Evaluating glycaemic control in patients poorly controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs in real-world setting: Results from assessing the Appropriate Timing of Type 2 diAbetes INtensification (ATTAIN)

Edward B Jude; Caroline O'Leary; Melissa Myland; Mark Nixon; Nick Gooch; Alka Shaunik; Elisheva Lew

doi:10.1002/edm2.94

Evaluating glycaemic control in patients poorly controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs in real-world setting: Results from assessing the Appropriate Timing of Type 2 diAbetes INtensification (ATTAIN)

Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2019 Sep 29;3(1):e00094. doi: 10.1002/edm2.94. eCollection 2020 Jan.

Authors

Edward B Jude¹, Caroline O'Leary², Melissa Myland², Mark Nixon², Nick Gooch³, Alka Shaunik⁴, Elisheva Lew⁵

Affiliations

¹ Diabetes Centre Tameside General Hospital Ashton-under-Lyne UK.
² IQVIA London UK.
³ Sanofi Guildford UK.
⁴ Sanofi Bridgewater NJ USA.
⁵ Sanofi Chilly-Mazarin France.

PMID: 31922021
PMCID: PMC6947702
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.94

Abstract

Introduction: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) fail to achieve glycaemic control despite recommended treatment strategies to reduce glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). This real-world retrospective cohort study compared HbA1c change and treatment patterns between those intensifying and not intensifying therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

Materials and methods: Patients suboptimally controlled on OADs (>58 mmol/mol [>7.5%] or >64 mmol/mol [>8.0%] for high risk, index 1) were included from IQVIA Medical Research Data. Intensifiers within 12 months of index 1 were matched (1:1) to nonintensifiers. Primary outcomes were HbA1c change and proportion of participants achieving HbA1c targets 6 and 12 months post-index 2 (date of intensification [intensifiers] or pseudodate [nonintensifiers]). Therapy adherence was also assessed.

Results: A total of 10 832 participants (5539 intensifiers and 5293 nonintensifiers) were included. Mean HbA1c decrease from baseline to 6 months was -1.13% (intensifiers) vs -0.75% (nonintensifiers), with no substantial further change at 12 months. Cox proportional hazards (PH) analysis suggested a nearly 20% greater chance of target achievement at 6 months for intensifiers vs nonintensifiers (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.79 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.86]), which was similar at 12 months (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.74-0.86]). Intensifiers tended towards greater adherence to baseline therapy (90% [standard deviation (SD): 14.9] vs nonintensifiers 87% [SD: 16.0]), which decreased following intensification.

Conclusions: Significant reductions in HbA1c were evident at 6 months and were greater in intensifiers vs nonintensifiers. Little additional clinical benefit was seen 12 months postintensification. Despite good treatment adherence, many participants failed to achieve target HbA1c; actions beyond improved adherence are needed to improve suboptimal HbA1c.

Keywords: adherence; electronic medical records; glycaemic control; oral antidiabetic drugs; real‐world study; treatment intensification; type 2 diabetes melitus.