32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical inertia on insulin treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients of a tertiary public diabetes center with limited pharmacologic armamentarium from an upper-middle income country

      research-article

      Read this article at

          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

          Clinical inertia is related to the difficulty of achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic control. It has been extensively studied the delay of the period to insulin introduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. This study aims to evaluate clinical inertia of insulin treatment intensification in a group of T2DM patients followed at a tertiary public Diabetes Center with limited pharmacologic armamentarium (Metformin, Sulphonylurea and Human Insulin).

          Methods

          This is a real life retrospective record based study with T2DM patients. Demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics were reviewed. Clinical inertia was considered when the patients did not achieve the individualized glycemic goals and there were no changes on insulin daily dose in the period.

          Results

          We studied 323 T2DM patients on insulin therapy (plus Metformin and or Sulphonylurea) for a period of 2 years. The insulin daily dose did not change in the period and the glycated hemoglobin (A1c) ranged from 8.8  + 1.8% to 8.7 ± 1.7% (basal vs 1st year; ns) and to 8.5 ± 1.8% (basal vs 2nd year; p = 0.035). The clinical inertia prevalence was 65.8% (basal), 61.9% (after 1 year) and 58.2% (after 2 years; basal vs 1st year vs 2nd year; ns). In a subgroup of 100 patients, we also studied the first 2 years after insulin introduction. The insulin daily dose ranged from 0.22 ± 0.12 to 0.32 ± 0.24 IU/kg of body weight/day (basal vs 1st year; p < 0.001) and to 0.39 ± 0.26 IU/kg of body weight/day (basal vs 2nd year; p < 0.05). The A1c ranged from 9.6 + 2.1% to 8.6 + 2% (basal vs 1st year; p < 0.001) and to 8.7 + 1.7% (1st year vs 2nd year; ns). The clinical inertia prevalence was 78.5% (at the moment of insulin therapy introduction), 56.2% (after 1 year; p = 0.001) and 62.2% (after 2 years; ns).

          Conclusion

          Clinical inertia prevalence ranged from 56.2 to 78.5% at different moments of the insulin therapy (first 2 years and long term) of T2DM patients followed at a tertiary public Diabetes Center from an upper-middle income country with limited pharmacologic armamentarium.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13098-018-0382-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

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

          Glycemic Control With Diet, Sulfonylurea, Metformin, or Insulin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes MellitusProgressive Requirement for Multiple Therapies (UKPDS 49)

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Significantly Reduces A1C Levels in Poorly Controlled, Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

            OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months. RESULTS The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: −1.2% (0.09) vs. −0.9% (0.10); Δ = −0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: −1.3% (0.11) vs. −0.8% (0.11); Δ = −0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient’s initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB). CONCLUSIONS Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Clinical inertia to insulin initiation and intensification in the UK: A focused literature review.

              Achieving tight glycaemic control early following the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is key to optimising clinical outcomes, yet many patients and clinicians are reluctant to initiate and intensify insulin therapy. Reasons for this arise primarily from a lack of time, clinical expertise and patient understanding. However, meaningful progress can be achieved with self-management educational programmes soon after diagnosis. Clinician education and training, along with easy-to-use and well-tolerated therapies (for example, those carrying a low risk of hypoglycaemia and/or avoiding weight gain), may also increase the likelihood of patient adherence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                marcelo.aalvarenga@hsl.org.br
                wkomatsu@gmail.com
                jrsa@uol.com.br
                clinicachacra@uol.com.br , antonio.chacra@hotmail.com
                sergio.dib@unifesp.br
                Journal
                Diabetol Metab Syndr
                Diabetol Metab Syndr
                Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
                BioMed Central (London )
                1758-5996
                29 October 2018
                29 October 2018
                2018
                : 10
                : 77
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0001 0514 7202, GRID grid.411249.b, Department of Medicine, Endocrinology Division, Diabetes Center, , UNIFESP (Federal University of São Paulo), ; Rua Estado de Israel, 639 Vila Clementino, São Paulo, SP CEP 04022-001 Brazil
                Article
                382
                10.1186/s13098-018-0382-x
                6206856
                ff1eb07d-035e-4ef2-9a66-af126fd2c1b8
                © 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
                : 23 July 2018
                : 25 October 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Nutrition & Dietetics
                Nutrition & Dietetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article