OBJECTIVE: To compare the coverage rate of the hypoglycemic agents base on 2009 and 2012 versions of the national essential medicine list among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Beijing communities. METHODS: A total of 900 patients with T2DM were enrolled in the study from four community health service centers in Beijing and followed up for one year. The following data were collected and analyzed, including patients characteristics, the proportion of patients with glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) less than 7% and the coverage rate of the hypoglycemic agents. RESULTS: (1) The coverage rate of using the hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list was significantly higher than that in 2009 version (91.4% vs 42.9%, χ(2) = 481.09, P < 0.05). The coverage rates of the seven hypoglycemic agents in national essential medicine list were significantly different (χ(2) = 1519.65, P < 0.05) . The coverage rates of acarbose (48.9%), metformin(40.7%) and human insulin (31.1%) were higher than those of glimepiride (9.4%), glipizide (3.0%), glibenclamide (0.6%) and animal insulin (0.2%). (2) After one year follow-up, the proportion of the patients with HbA1c less than 7% was higher than that at the baseline(53.6% vs 32.3%, χ(2) = 77.26, P < 0.05). The coverage rate of using the hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list was significantly higher than that in 2009 version (85.5% vs 37.4%, χ(2) = 376.367, P < 0.05). The coverage rates of acarbose (49.7%), metformin (36.3%) and insulin (30.4%) were still higher than those of glimepiride (6.3%), glipizide (2.2%) , glibenclamide (0.4%) and animal insulin(0.0%). CONCLUSION: The hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list could meet the current need of the type 2 diabetes patients in Beijing communities better than those in 2009 version.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the coverage rate of the hypoglycemic agents base on 2009 and 2012 versions of the national essential medicine list among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Beijing communities. METHODS: A total of 900 patients with T2DM were enrolled in the study from four community health service centers in Beijing and followed up for one year. The following data were collected and analyzed, including patients characteristics, the proportion of patients with glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) less than 7% and the coverage rate of the hypoglycemic agents. RESULTS: (1) The coverage rate of using the hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list was significantly higher than that in 2009 version (91.4% vs 42.9%, χ(2) = 481.09, P < 0.05). The coverage rates of the seven hypoglycemic agents in national essential medicine list were significantly different (χ(2) = 1519.65, P < 0.05) . The coverage rates of acarbose (48.9%), metformin(40.7%) and humaninsulin (31.1%) were higher than those of glimepiride (9.4%), glipizide (3.0%), glibenclamide (0.6%) and animal insulin (0.2%). (2) After one year follow-up, the proportion of the patients with HbA1c less than 7% was higher than that at the baseline(53.6% vs 32.3%, χ(2) = 77.26, P < 0.05). The coverage rate of using the hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list was significantly higher than that in 2009 version (85.5% vs 37.4%, χ(2) = 376.367, P < 0.05). The coverage rates of acarbose (49.7%), metformin (36.3%) and insulin (30.4%) were still higher than those of glimepiride (6.3%), glipizide (2.2%) , glibenclamide (0.4%) and animal insulin(0.0%). CONCLUSION: The hypoglycemic agents in 2012 version of the national essential medicine list could meet the current need of the type 2 diabetespatients in Beijing communities better than those in 2009 version.