Comparison of effectiveness and drug cost between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and biguanide as the first-line anti-hyperglycaemic medication among Japanese working generation with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) is widely used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in several countries such as Japan, whereas biguanide (BG; mostly metformin) is recommended as a first-line antidiabetic medication in many countries according to evidence mainly from Western countries. Although previous studies reported that DPP4i may be more efficacious for East Asians, direct comparisons of effectiveness and cost between DPP4i and BG have never been conducted in East Asia. METHODS: We extracted claims and medical check-up data (observation period from January 2010 to March 2016) of adult patients under 70 years old with T2DM who received DPP4i or BG as first-line antidiabetic drugs. Changes in HbA1c and BMI before and 2 years after the first prescription and annual cost of antidiabetic medication during the second year were compared between the DPP4i and BG groups. RESULTS: We extracted 1034 patients who received DPP4i and 365 patients who received BG as the first antidiabetic medication (male sex, 83.0% and 84.9%; HbA1c (mean [SD]), 7.7 [1.4]% and 7.9 [1.4]%; BMI, 26.6 [4.5] kg/m2 and 28.1 [4.3] kg/m2 ). After propensity score matching, changes in HbA1c and BMI were not significantly different between the groups (HbA1c, -0.67% vs -0.80% [P = .28]; BMI, -0.3 kg/m2 vs -0.4 kg/m2 [P = .42]). Annual cost of antidiabetic drugs was significantly higher in the DPP4i group (US $458.7 vs 273.3 [P < .001]). Many patients continued each medication at the follow-up visit (78.3% of the DPP4i group and 73.7% of the BG groups). CONCLUSIONS: The first antidiabetic prescription for the patient was mostly continued thereafter. BG may be recommendable as the first-line medication for patients with T2DM, especially for middle-aged, male population with greater BMI. It is worth addressing the discrepancy between practice in Japan and that recommended in international guidelines.

Variation in process quality measures of diabetes care by region and institution in Japan during 2015-2016: An observational study of nationwide claims data.

AIMS: To calculate process quality measures of diabetes care in Japan using nationwide exclusive claims database. METHODS: Using the National Database of health insurance claims during 2015-2016, the proportions of outpatients who received recommended examinations at least annually among those with regular antidiabetic medication were calculated as quality indicators, reported altogether and by prefecture and institutional certification (from the Japan Diabetes Society). Distributions of institutional-level quality indicators were also reported. RESULTS: Among 4,154,452 outpatients, 96.7% underwent HbA1c or glycated albumin examination. Retinopathy examination was conducted among 46.5% of patients [prefecture (range): 37.5%-51.0%, institutional certification: 44.8% (without) vs. 59.8% (with)]. Urinary qualitative examination was conducted among 67.3% of patients at institutions with <200 beds (prefecture: 54.1%-81.9%, institutional certification: 66.8% vs. 92.8%), whereas urinary quantitative albumin or protein examination was conducted among 19.4% of patients (prefecture: 10.8%-31.6%, institutional certification: 18.7% vs. 54.8%). Distributions of institutional-level quality indicators showed that most institutions without institutional certification seldomly order urinary quantitative examination. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality indicator for glycaemic control examination was favourable, some aspects of diabetes care were suboptimal and varied greatly by prefecture and institution; individual and organisational efforts to improve quality of diabetes care would be needed in Japan.