Strategies for overcoming therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To systematically investigate the effect of interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 evaluating the effect of interventions on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control. Characteristics of included studies and HbA1c difference between intervention and control arms (main outcome) were extracted. Interventions were grouped as: care management and patient education; nurse or certified diabetes educator (CDE); pharmacist; or physician-based. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies including 22 243 individuals were combined in nonlinear random-effects meta-regressions; the median (range) duration of intervention was 1 year (0.9 to 36 months). Compared to the control arm, HbA1c reduction ranged from: -17.7 mmol/mol (-1.62%) to -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) for nurse- or CDE-based interventions; -13.1 mmol/mol (-1.20%) to 3.3 mmol/mol (0.30%) for care management and patient education interventions; -9.8 mmol/mol (-0.90%) to -6.6 mmol/mol (-0.60%) for pharmacist-based interventions; and -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) to 2.8 mmol/mol (0.26%) for physician-based interventions. Across the included studies, a reduction in HbA1c was observed only during the first year (6 months: -4.2 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.2, -2.2 [-0.38%, 95% CI -0.56, -0.20]; 1 year: -1.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI -3.3, 0.1 [-0.15%, 95% CI -0.30, 0.01]) and in individuals with preintervention HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective approaches to mitigating therapeutic inertia and improving HbA1c were those that empower nonphysician providers such as pharmacists, nurses and diabetes educators to initiate and intensify treatment independently, supported by appropriate guidelines.

Addressing Therapeutic Inertia in 2020 and Beyond: A 3-Year Initiative of the American Diabetes Association.

Research has shown that getting to glycemic targets early on leads to better outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes; yet, there has been no improvement in the attainment of A1C targets in the past decade. One reason is therapeutic inertia: the lack of timely adjustment to the treatment regimen when a person's therapeutic targets are not met. This article describes the scope and priorities of the American Diabetes Association's 3-year Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia Initiative. Its planned activities include publishing a systematic review and meta-analysis of approaches to reducing therapeutic inertia, developing a registry of effective strategies, launching clinician awareness and education campaigns, leveraging electronic health record and clinical decision-support tools, influencing payer policies, and potentially executing pragmatic research to test promising interventions.

Hypoglycemic Confidence in the Partners of Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: Hypoglycemic confidence (HC) represents the degree to which an individual feels secure regarding his or her ability to stay safe from hypoglycemia-related problems. Self-report scales assessing HC in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have found that greater HC is associated with better glycemic control and that HC rises significantly after real-time continuous glucose monitoring is introduced. To determine whether HC might be similarly meaningful in the partners of T1D adults, we developed the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale for Partners (Partner-HCS). This article describes the construction and validation of the Partner-HCS and examines how HC in T1D partners is related to hypoglycemia-related experience and key psychosocial constructs. Methods: Items were developed from interviews with seven T1D partners, resulting in 12 self-report items. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then conducted on data collected from T1D partners (n = 218). Variables to establish construct validity for the Partner-HCS included partner-reported diabetes distress, hypoglycemic fear, generalized anxiety, and confidence regarding glucagon use, as well as frequency of recent severe hypoglycemia in the T1D adult. Hierarchical regression analyses examined the unique contribution of Partner-HCS scores, independent of hypoglycemic fear, to key psychosocial constructs and hypoglycemia-related factors. Results: EFA of the 12 items yielded a single-factor solution, accounting for 51.2% of the variance. Construct validity was demonstrated by significant univariate associations with key psychosocial constructs. Importantly, Partner-HCS total score was, independent of hypoglycemic fear, significantly associated with diabetes distress (P < 0.05), overall relationship satisfaction (P = 0.004), number of severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 6 months (P < 0.05), and confidence using glucagon (P = 0.007). In total, 38.5% of T1D partners indicated relatively low HC. Conclusions: HC is an important facet of the experiences of T1D partners. It is related to, yet distinct from, hypoglycemic fear. The Partner-HCS is a reliable, valid method for assessing HC in partners of T1D adults.