Assessing the severity of Type 2 diabetes using clinical data-based measures: a systematic review.

AIMS: To identify and critically appraise measures that use clinical data to grade the severity of Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed between inception and June 2018. Studies reporting on clinical data-based diabetes-specific severity measures in adults with Type 2 diabetes were included. We excluded studies conducted solely in participants with other types of diabetes. After independent screening, the characteristics of the eligible measures including design and severity domains, the clinical utility of developed measures, and the relationship between severity levels and health-related outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: We identified 6798 studies, of which 17 studies reporting 18 different severity measures (32 314 participants in 17 countries) were included: a diabetes severity index (eight studies, 44%); severity categories (seven studies, 39%); complication count (two studies, 11%); and a severity checklist (one study, 6%). Nearly 89% of the measures included diabetes-related complications and/or glycaemic control indicators. Two of the severity measures were validated in a separate study population. More severe diabetes was associated with increased healthcare costs, poorer cognitive function and significantly greater risks of hospitalization and mortality. The identified measures differed greatly in terms of the included domains. One study reported on the use of a severity measure prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Health records are suitable for assessment of diabetes severity; however, the clinical uptake of existing measures is limited. The need to advance this research area is fundamental as higher levels of diabetes severity are associated with greater risks of adverse outcomes. Diabetes severity assessment could help identify people requiring targeted and intensive therapies and provide a major benchmark for efficient healthcare services.

Comparative risk of major cardiovascular events associated with second-line antidiabetic treatments: a retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data linked to hospitalization and mortality records.

AIMS: To examine the risk of major cardiovascular events associated with second-line diabetes therapies, in patients with type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for known cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients prescribed second-line regimens between 1998 and 2011 after first-line metformin. The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, with linked national hospitalization and mortality data, for the period up to December 2013, was used. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted time-varying Cox regression models was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for developing a major cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization) associated with second-line therapies. Analyses adjusted for patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, glycated haemoglobin, socio-economic status, ethnicity, smoking status and concurrent medications. RESULTS: A total of 10 118 initiators of a second-line add-on to metformin of either a sulphonylurea (n = 6740), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (n = 1030) or thiazolidinedione (n = 2348) were identified. After a mean (standard deviation) of 2.4 (1.9) years of follow-up, 386, 36 and 95 major cardiovascular events occurred in sulphonylurea-, DPP-4 inhibitor- and thiazolidinedione-initiators, respectively. In comparison with the metformin-sulphonylurea regimen, adjusted HRs were 0.78 (95% CI 0.55; 1.11) for the metformin-DPP-4 inhibitor regimen and 0.68 (95% CI 0.54; 0.85) for the metformin-thiazolidinedione regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Thiazolidinedione add-on treatments to metformin were associated with lower risks of major cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular death compared with sulphonylurea add-on treatment to metformin. Lower, but non-statistically significant, risks were also found with DPP-4 inhibitor add-on therapies.