Jetty A Overbeek1, Edith M Heintjes2, Daniel Prieto-Alhambra3, Patrick Blin4, Régis Lassalle4, Gillian C Hall5, Francesco Lapi6, Elisa Bianchini6, Niklas Hammar7, Irene D Bezemer2, Ron M C Herings8. 1. PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care research, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: jetty.overbeek@pharmo.nl. 2. PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. GREMPAL Research Group, Idiap Jordi Gol and CIBERFes, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain; Musculoskeletal Pharmaco- and Device Epidemiology, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Bordeaux PharmacoEpi, CIC Bordeaux CIC 1401, Bordeaux, France. 5. Grimsdyke House, London, United Kingdom. 6. Health Search, Italian College of General Practitioners and Primary Care, Florence, Italy. 7. AstraZeneca R&D, Mölndal, Sweden; Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 8. PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care research, Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the similarities and differences of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment patterns in daily practice in 5 European countries and whether these reflect differences in guidelines. METHODS: Prescriptions for drugs used in diabetes treatment during a 5-year study period were obtained from electronic databases. Patients initiating T2DM treatment during the study period were included. An SAS analysis tool was developed to create episodes of use of drug classes, which resulted in treatment patterns. FINDINGS: A total of 253,530 patients initiating T2DM treatment during the study period were included; 52% to 55% were male, and the mean age ranged from 62 to 67 years. Metformin was the most common initial treatment in all countries. After initial therapy, most patients in the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom switched to a combination of metformin + a sulfonylurea derivative (SU). In Italy, metformin in combination with an SU was outnumbered by "other treatment," mainly because of repaglinide use. In France, treatments including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were most frequent as second- and fourth-line treatment. Metformin monotherapy was again most commonly observed as the third line of treatment in all countries. Fourth treatment was a combination of metformin + an SU in the Netherlands and Spain; in the United Kingdom and France, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were the most frequently used fourth line of treatment. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a comprehensive overview of T2DM treatment patterns among patients initiating T2DM treatment in 5 European countries. There were differences, especially regarding the uptake of newer incretin-based treatments, which are usually prescribed as a second and/or third treatment in agreement with local guidelines. These variations reflect the differences between the national guidelines of these countries.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the similarities and differences of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment patterns in daily practice in 5 European countries and whether these reflect differences in guidelines. METHODS: Prescriptions for drugs used in diabetes treatment during a 5-year study period were obtained from electronic databases. Patients initiating T2DM treatment during the study period were included. An SAS analysis tool was developed to create episodes of use of drug classes, which resulted in treatment patterns. FINDINGS: A total of 253,530 patients initiating T2DM treatment during the study period were included; 52% to 55% were male, and the mean age ranged from 62 to 67 years. Metformin was the most common initial treatment in all countries. After initial therapy, most patients in the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom switched to a combination of metformin + a sulfonylurea derivative (SU). In Italy, metformin in combination with an SU was outnumbered by "other treatment," mainly because of repaglinide use. In France, treatments including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were most frequent as second- and fourth-line treatment. Metformin monotherapy was again most commonly observed as the third line of treatment in all countries. Fourth treatment was a combination of metformin + an SU in the Netherlands and Spain; in the United Kingdom and France, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were the most frequently used fourth line of treatment. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a comprehensive overview of T2DM treatment patterns among patients initiating T2DM treatment in 5 European countries. There were differences, especially regarding the uptake of newer incretin-based treatments, which are usually prescribed as a second and/or third treatment in agreement with local guidelines. These variations reflect the differences between the national guidelines of these countries.
Authors: Marc Casajuana; Maria Giner-Soriano; Albert Roso-Llorach; Cristina Vedia; Concepció Violan; Rosa Morros Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2018-02-20
Authors: E Losada; B Soldevila; M S Ali; D Martínez-Laguna; X Nogués; M Puig-Domingo; A Díez-Pérez; D Mauricio; D Prieto-Alhambra Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Kyoung Min Kim; Hyun Jin Jin; Seo Yeon Lee; Hyo Jin Maeng; Gha Young Lee; Tae Jung Oh; Sung Hee Choi; Hak Chul Jang; Soo Lim Journal: Endocrinol Metab (Seoul) Date: 2017-09
Authors: Khalid Al-Rubeaan; Faisal A Bana; Fayez G Alruwaily; Eman Sheshah; Dhekra Alnaqeb; Awad M AlQahtani; Diaa Ewais; Nassr Al Juhani; Abdul-Hameed Hassan; Amira M Youssef Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Kamlesh Khunti; Marilia B Gomes; Mikhail Kosiborod; Antonio Nicolucci; Stuart Pocock; Wolfgang Rathmann; Marina V Shestakova; Iichiro Shimomura; Hirotaka Watada; Hungta Chen; Javier Cid-Ruzafa; Peter Fenici; Niklas Hammar; Fengming Tang; Linong Ji Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Aida Moreno-Juste; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Mercedes Aza-Pascual-Salcedo; Francisca González-Rubio; Sara Malo; Julián Librero López; Victoria Pico-Soler; Eva Giménez Labrador; Sara Mucherino; Valentina Orlando; Enrica Menditto; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Antonio Gimeno-Miguel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390