The primary cause of hypoglycaemia in Type 2 diabetes is diabetes medication-in particular, those which raise insulin levels independently of blood glucose, such as sulphonylureas (SUs) and exogenous insulin. The risk of hypoglycaemia is increased in older patients, those with longer diabetes duration, lesser insulin reserve and perhaps in the drive for strict glycaemic control. Differing definitions, data collection methods, drug type/regimen and patient populations make comparing rates of hypoglycaemia difficult. It is clear that patients taking insulin have the highest rates of self-reported severe hypoglycaemia (25% in patients who have been taking insulin for > 5 years). SUs are associated with significantly lower rates of severe hypoglycaemia. However, large numbers of patients take SUs in the UK, and it is estimated that each year > 5000 patients will experience a severe event caused by their SU therapy which will require emergency intervention. Hypoglycaemia has substantial clinical impact, in terms of mortality, morbidity and quality of life. The cost implications of severe episodes-both direct hospital costs and indirect costs-are considerable: it is estimated that each hospital admission for severe hypoglycaemia costs around £1000. Hypoglycaemia and fear of hypoglycaemia limit the ability of current diabetes medications to achieve and maintain optimal levels of glycaemic control. Newer therapies, which focus on the incretin axis, may carry a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. Their use, and more prudent use of older therapies with low risk of hypoglycaemia, may help patients achieve improved glucose control for longer, and reduce the risk of diabetic complications. Diabet. Med. 25, 245-254 (2008)

This is the first hip fracture incidence study from India. Hip fracture incidence rates in Rohtak district of India are intermediate between those in the industrialised world and Africa and similar to some of Asian countries such as China, Iran and South Korea. This study will help in formulating strategies for prevention of hip fracture in India.

PurposeFrequent exacerbations which are both costly and potentially life-threatening are a major concern to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), despite the availability of several treatment options. This study aimed to assess the lifetime costs and outcomes associated with alternative treatment regimens for patients with severe COPD in the UK setting.Patients and methodsA Markov cohort model was developed to predict lifetime costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of various combinations of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and roflumilast in a fully incremental analysis. Patients willing and able to take ICS, and those refusing or intolerant to ICS were analyzed separately. Efficacy was expressed as relative rate ratios of COPD exacerbation associated with alternative treatment regimens, taken from a mixed treatment comparison. The analysis was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Parameter uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsBased on the results of the fully incremental analysis a cost-effectiveness frontier was determined, indicating those treatment regimens which represent the most cost-effective use of NHS resources. For ICS-tolerant patients the cost-effectiveness frontier suggested LAMA as initial treatment. Where patients continue to exacerbate and additional therapy is required, LAMA + LABA/ICS can be a cost-effective option, followed by LAMA + LABA/ICS + roflumilast (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] versus LAMA + LABA/ICS: £16,566 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The ICER in ICS-intolerant patients, comparing LAMA + LABA + roflumilast versus LAMA + LABA, was £13,764/QALY gained. The relative rate ratio of exacerbations was identified as the primary driver of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionThe treatment algorithm recommended in UK clinical practice represents a costeffective approach for the management of COPD. The addition of roflumilast to the standard of care regimens is a clinical and cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe COPD, who continue to exacerbate despite existing bronchodilator therapy.

Because currently available add-on treatments can cause weight gain, physicians initiating add-on therapy in patients who can no longer achieve glycaemic control with metformin are faced with the problem of improving glycaemic control while causing weight gain. Initial clinical trial experience with oral DPP-4 inhibitors such as sitagliptin and vildagliptin suggest that these agents may represent an important oral treatment option for weight-neutral, glycaemic control when added to metformin. The new oral DPP-4 inhibitors, therefore, represent a potentially important addition to the oral treatment options currently available for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Long-term clinical trials are now required to evaluate the relative risk/benefit profile of these drugs compared with the established antihyperglycaemic drug classes.

Chronic kidney disease is generally stable or progressive, although more patients improve disease stage than previously assumed. Data suggest that the introduction of CKD into the QOF has increased awareness of CKD among physicians in the UK, allowing for earlier intervention and better control of CKD progression.

Summary Background:  UK consensus guidelines recommend limited use of self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes using diet and exercise, metformin and/or a glitazone. This analysis quantifies the usage of and costs associated with SMBG in type 2 diabetes according to treatment regimen. Methods:  Prevalence data for diabetes were assessed using UK Quality and Outcomes Framework returns for 2006/2007. Data on current SMBG prescribing expenditure were extracted from UK Prescription Pricing Agency Data for 2007. Prescribing data were extracted from the records of 40,651 patients with diabetes on the IMS Disease Analyzer (MediPlus) database. These were combined to arrive at mean usage and expenditure data per patient, broken down by treatment type. The analysis assumes that it is appropriate to use patients’ treatment regimen alone to compare the frequency of SMBG in clinical practice with the frequency recommended in treatment guidelines; it does not take into account other valid reasons for SMBG. Results:  Mean national expenditure on SMBG was £73.64 per patient per year. Estimated mean weekly test strip usage by treatment was 2.5 (diet), 2.6 (glitazone monotherapy), 3.1 (metformin monotherapy) and 3.5 (sulphonylurea monotherapy). Combination oral therapy ranged from 3.3 to 4.1. Mean annual expenditure in patients with an identified treatment type was £62.06 per patient, ranging from £9.83 for diet‐treated patients to £37.87 for those on triple therapy, with insulin‐treated patients incurring costs 3–5 times higher. Conclusions:  Based on the assumptions that the treatment regimen is the sole factor in determining the appropriate level of SMBG frequency, this study demonstrates that the use of SMBG exceeds current guidelines in certain treatment groups. The study estimates that the potential savings of up to £17 million could be made each year if guidelines were followed more closely. There is a need for further research into SMBG use in patients with type 2 diabetes.

No abstract

BackgroundOlder patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.MethodsIn a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: Mild hyperglycaemia, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents, Comorbidities and polypharmacy, and Patient-related reasons. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.ResultsNon-treatment reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents (46% vs. 38%) and Comorbidities and polypharmacy (33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the Patient-related reasons category. The GP-reported HbA1c threshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).ConclusionsGPs selected reasons related to Mild hyperglycaemia for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA1c value ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.