BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the current status of oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and influencing factors in a real-world setting in China. METHODS: A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received OADs (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed. RESULTS: The most common OADs in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (SUs; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual-drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on SU or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The status of OAD use in China is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real-world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in China.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the current status of oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and influencing factors in a real-world setting in China. METHODS: A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received OADs (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed. RESULTS: The most common OADs in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (SUs; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual-drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on SU or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The status of OAD use in China is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real-world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in China.