar across all subgroups.Conclusions: Patient subgroups defined by sex and BMI have different patterns of benefits and risks on thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea therapy. Subgroup-specific estimates can inform discussion about the choice of therapy after metformin for an individual patient. Our approach using routine and shared trial data provides a framework for future stratification research in type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The impact of taking oral glucose-lowering medicines intermittently, rather than as recommended, is unclear. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using community-acquired U.K. clinical data (Clinical Practice Research Database [CPRD] and GoDARTS database) to examine the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment for type 2 diabetes and investigate its potential impact on HbA1c reduction stratified by type of glucose-lowering medication.Research Design and Methods: Data were extracted for patients treated between 2004 and 2014 who were newly prescribed metformin, sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and who continued to obtain prescriptions over 1 year. Cohorts were defined by prescribed medication type, and good adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio ≥0.8. Linear regression was used to determine potential associations between adherence and 1-year baseline-adjusted HbA1c reduction.Results: In CPRD and GoDARTS, 13% and 15% of patients, respectively, were nonadherent. Proportions of nonadherent patients varied by the oral glucose-lowering treatment prescribed (range 8.6% [thiazolidinedione] to 18.8% [metformin]). Nonadherent, compared with adherent, patients had a smaller HbA1c reduction (0.4% [4.4 mmol/mol] and 0.46% [5.0 mmol/mol] for CPRD and GoDARTs, respectively). Difference in HbA1c response for adherent compared with nonadherent patients varied by drug (range 0.38% [4.1 mmol/mol] to 0.75% [8.2 mmol/mol] lower in adherent group). Decreasing levels of adherence were consistently associated with a smaller reduction in HbA1c.Conclusions: Reduced medication adherence for commonly used glucose-lowering therapies among patients persisting with treatment is associated with smaller HbA1c reductions compared with those taking treatment as recommended. Differences observed in HbA1c responses to glucose-lowering treatments may be explained in part by their intermittent use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Predicting likely durability of glucose-lowering therapies for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) could help inform individualised therapeutic choices.Methods: We used data from UKPDS patients with newly-diagnosed T2D randomised to first-line glucose-lowering monotherapy with chlorpropamide-glibenclamide-basal insulin or metformin. In 2339 participants who achieved one-year HbA1c values <7.5% (<59 mmol/mol)-we assessed relationships between one-year characteristics and time to monotherapy-failure (HbA1c ≥ 7.5% or requiring second-line therapy). Model validation was performed using bootstrap sampling.Results: Follow-up was median (IQR) 11.0 (8.0-14.0) years. Monotherapy-failure occurred in 72%-82%-75% and 79% for those randomised to chlorpropamide-glibenclamide-basal insulin or metformin respectively-after median 4.5 (3.0-6.6)-3.7 (2.6-5.6)-4.2 (2.7-6.5) and 3.8 (2.6- 5.2) years. Time-to-monotherapy-failure was predicted primarily by HbA1c and BMI values-with other risk factors varying by type of monotherapy-with predictions to within ±2.5 years for 55%-60%-56% and 57% of the chlorpropamide-glibenclamide-basal insulin and metformin monotherapy cohorts respectively.Conclusions: Post one-year glycaemic durability can be predicted robustly in individuals with newly-diagnosed T2D who achieve HbA1c values < 7.5% one year after commencing traditional monotherapies. Such information could be used to help guide glycaemic management for individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]