BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The impact of the introduction of newer anti-diabetic agents on the treatment pattern in the booming diabetic population remains unclear. We examined the patterns and temporal trends of anti-diabetic drug use in Taiwan, with particular emphasis on combination therapy. METHODS: We searched the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database during 2000-2009 to identify outpatient prescriptions of anti-diabetic drugs, including human insulins and insulin analogues, sulfonylureas, glinides, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Glucose-lowering treatments were classified according to pattern (oral agents only, insulins only, and oral agents and insulins combined) and a number of different classes of anti-diabetic drugs. Insulin therapy and combination therapy with two oral anti-diabetic drugs (OAD) were further classified according to individual drug combination patterns. RESULTS: Although metformin remained the mainstay of anti-diabetic treatment, patients receiving combination therapy of oral glucose-lowering agents, either with or without insulin, significantly increased, from approximately 40% in 2000 to 60% in 2009, particularly in relation to the newer agents, including glinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and long-acting insulin analogues. Use of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones decreased substantially. For insulin therapy, the most commonly prescribed drugs were premix insulin analogues and basal insulin analogues, accounting for one-third of total insulin prescriptions in 2009. CONCLUSION: We found an increasing complexity of anti-diabetic therapy during the past decade in Taiwan. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this treatment pattern will lead to improved clinical outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The impact of the introduction of newer anti-diabetic agents on the treatment pattern in the booming diabetic population remains unclear. We examined the patterns and temporal trends of anti-diabetic drug use in Taiwan, with particular emphasis on combination therapy. METHODS: We searched the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database during 2000-2009 to identify outpatient prescriptions of anti-diabetic drugs, including humaninsulins and insulin analogues, sulfonylureas, glinides, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Glucose-lowering treatments were classified according to pattern (oral agents only, insulins only, and oral agents and insulins combined) and a number of different classes of anti-diabetic drugs. Insulin therapy and combination therapy with two oral anti-diabetic drugs (OAD) were further classified according to individual drug combination patterns. RESULTS: Although metformin remained the mainstay of anti-diabetic treatment, patients receiving combination therapy of oral glucose-lowering agents, either with or without insulin, significantly increased, from approximately 40% in 2000 to 60% in 2009, particularly in relation to the newer agents, including glinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, and long-acting insulin analogues. Use of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones decreased substantially. For insulin therapy, the most commonly prescribed drugs were premix insulin analogues and basal insulin analogues, accounting for one-third of total insulin prescriptions in 2009. CONCLUSION: We found an increasing complexity of anti-diabetic therapy during the past decade in Taiwan. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether this treatment pattern will lead to improved clinical outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Peter Eibich; Amelia Green; Andrew T Hattersley; Christopher Jennison; Mike Lonergan; Ewan R Pearson; Alastair M Gray Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Kiyoshi Kubota; Yukari Kamijima; Yea-Huei Kao Yang; Shinya Kimura; Edward Chia-Cheng Lai; Kenneth K C Man; Patrick Ryan; Martijn Schuemie; Paul Stang; Chien-Chou Su; Ian C K Wong; Yinghong Zhang; Soko Setoguchi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240