4.7 Article

The burden of treatment failure in type 2 diabetes

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages 1535-1540

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.7.1535

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - in type 2 diabetes, therapies to maintain blood glucose control usually fail after several years. We estimated the glycerine burden that accumulates from treatment failure and describe the time course and predictors of failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A prospective, population-based Study using retrospective observational data. We identified all 7,208 complete Courses of treatment with nondrug therapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, metformin monotherapy, and combination oral antihyperglycemic therapy between 1994 and 2002, inclusive, among members of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest Region. We calculated mean cumulative glycerine burden, defined as HbA(1c)-months >8.0 or 7.0% for each treatment. We then Measured the likelihood that the next HbA(1c) would exceed 8.0 and 7.0% after HbA(1c) exceeded each of ten hypothetical treatment thresholds. Finally, we estimated multivariate logistic regression models to predict when HbA(1c) would continue to deteriorate. RESULTS - In this well-controlled population, the average patient accumulated nearly 5 HbA(1c)-years of excess glycerine burden >8.0% from diagnosis until starting insulin and about 10 HbA(1c)-years of burden >7.0%. Whenever patients crossed the American Diabetes Association-recommended treatment threshold of 8.0%, their next HbA(1c) result was as likely to be <8.0 as >8.0%. Multivariate prediction models had highly statistically significant coefficients, but predicted <10% of the variation in future HbA(1c) results. CONCLUSIONS - Clinicians should change glucose-lowering treatments in type 2 diabetes much sooner or use treatments that are less likely to fail. An action point at 7.0% or lower is more likely to prevent additional deterioration than the traditional action point of 8.0%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available