4.7 Article

Use of Antidiabetic Drugs in the U. S., 2003-2012

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 1367-1374

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2289

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVETo 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.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSNationally projected data on antidiabetic prescriptions for adults dispensed from U.S. retail pharmacies were extracted from IMS Health Vector One National and Total Patient Tracker for 2003-2012 and from Encuity Research Treatment Answers and Symphony Health Solutions PHAST Prescription Monthly for 2012.RESULTSSince 2003, the number of adult antidiabetic drug users increased by 42.9% to 18.8 million in 2012. Metformin use increased by 97.0% to 60.4 million prescriptions dispensed in retail pharmacies in 2012. Among antidiabetic drugs newly approved for marketing between 2003 and 2012, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin had the largest share with 10.5 million prescriptions in 2012. Rosiglitazone use plummeted to <13,000 prescriptions dispensed in retail or mail-order pharmacies in 2012. Concomitancy analyses showed that 44.9% of metformin use was for monotherapy. Between 33.4 and 48.1% of sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, thiazolidinedione, and glucagon-like peptide 1 analog use was not accompanied by metformin.CONCLUSIONSThe antidiabetic drug market is characterized by steady increases in volume, and newly approved drugs experienced substantial uptake, especially DPP-4 inhibitors. The use of rosiglitazone has been negligible since restrictions were put in place in 2011. Further study is needed to understand why one-third to one-half of other noninsulin antidiabetic drug use was not concomitant with metformin use despite guidelines recommending that metformin be continued when other agents are added to treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据