Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 May;19(5):644-653. doi: 10.1111/dom.12867. Epub 2017 Feb 23.

Managing glycaemia in older people with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective, primary care-based cohort study, with economic assessment of patient outcomes.

Author information

1
Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd, Cardiff, UK.
2
School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
3
Department of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
4
Swansea Centre for Health Economics, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
5
Diabetes Resource Centre, Llandough Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
6
Global Outcomes Research, Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd, London, UK.
7
Foundation for Diabetes Research in Older People, Diabetes Frail Ltd, Worcester, UK.

Abstract

AIMS:

To describe the relative health and economic outcomes associated with different second-line therapeutic approaches to manage glycaemia in older type 2 diabetes patients requiring escalation from metformin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink database was used to inform a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin monotherapy requiring escalation (addition or switch) to a second-line oral regimen from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Primary outcomes included time to first event (any event, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, or composite of MI/stroke [major adverse cardiovascular event; MACE]) and total event rate. The health economic consequences associated with the choice of second-line treatment in older patients were assessed using the CORE Diabetes Model.

RESULTS:

A total of 10 484 patients were included; the majority escalated to second-line treatment with metformin + sulphonylurea (SU; 42%) or switched to SU monotherapy (28%). In multivariate adjusted analyses, total event rates for MACE with metformin + dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor were significantly lower than with metformin + SU (0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.98), driven by a lower MI rate in the metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor group (0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.99). Economic analyses estimated that metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was associated with the largest gain in health benefit, and cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable (<£30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year) for all second-line treatment scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS:

With respect to treatment choice, data from the present study support the notion of prescribing beyond metformin + SU, as alternative regimens have been shown to be associated with reduced outcomes risk and value for money.

KEYWORDS:

management; metformin; older patients; second-line; type 2 diabetes

PMID:
28026911
PMCID:
PMC5412932
DOI:
10.1111/dom.12867
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center