RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this analysis was to explore whether glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] <7%) and the incidence of hypoglycemia are different between Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM)-only or insulin-only regimens. METHODS: Physicians in nine Chinese cities completed surveys (Adelphi Real World Diabetes Disease Specific Programme) from October 2011 to March 2012. Key information collected included patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, HbA1c levels, and hypoglycemia incidence. Patients receiving OAM-only (n = 1077) or insulin-only (n = 292) regimens for ≥6 months who had most recent HbA1c results available and measured within 3 months of survey completion were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were glycemic control and the incidence of hypoglycemia. Primary (multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders) and sensitivity analyses (propensity score matching method) were performed. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group achieved glycemic control than patients in the OAM-only group (41.8% vs 35.9%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P = 0.013) better glycemic control than OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.48 [1.09, 2.01]). A higher proportion of patients in the insulin-only group experienced hypoglycemia (overall) than patients in the OAM-only group (33.3% vs 14.4%). Insulin-only treatment was associated with significantly (P < 0.001) increased overall hypoglycemia compared with OAM-only treatment (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.38 [1.72, 3.29]). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the primary analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis provide important real-world information on glycemic control and hypoglycemia in Chinese patients with T2DM, which may be useful for guiding evidenced-based management. Notably, Chinese patients with T2DM receiving OAM-only had poorer glycemic control compared with those receiving insulin-only therapy, although patients receiving OAM-only were less likely to experience hypoglycemic events.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare resource utilization among metabolic syndrome (MetS) patients with multiple (≥ 2) lipid disorders (MLD) versus isolated (any 1) lipid disorder (ILD). METHODS: Data for MetS patients on lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) were collected from the 2006 Adelphi Metabolic Syndrome Disease Specific Programme(©) cross-sectional study of patients from 5 European countries. The presence of MetS and lipid disorders, including elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG), and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C), were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program definitions. Analyses compared primary care physician (PCP) and specialist visits over the past 6 months among ILD versus MLD patients. RESULTS: Among 4,836 MetS patients, 2,843 had ≥ 1 lipid disorders and were on LMT. Controlling for other risk factors, MLD patients had significantly higher physician visits than those with ILD (p = 0.009), but hospitalizations were not significantly different. Patients experiencing all 3 lipid disorders had significantly more endocrinologist visits (p = 0.002) as compared with ILD patients, while patients with elevated LDL-C and abnormal HDL-C and/or TG compared with isolated elevated LDL-C had significantly more PCP (p = 0.001) and cardiologist visits (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among MetS patients on LMT, presence of MLD resulted in significantly higher PCP and specialist visits compared with ILD.