Background Little is known about the prescription of expensive non-recommended newer long-acting insulins (glargine 300 U/ml and degludec) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Aim To identify practice variation in and practice and patient-related characteristics associated with the prescription of newer long-acting insulins to T2DM patients in primary care. Design and Setting Retrospective cohort study in Dutch general practices (Nivel Primary Care Database). Method The first prescription for intermediate or long-acting insulins in 2018 was identified for patients aged ≥40 using other T2DM drugs. Per practice, the median percentage and interquartile range (IQR) of patients with newer insulin prescriptions were calculated. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and quantify the association of patient and practice characteristics with prescriptions for newer insulins (odds ratio’s (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)). Results 7,757 patients with prescriptions for intermediate or long-acting insulins from 282 general practices were identified. A median percentage of 21.2% (IQR=12.5-36.4%) of all patients prescribed intermediate or long-acting insulins per practice received a prescription for newer insulins. After multilevel modelling, the ICC decreased from 20% to 19%. Female sex (OR=0.77;95%CI=0.69–0.87), age ≥86 years compared to 40-55 years (OR=0.22;95%CI=0.15-0.34), prescriptions for metformin (OR=0.66;95%CI=0.53-0.82), sulphonylurea (OR=0.58;95%CI=0.51-0.66) or other newer T2DM drugs (OR=3.10;95%CI=2.63-3.66) and dispensing practices (OR=1.78;95%CI=1.03-3.10) were associated with the prescription of newer insulins. Conclusion The interpractice variation in the prescription of newer insulins is large and could only be partially explained by patient and practice related differences. This indicates substantial opportunities for improvement.

Background Guideline adherence is generally high in Dutch general practices. However, the prescription of insulins to type 2 diabetes mellitus patients is often not in line with the guideline, which recommends NPH insulin as first choice and discourages newer insulins. This qualitative study aimed to identify the reasons why primary care healthcare professionals prescribe insulins that are not recommended in guidelines. Methods Digital focus groups with primary care practitioners were organised. A topic list was developed, based on reasons for preferred insulins obtained from literature and a priori expert discussions. The discussions were video and audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded with a combination of inductive and deductive codes. Codes were categorized into an existing knowledge, attitudes and behaviour model for guideline non-adherence. Results Four focus groups with eleven general practitioners, twelve practice nurses, six pharmacists, four diabetes nurses and two nurse practitioners were organised. The prescription of non-recommended insulins was largely driven by argumentation in the domain of attitudes. Lack of agreement with the guideline was the most prominent category. Most of those perspectives did not reflect disagreement with the guideline recommendations in general, but were about advantages of non-recommended insulins, which led, according to the healthcare professionals, to better applicability of those insulins to specific patients. The belief that guideline-recommended insulins were less effective, positive experience with other insulins and marketing from pharmaceutical companies were also identified as attitude-related barriers to prescribe guideline-recommended insulins. One additional category in the domain of attitudes was identified, namely the lack of uniformity in policy between healthcare professionals in the same practice. Only a small number of external barriers were identified, focusing on patient characteristics that prevented the use of recommended insulins, the availability of contradictory guidelines and other, mostly secondary care, healthcare providers initiating non-recommended insulins. No knowledge-related barriers were identified. Conclusions The prescription of non-recommended insulins in primary care is mostly driven by lack of agreement with the guideline recommendations and different interpretation of evidence. These insights can be used for the development of interventions to stimulate primary care practitioners to prescribe guideline-recommended insulins.

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals’ opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro‐ and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9‐point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7–9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4–6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline‐MCID. Healthcare professionals’ preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.