Trends in Insulin Initiation and Treatment Intensification Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
- 674 Downloads
Many patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require insulin, yet little is known about the patterns and quality of pharmacologic care received following insulin initiation. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that insulin secretagogues such as sulfonylureas be discontinued at the time of insulin initiation to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia, and that treatment be intensified if HbA1c levels remain above-target 3 months after insulin initiation.
To describe pharmacologic treatment patterns over time among adults initiating insulin and/or intensifying insulin treatment.
A large commercially insured population of adult patients without recorded type 1 diabetes who initiated insulin.
We evaluated changes in non-insulin antidiabetic medication use during the 120 days immediately following insulin initiation, rates of increase in insulin dose and/or dosing frequency during the 270 days following an insulin initiation treatment period of 90 days, and rates of insulin discontinuation.
Seven thousand, nine hundred and thirty-two patients initiated insulin during 2003–2008, with the majority (61 %) initiating basal insulin only. Metformin (55 %), sulfonylureas (39 %), and thiazolidinediones (30 %) were commonly used prior to insulin initiation. Metformin was continued by 64 % of patients following mixed or mealtime insulin initiation; the continuation rate was nearly as high for sulfonylureas (58 %). Insulin dose and/or dosing frequency increased among 22.9 % of patients. Insulin was discontinued by 27 % of patients.
We found evidence of substantial departures from guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy. Insulin secretagogues were frequently co-prescribed with insulin. The majority of patients had no evidence of treatment intensification following insulin initiation, although this finding is difficult to interpret without HbA1c levels. While each patient’s care should be individualized, our data suggest that the quality of care following insulin initiation can be improved.
KeywordsMetformin Sulfonylurea Insulin Glargine Exenatide Basal Insulin
This work was funded by a grant to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Eli Lilly for the MOSAIc study, F3Z-MC-B010. The authors retained independent and complete control over the design and implementation of the study, as well as the analyses and writing of the manuscript, the manuscripts contents, and the decision to publish. Eli Lilly reviewed the manuscript, but the final decision to publish and decision as to what was published were retained by the study authors. ARP takes full responsibility for the work as a whole, including study design, access to data, and the decision to submit and publish the paper. ARP and JMP designed the study, analyzed the data, and drafted the paper. JL analyzed the data and reviewed the paper. MAF, NKC, WHS, JDS, and JA provided clinical and epidemiologic input to the study design and reviewed/edited the paper.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes: Successes and Opportunities for Population-Based Prevention and Control, 2011.Google Scholar
- 5.Nathan DM, et al. Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(1):193–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Nathan DM, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(8):1963–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Gough S, Frandsen KB, Toft AD. Failure of insulin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a population-based study in American diabetes association, 66th Scientific Sessions. Washington, DC; 2006.Google Scholar