Literature DB >> 32234720

Use of Antihyperglycemic Medications in U.S. Adults: An Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Phuc Le1, Alexander Chaitoff2, Anita D Misra-Hebert3, Wen Ye4, William H Herman4,5, Michael B Rothberg3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: 1) To examine trends in the use of diabetes medications and 2) to determine whether physicians individualize diabetes treatment as recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2003-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. We included people ≥18 years who had ever been told they had diabetes, had an HbA1c >6.4%, or had a fasting plasma glucose >125 mg/dL. Pregnant women and patients aged <20 years receiving only insulin were excluded. We assessed trends in use of ADA's seven preferred classes from 2003-2004 to 2015-2016. We also examined use by hypoglycemia risk (sulfonylureas, insulin, and meglitinides), weight effect (sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones [TZDs], insulin, and meglitinides), cardiovascular benefit (canagliflozin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide), and cost (brand-name medications and insulin analogs).
RESULTS: The final sample included 6,323 patients. The proportion taking any medication increased from 58% in 2003-2004 to 67% in 2015-2016 (P < 0.001). Use of metformin and insulin analogs increased, while use of sulfonylureas, TZDs, and human insulin decreased. Following the 2012 ADA recommendation, the choice of drug did not vary significantly by older age, weight, or presence of cardiovascular disease. Patients with low HbA1c, or HbA1c <6%, and age ≥65 years were less likely to receive hypoglycemia-inducing medications, while older patients with comorbidities were more likely. Insurance, but not income, was associated with the use of higher-cost medications.
CONCLUSIONS: Following ADA recommendations, the use of metformin increased, but physicians generally did not individualize treatment according to patients' characteristics. Substantial opportunities exist to improve pharmacologic management of diabetes.
© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32234720     DOI: 10.2337/dc19-2424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diabetes Care        ISSN: 0149-5992            Impact factor:   19.112


  14 in total

1.  Cobalamin Intake and Related Biomarkers: Examining Associations With Mortality Risk Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in NHANES.

Authors:  Shanjie Wang; Ye Wang; Xin Wan; Junchen Guo; Yiying Zhang; Maoyi Tian; Shaohong Fang; Bo Yu
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Cynthia Delgado; Mukta Baweja; Deidra C Crews; Nwamaka D Eneanya; Crystal A Gadegbeku; Lesley A Inker; Mallika L Mendu; W Greg Miller; Marva M Moxey-Mims; Glenda V Roberts; Wendy L St Peter; Curtis Warfield; Neil R Powe
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 10.121

Review 3.  Effect of metformin on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  José Gerardo González-González; Ricardo Cesar Solis; Alejandro Díaz González-Colmenero; Karina Raygoza-Cortez; Pablo J Moreno-Peña; Alicia L Sánchez; Rozalina G McCoy; Naykky Singh Ospina; Spyridoula Maraka; Juan P Brito; René Rodriguez-Gutierrez
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 8.180

Review 4.  Sex-related differences in diabetic kidney disease: A review on the mechanisms and potential therapeutic implications.

Authors:  Federica Piani; Isabella Melena; Kalie L Tommerdahl; Natalie Nokoff; Robert G Nelson; Meda E Pavkov; Daniël H van Raalte; David Z Cherney; Richard J Johnson; Kristen J Nadeau; Petter Bjornstad
Journal:  J Diabetes Complications       Date:  2020-12-31       Impact factor: 2.852

5.  Durability of Triple Combination Therapy Versus Stepwise Addition Therapy in Patients With New-Onset T2DM: 3-Year Follow-up of EDICT.

Authors:  Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; Curtiss Puckett; John Adams; Ahmad Khattab; Gozde Baskoy; Eugenio Cersosimo; Curtis Triplitt; Ralph A DeFronzo
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin as second-line therapy for treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Authors:  Odette Reifsnider; Anuraag Kansal; Pratik Pimple; Valerie Aponte-Ribero; Sarah Brand; Sharash Shetty
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2020-12-15       Impact factor: 6.577

7.  A 52-week randomized controlled trial of ipragliflozin or sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes combined with metformin: The N-ISM study.

Authors:  Masaru Kitazawa; Takashi Katagiri; Hiromi Suzuki; Satoshi Matsunaga; Mayuko H Yamada; Tomoo Ikarashi; Masahiko Yamamoto; Kazuo Furukawa; Midori Iwanaga; Mariko Hatta; Kazuya Fujihara; Takaho Yamada; Shiro Tanaka; Hirohito Sone
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 6.577

8.  Trends in Insulin Types and Devices Used by Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in the United States, 2016 to 2020.

Authors:  Sudipa Sarkar; James Heyward; G Caleb Alexander; Rita R Kalyani
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-10-01

9.  Hospital utilization for hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes using pooled data from six health systems.

Authors:  Scott J Pilla; Jennifer L Kraschnewski; Erik B Lehman; Lan Kong; Erica Francis; Jennifer M Poger; Cindy L Bryce; Nisa M Maruthur; Hsin-Chieh Yeh
Journal:  BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care       Date:  2021-12

10.  Compared to commercially insured patients, Medicare advantage patients adopt newer diabetes drugs more slowly and adhere to them less.

Authors:  James H Flory; Jing Li; Ghadeer K Dawwas; Charles E Leonard
Journal:  Endocrinol Diabetes Metab       Date:  2021-04-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.