OBJECTIVETo determine time to treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes treated with one, two, or three oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) and associated levels of glycemic control.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis was a retrospective cohort study based on 81,573 people with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink between January 2004 and December 2006, with follow-up until April 2011.RESULTSIn people with HbA1c ≥7.0, ≥7.5, or ≥8.0% (≥53, ≥58, or ≥64 mmol/mol), median time from above HbA1c cutoff to intensification with an additional OAD was 2.9, 1.9, or 1.6 years, respectively, for those taking one OAD and >7.2, >7.2, and >6.9 years for those taking two OADs. Median time to intensification with insulin was >7.1, >6.1, or 6.0 years for those taking one, two, or three OADs. Mean HbA1c at intensification with an OAD or insulin for people taking one, two, or three OADs was 8.7, 9.1, and 9.7%. In patients taking one, two, or three OADs, median time from treatment initiation to intensification with an OAD or insulin exceeded the maximum follow-up time of 7.2 years. The probability of patients with poor glycemic control taking one, two, or three OADs, intensifying at end of follow-up with an OAD, was 21.1–43.6% and with insulin 5.1–12.0%.CONCLUSIONSThere are delays in treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes despite suboptimal glycemic control. A substantial proportion of people remain in poor glycemic control for several years before intensification with OADs and insulin.

Background:The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of delay in treatment intensification (IT; clinical inertia) in conjunction with glycaemic burden on the risk of macrovascular events (CVE) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. Methods:A retrospective cohort study was carried out using United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including T2DM patients diagnosed from 1990 with follow-up data available until 2012. Results:In the cohort of 105,477 patients mean HbA1c was 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at diagnosis, 11% had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 7.1% experienced at least one CVE during 5.3 years of median follow-up. In patients with HbA1c consistently above 7/7.5% (53/58 mmol/mol, n = 23,101/11,281) during 2 years post diagnosis, 26/22% never received any IT. Compared to patients with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol), in patients with HbA1c ≥7% (≥53 mmol/ mol), a 1 year delay in receiving IT was associated with significantly increased risk of MI, stroke, HF and composite CVE by 67% (HR CI: 1.39, 2.01), 51% (HR CI: 1.25, 1.83), 64% (HR CI: 1.40, 1.91) and 62% (HR CI: 1.46, 1.80) respectively. One year delay in IT in interaction with HbA1c above 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was also associated with similar increased risk of CVE. Conclusions:Among patients with newly diagnosed T2DM, 22% remained under poor glycaemic control over 2 years, and 26% never received IT. Delay in IT by 1 year in conjunction with poor glycaemic control significantly increased the risk of MI, HF, stroke and composite CVE.

OBJECTIVEHypoglycemia has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality. This study assessed whether, in a nationally representative population, there is an association between hypoglycemia, the risk of CV events, and all-cause mortality among insulin-treated people with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis retrospective cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database and included all insulin-treated patients ( ‡30 years of age) with a diagnosis of diabetes. RESULTSIn patients who experienced hypoglycemia, hazard ratios (HRs) for CV events in people with type 1 diabetes were 1.51 (95% CI 0.83, 2.75; P = ns) and 1.61 (1.17, 2.22), respectively, for those with and without a history of CV disease (CVD) before the index date. In people with type 2 diabetes, the HRs for patients with and without a history of CVD were 1.60 (1.21, 2.12) and 1.49 (1.23, 1.82), respectively. For all-cause mortality, HRs in people with type 1 diabetes were 1.98 (1.25, 3.17), and 2.03 (1.66, 2.47), respectively, for those with and without a history of CVD. Among people with type 2 diabetes, HRs were 1.74 (1.39, 2.18) and 2.48 (2.21, 2.79), respectively, for those with and without a history of CVD. The median time (interquartile range) from first hypoglycemia event to first CV event was 1.5 years (0.5, 3.5 years) and 1.5 years (0.5, 3.0 years), respectively, for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONSHypoglycemia is associated with an increased risk of CV events and all-cause mortality in insulin-treated patients with diabetes. The relationship between hypoglycemia and CV outcomes and mortality exists over a long period.Hypoglycemia is associated with a number of blood glucose-lowering therapies, but is a particular problem for patients receiving insulin therapy. As the most effective method of lowering blood glucose levels, insulin therapy is an essential element of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes and longer-duration type 2 diabetes. However, hypoglycemia is a major obstacle to achieving optimal glycemic control (1-4).

AimsThe purpose of this study was to explore the burden and impact of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycaemic events (NSNHEs) on diabetes management, patient functioning and well-being in order to better understand the role that NSNHEs play in caring for persons with diabetes and facilitate optimal diabetes treatment management strategies.MethodsA 20-min survey assessing the impact of NSNHEs was administered to patients with self-reported diabetes age 18 or older via the Internet in nine countries (USA, UK, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Sweden) who experienced an NSNHE in the last month. Questions captured reasons for and length of the event, and impacts on diabetes management, daily function, sleep and well-being.ResultsA total of 20 212 persons with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were screened of which 2108 respondents were eligible. Respondents initiated, on average, an additional 3.6 glucose monitoring tests, and did not resume usual functioning for an average of 3.4 hours after the NSNHE. Of the respondents using insulin, 15.8% decreased their insulin dose over an average of 3.6 days. NSNHEs also impacted sleep, with 10.4% not returning to sleep that night. Next day functioning was affected with 60.3% (n = 1273) feeling the need to take a nap and/or rest (with 65.5% of those actually taking a nap/rest) and 40.2% (n = 848) wanting to go to bed earlier than usual. A total of 21.4% were restricted in their driving the next day. These events also resulted in decreased well-being with 39.6% of respondents feeling ‘emotional low’ the following day.ConclusionsNSNHEs have serious consequences for patients. Greater attention to patient and physician education regarding the burden of NSNHEs and incorporation of corrective actions in treatment plans is needed to facilitate patients reaching optimal glycaemic control.

No abstract