4.3 Article

Prescribing practices and clinical predictors of glucose-lowering therapy within the first year in people with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 1546-1554

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.12819

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Danish Agency for Science [09-067009, 09-075724]
  2. Danish Health and Medicines Authority
  3. Danish Diabetes Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To examine prescribing practices and predictors of glucose-lowering therapy within the first year following diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in a clinical care setting. Methods We followed people enrolled in the Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (DD2) cohort from outpatient hospital clinics and general practices throughout Denmark in 2010-2013. We used Poisson regression to compute age-and gender-adjusted risk ratios (RRs). Results Among 1158 new Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients, 302 (26%) did not receive glucose-lowering therapy within the first year, 723 (62%) received monotherapy [685 (95%) with metformin], and 133 (12%) received more than one drug. Predictors of receiving any vs. no therapy and combination vs. monotherapy were: age < 40 years [RR: 1.29 (95% CI: 1.16-1.44) and 3.60 (95% CI: 2.36-5.50)]; high Charlson Comorbidity Index [RRs: 1.20 (95% CI: 1.05-1.38) and 2.08 (95% CI: 1.16-3.72)]; central obesity [RRs: 1.23 (95% CI: 1.04-1.44) and 1.93 (95% CI: 0.76-4.94)]; fasting blood glucose of >= 7.5 mmol/ l [RRs: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42) and 1.94 (95% CI: 1.02-3.71)]; and HbA(1c) = 59 mmol/mol (>= 7.5%) [RR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.20-1.32) and 2.86 (95% CI: 1.97-4.14)]. Weight gain >= 30 kg since age 20, lack of physical exercise and C-peptide of < 300 pmol/l also predicted therapy. Conclusions Comorbidity, young age, central obesity and poor baseline glycaemic control are important predictors of therapy one year after Type 2 diabetes mellitus debut.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available