Type 2 diabetes in older patients: an analysis of the DPV and DIVE databases.

BACKGROUND: The clinical profile differs between old and young patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We explored, based on a large real-world database, patient and disease characteristics and actual treatment patterns by age. METHODS: The analysis was based on the DIVE and DPV registries of patients with T2DM. Patients were analyzed by age groups 50-59 (middle-young), 60-69 (young-old), 70-79 (middle-old), 80-89 (old), and 90 years or more (oldest-old). RESULTS: A total of 396,719 patients were analyzed, of which 17.7% were 50-59 years, 27.7% 60-69 years, 34.3% 70-79 years, 18.3% 80-89 years and 2.0% at least 90 years. We found that (a) T2DM in old and oldest-old patients was characterized much less by the presence of metabolic risk factors such as hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia and smoking than in younger patients; (b) the HbA1c was much lower in oldest-old than in middle-young patients (7.2 ± 1.6% versus 8.0 ± 2.2%; p < 0.001), but it was associated with higher proportions of patients with severe hypoglycemia (7.0 versus 1.6%; p < 0.001); (c) this was potentially associated with the higher and increasing rates of insulin use in older patients (from 17.6% to 37.6%, p < 0.001) and the particular comorbidity profile of these patients, for example, chronic kidney disease (CKD); (d) patients with late diabetes onset had lower HbA1c values, lower bodyweight and less cardiovascular risk factors; (e) patients with a longer diabetes duration had a considerable increase in macrovascular and even more microvascular complications. CONCLUSION: In very old patients there is a need for frequent careful routine assessment and a tailored pharmacotherapy in which patient safety is much more important than blood-glucose-lowering efficacy.

Treatment intensification strategies after initial metformin therapy in adult patients with type-2 diabetes: results of the DPV and DIVE registries.

AIMS: Our study aimed to analyse treatment strategies after failure of initial metformin mono-therapy in adult patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: The DIVE and DPV databases were combined and 16,681 adult patients with T2DM and metformin mono-therapy identified. Patients were analysed depending on whether metformin was continued (MET), or whether it was combined with other oral antidiabetics (OAD), with GLP-1 antagonists (GLP-1) or with basal insulin (BOT/BOT plus). Metabolic control, body weight and hypoglycaemia, micro- and macro-vascular events were compared within 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 11,911 (71%) participants continued MET until the end of the observation period, 3334 (20.0%) were intensified using OAD, 579 (3%) started on GLP-1, and 857 (5%) were initiated on BOT/BOTplus. Predictors of OAD and BOT/BOTplus therapy were elevated HbA1c, longer diabetes duration and the presence of micro- and macro-vascular diseases, while GLP-1 therapy was predicted by younger age, female sex, higher body weight and shorter diabetes duration. Micro- and macro-vascular diseases were negative predictors of GLP-1 therapy. Effects on HbA1c were highest in the BOT/BOTplus and OAD group, while GLP-1 treatment had the best effect on body weight. CONCLUSIONS: BOT/BOTplus and OAD show good HbA1c reduction even in patients with longer diabetes duration and in older patients. GLP-1 therapy is effective concerning weight loss in overweight patients and is more often used in females and patients with shorter diabetes duration. Interestingly, despite several studies showing positive effects on micro- and macro-vascular outcomes, prevalent macro-vascular diseases are no predictors of GLP-1 use.

Characteristics of Patients with Type-1 or Type-2 Diabetes Receiving Insulin Glargine U300: An Analysis of 7268 Patients Based on the DPV and DIVE Registries.

INTRODUCTION: Insulin glargine 300 U/ml (U300) was registered based on the EDITION clinical trial program. The aim of this database analysis was to describe the profile of adult U300 recipients with type-1 (T1DM) or type-2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: The analysis was based on data from the German DIVE/DPV registries. Patients were sampled in May (DIVE) and in March 2018 (DPV) and divided into those who commenced U300 within the 1st year (early adopters) or 2nd year (late adopters). Patients were further compared to patients receiving U100 during the same time period. RESULTS: Among 581,519 adult patients contained in the databases, 7268 with either T1 or T2DM received U300 and 22,050 U100. Baseline characteristics of U300 and U100 recipients did not differ substantially in both types of diabetes. Patients with T2DM had many risk factors and comorbidities. The median HbA1c (both T1DM and T2DM, 8.1% for U300 and 7.9 and 8.3% for U100) and fasting blood glucose values were similar at baseline. Severe hypoglycemia was less prevalent in T2DM and among recipients of U300 (3.1 vs. 3.9%), whereas in T1DM the rate was higher (10.6 vs. 10.1%). There were minor, but clinically probably irrelevant, differences in age and BMI for T1DM and T2DM between the first and second years. Patients with T2DM being initiated in the second year had a higher HbA1c value (8.6 vs. 8.3%) than those initiated during the first year. Patients in clinical practice showed substantially higher HbA1c values in both T1DM and T2DM, and doses used were lower than those reported from the EDITION trial program. U300 patients had a longer diabetes duration (T1 and T2DM), a higher BMI and received higher basal insulin doses (T1 and T2DM) compared to U100. While HbA1c was comparable, the rate of severe hypoglycemia under U300 was reduced in T2DM but not T1DM with or without adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics in T2DM. CONCLUSION: The data confirm the clinical profile documented for U300 in the EDITION studies during the first years of its registration. In an unselected patient population, there was a lesser rate of severe hypoglycemia but at a comparable HbA1c. FUNDING: German Centre for Diabetes Research (DZD) (01GI1106), the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes (EFSD) and the German Diabetes Society (DDG). The DIVE registry (organized as Diabetes Agenda 2010 GmbH, Berlin, Germany) received funding from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott and was conducted under the auspices of diabetesDE.