Maria F Correa1, Yan Li2,3, Hye-Chung Kum4,5,6, Mark A Lawley5,6. 1. Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. 2. Center for Health Innovation, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. yli@nyam.org. 3. Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. yli@nyam.org. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 5. Center for Remote Health Technologies and Systems, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 6. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of newer and better therapeutic options in the management of diabetes. However, a large proportion of diabetes patients still experience delays in intensification of treatment to achieve appropriate blood glucose targets-a phenomenon called clinical inertia. Despite the high prevalence of clinical inertia, previous research has not examined its long-term effects on diabetes-related health outcomes and mortality. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the impact of clinical inertia on the incidence of diabetes-related complications and death. We also examined how the impact of clinical inertia would vary by the length of treatment delay and population characteristics. DESIGN: We developed an agent-based model of diabetes and its complications. The model was parameterized and validated by data from health surveys, cohort studies, and trials. SUBJECTS: We studied a simulated cohort of patients with diabetes in San Antonio, TX. MAIN MEASURES: We examined 25-year incidences of diabetes-related complications, including retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular disease. KEY RESULTS: One-year clinical inertia could increase the cumulative incidences of retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy by 7%, 8%, and 18%, respectively. The effects of clinical inertia could be worse for populations who have a longer treatment delay, are aged 65 years or older, or are non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSION: Clinical inertia could result in a substantial increase in the incidence of diabetes-related complications and mortality. A validated agent-based model can be used to study the long-term effect of clinical inertia and, thus, inform clinicians and policymakers to design effective interventions.
BACKGROUND: There are an increasing number of newer and better therapeutic options in the management of diabetes. However, a large proportion of diabetespatients still experience delays in intensification of treatment to achieve appropriate blood glucose targets-a phenomenon called clinical inertia. Despite the high prevalence of clinical inertia, previous research has not examined its long-term effects on diabetes-related health outcomes and mortality. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the impact of clinical inertia on the incidence of diabetes-related complications and death. We also examined how the impact of clinical inertia would vary by the length of treatment delay and population characteristics. DESIGN: We developed an agent-based model of diabetes and its complications. The model was parameterized and validated by data from health surveys, cohort studies, and trials. SUBJECTS: We studied a simulated cohort of patients with diabetes in San Antonio, TX. MAIN MEASURES: We examined 25-year incidences of diabetes-related complications, including retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, and cardiovascular disease. KEY RESULTS: One-year clinical inertia could increase the cumulative incidences of retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy by 7%, 8%, and 18%, respectively. The effects of clinical inertia could be worse for populations who have a longer treatment delay, are aged 65 years or older, or are non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSION: Clinical inertia could result in a substantial increase in the incidence of diabetes-related complications and mortality. A validated agent-based model can be used to study the long-term effect of clinical inertia and, thus, inform clinicians and policymakers to design effective interventions.
Authors: Catherine C Cowie; Keith F Rust; Danita D Byrd-Holt; Mark S Eberhardt; Katherine M Flegal; Michael M Engelgau; Sharon H Saydah; Desmond E Williams; Linda S Geiss; Edward W Gregg Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Honghong Zhou; Deanna J M Isaman; Shari Messinger; Morton B Brown; Ronald Klein; Michael Brandle; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Hertzel C Gerstein; Michael E Miller; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; J Thomas Bigger; John B Buse; William C Cushman; Saul Genuth; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Denise G Simons-Morton; William T Friedewald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard J Stevens; Ruth L Coleman; Amanda I Adler; Irene M Stratton; David R Matthews; Rury R Holman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Rui Li; Dori Bilik; Morton B Brown; Ping Zhang; Susan L Ettner; Ronald T Ackermann; Jesse C Crosson; William H Herman Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Sanjoy K Paul; Kerenaftali Klein; Brian L Thorsted; Michael L Wolden; Kamlesh Khunti Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 9.951