| Literature DB >> 26446552 |
Jason P Gordon1,2, Marc Evans3, Jorge Puelles4, Philip C McEwan5,6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to (a) assess the factors associated with weight gain in a population of type 2 diabetes patients escalating from metformin (M) to M+ sulfonylurea (M + S) and (b) evaluate whether healthcare resource utilization associated with being overweight or obese is underestimated in typical health economic evaluations.Entities:
Keywords: Diabetes modeling; Therapy escalation; Type 2 diabetes; Weight gain
Year: 2015 PMID: 26446552 PMCID: PMC4674479 DOI: 10.1007/s13300-015-0134-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Ther Impact factor: 2.945
Fig. 1Flow diagram of study cohort selection with inclusion/exclusion criteria. M + S metformin + sulfonylurea
Baseline profile by BMI category
| Normal (BMI 18.5–25) | Overweight (BMI 25–30) | Obese (BMI 30–35) | Severe obese (BMI 35+) | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Age (years) | 65.84 | 12.61 | 62.65 | 11.16 | 60.35 | 10.81 | 57.10 | 10.67 | 60.74 | 11.41 |
| Female (%) | 41% | – | 32% | – | 38% | – | 49% | – | 39% | – |
| Current smoker (%) | 5% | – | 6% | – | 6% | – | 6% | – | 6% | |
| Duration diabetes (years) | 6.41 | 5.85 | 5.62 | 3.82 | 5.32 | 3.83 | 4.75 | 3.51 | 5.36 | 3.98 |
| Weight (kg) | 66.82 | 9.20 | 80.62 | 10.15 | 92.75 | 11.53 | 112.82 | 18.39 | 92.15 | 19.56 |
| HbA1c | ||||||||||
| % | 8.53 | 1.62 | 8.53 | 1.44 | 8.73 | 1.69 | 8.88 | 1.52 | 8.70 | 1.57 |
| mmol/mol | 70 | 70 | 72 | 74 | 72 | |||||
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.33 | 0.39 | 1.19 | 0.31 | 1.14 | 0.28 | 1.12 | 0.28 | 1.17 | 0.31 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.29 | 0.82 | 2.27 | 0.80 | 2.30 | 0.86 | 2.34 | 0.81 | 2.30 | 0.83 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.27 | 1.36 | 27.74 | 1.37 | 32.25 | 1.41 | 40.03 | 5.02 | 32.16 | 6.12 |
| Prior complications (%) | 32% | – | 30% | – | 29% | – | 25% | – | 28% | – |
| Respiratory/cerebrovascular complications (%) | 8% | – | 7% | – | 6% | – | 7% | – | 7% | – |
| Vascular complications (%) | 25% | – | 25% | – | 25% | – | 20% | – | 24% | – |
| History CAD | 18% | – | 17% | – | 17% | – | 15% | – | 17% | – |
| History CHF | 3% | – | 3% | – | 2% | – | 3% | – | 3% | – |
| History neuropathy | 1% | – | 1% | – | 1% | – | 1% | – | 1% | – |
| History stroke | 4% | – | 3% | – | 3% | – | 2% | – | 3% | – |
| History retinopathy | 13% | – | 12% | – | 10% | – | 9% | – | 10% | – |
| History nephropathy | <1% | – | <1% | – | <1% | – | <1% | – | <1% | – |
Variable definitions: ‘Prior complications’ (pre-index history of CAD, CHF, neuropathy, stroke, retinopathy, nephropathy),‘Respiratory/cerebrovascular complications’ (=asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease), ‘Vascular complications’ (=CAD, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, microalbuminuria, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy). History refers to history in 12-months prior to index date
BMI body mass index, CAD coronary artery disease, CHF congestive heart failure, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c, HDL-C high density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, SD standard deviation
aOverall n: 10,907 patients had a BMI record at baseline
Baseline factors predictive of weight gain
| Odds Ratio | 95% CI (lower) | 95% CI (upper) | Pr (>ΙzΙ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.99 | <0.001 |
| Gender (female vs male) | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.91 | <0.001 |
| HbA1c (%) | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.16 | <0.001 |
CI confidence interval, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c, Pr (>ΙzΙ) probability being greater than z and less than −z, where z is the value of the standard normal distribution
Fig. 2Comparison of observed incidence rate of hospital admissions stratified by BMI for myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, amputation, blindness and end-stage renal disease with CPRD/HES compared to the incidence rate predicted by the CDM. BMI body mass index, CDM IMS CORE Diabetes Model, CPRD/HES Clinical Practice Research Datalink/Hospital Episode Statistics
Fig. 3Comparison of Kaplan–Meier observed survival plot for all-cause mortality (with 95% upper and lower confidence intervals) compared to output from the CDM. CDM IMS CORE Diabetes Model, CPRD Clinical Practice Research Datalink, LCL lower confidence limit, M + S metformin + sulfonylurea, UCL upper confidence limit