Wolfgang Rathmann1, Stefan Pscherer2, Marcel Konrad3, Karel Kostev4. 1. German Diabetes Center, Institute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, Düsseldorf, Germany. 2. Clinical Diabetes Center, Traunstein, Germany. 3. Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Idstein, Germany. 4. Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Idstein, Germany; IMS Health, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: kkostev@de.imshealth.com.
Abstract
AIMS: Aim of this study were to compare outcomes (HbA1c, BMI) and antidiabetic treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with and without schizophrenia under real-life conditions in primary care practices in Germany. METHODS: 1321 type 2 diabetes patients with and 1321 matched controls (age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetologist care, practice) without schizophrenia in 1072 general practices throughout Germany were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyser: 01/2009-12/2013). Antidiabetic treatment, HbA1c and BMI were compared using paired t-tests, McNemar tests and conditional logistic regression adjusting for macro- and microvascular comorbidity (ICD-10). RESULTS: Mean age (±SD) of patients and controls was 67.4±13.2 years (males: 38.9%). Diabetes duration was 5.7±4.3 years, 6% were in diabetologist care. Private health insurance was less often found among patients with schizophrenia than controls (2.2% vs 6.3%; p<0.0001). There was no difference in the mean HbA1c values (cases: 7.1±1.4%; controls: 7.2±1.5%) (54.1 vs. 55.2 mmol/mol) (p=0.8797) and in the average BMI (32.4±6.6 vs. 31.0±5.0 kg/m(2); p=0.2072) between the two groups. Novel cost-intensive antidiabetic agents (DPP-4- or SGLT2-inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists) were less often prescribed in cases (15.3 vs. 18.3%; p=0.0423). However, in multivariable logistic regression, schizophrenia (odds ratio, 95%CI: 1.101; 0.923-1.317) was not associated with prescription use of novel antidiabetic agents (reference: other antidiabetic agents) after adjusting for private health insurance (OR: 2.139; 1.441-3.177) and comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that type 2 diabetes patients with schizophrenia have worse diabetes control than those without a severe mental illness in general practices.
AIMS: Aim of this study were to compare outcomes (HbA1c, BMI) and antidiabetic treatment of type 2 diabetespatients with and without schizophrenia under real-life conditions in primary care practices in Germany. METHODS: 1321 type 2 diabetespatients with and 1321 matched controls (age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetologist care, practice) without schizophrenia in 1072 general practices throughout Germany were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyser: 01/2009-12/2013). Antidiabetic treatment, HbA1c and BMI were compared using paired t-tests, McNemar tests and conditional logistic regression adjusting for macro- and microvascular comorbidity (ICD-10). RESULTS: Mean age (±SD) of patients and controls was 67.4±13.2 years (males: 38.9%). Diabetes duration was 5.7±4.3 years, 6% were in diabetologist care. Private health insurance was less often found among patients with schizophrenia than controls (2.2% vs 6.3%; p<0.0001). There was no difference in the mean HbA1c values (cases: 7.1±1.4%; controls: 7.2±1.5%) (54.1 vs. 55.2 mmol/mol) (p=0.8797) and in the average BMI (32.4±6.6 vs. 31.0±5.0 kg/m(2); p=0.2072) between the two groups. Novel cost-intensive antidiabetic agents (DPP-4- or SGLT2-inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists) were less often prescribed in cases (15.3 vs. 18.3%; p=0.0423). However, in multivariable logistic regression, schizophrenia (odds ratio, 95%CI: 1.101; 0.923-1.317) was not associated with prescription use of novel antidiabetic agents (reference: other antidiabetic agents) after adjusting for private health insurance (OR: 2.139; 1.441-3.177) and comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that type 2 diabetespatients with schizophrenia have worse diabetes control than those without a severe mental illness in general practices.
Authors: Hayley McBain; Frederique Lamontagne-Godwin; Mark Haddad; Alan Simpson; Jacqui Chapman; Julia Jones; Chris Flood; Kathleen Mulligan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 2.692