M Vernet Vernet1, M J Sender Palacios2, L Bautista Galí2, P Larrosa Sàez2, J Vargas Sánchez2. 1. Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria, Centro de Atención Primaria Terrassa Nord, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, España. Electronic address: mvernet@cst.cat. 2. Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria, Centro de Atención Primaria Terrassa Nord, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, España.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess therapeutic inertia (TI) in the management of type 2 diabetic patients (DM2), as regards glycemic and lipid control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients were studied. Group 1: All the patients were older than 14 years, diagnosed with DM2 up to 28th February 2013, and their last determination of HbA1c was ≥ 8.5%. Group 2: All patients, under 60 years old, diagnosed with DM2 between the 1st January 2011 and the 31st December 2012, with no chronic complications and their last determination of HbA1c was ≥ 6.5%. RESULTS: Group 1: 253 patients were included (13% of DM2 diagnosed). TI was 43% for DM2, 83% for LDL cholesterol, and 80% for triglycerides. TI was lower (P=.037) in patients with HbA1c ≥ 10%. There was no difference in TI as regards the management of lipid profile depending on the HbA1c levels. Group 2: All DM2 patients (n=53) who met inclusion criteria were assessed (2.7% of DM2 diagnosed). Percentage of visits of those patients that had TI: 55% for DM2, 63% for LDL cholesterol and 64% for triglycerides. A more intense therapy was observed in patients with HbA1c>7.5% in 3 of the 5 visits made. CONCLUSIONS: TI in both groups was high and there is a lack of recording the reasons for this. It is important to improve the attitude of the professionals who care for the diabetic population.
OBJECTIVE: To assess therapeutic inertia (TI) in the management of type 2 diabeticpatients (DM2), as regards glycemic and lipid control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients were studied. Group 1: All the patients were older than 14 years, diagnosed with DM2 up to 28th February 2013, and their last determination of HbA1c was ≥ 8.5%. Group 2: All patients, under 60 years old, diagnosed with DM2 between the 1st January 2011 and the 31st December 2012, with no chronic complications and their last determination of HbA1c was ≥ 6.5%. RESULTS: Group 1: 253 patients were included (13% of DM2 diagnosed). TI was 43% for DM2, 83% for LDL cholesterol, and 80% for triglycerides. TI was lower (P=.037) in patients with HbA1c ≥ 10%. There was no difference in TI as regards the management of lipid profile depending on the HbA1c levels. Group 2: All DM2patients (n=53) who met inclusion criteria were assessed (2.7% of DM2 diagnosed). Percentage of visits of those patients that had TI: 55% for DM2, 63% for LDL cholesterol and 64% for triglycerides. A more intense therapy was observed in patients with HbA1c>7.5% in 3 of the 5 visits made. CONCLUSIONS: TI in both groups was high and there is a lack of recording the reasons for this. It is important to improve the attitude of the professionals who care for the diabetic population.