Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fail to achieve glycaemic control promptly after diagnosis and do not receive timely treatment intensification. This may be in part due to 'clinical inertia', defined as the failure of healthcare providers to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated. Physician-, patient- and healthcare-system-related factors all contribute to clinical inertia. However, decisions that appear to be clinical inertia may, in fact, be only 'apparent' clinical inertia and may reflect good clinical practice on behalf of the physician for a specific patient. Delay in treatment intensification can happen at all stages of treatment for people with T2DM, including prescription of lifestyle changes after diagnosis, introduction of pharmacological therapy, use of combination therapy where needed and initiation of insulin. Clinical inertia may contribute to people with T2DM living with suboptimal glycaemic control for many years, with dramatic consequences for the patient in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality, and for public health because of the huge costs associated with uncontrolled T2DM. Because multiple factors can lead to clinical inertia, potential solutions most likely require a combination of approaches involving fundamental changes in medical care. These could include the adoption of a person-centred model of care to account for the complex considerations influencing treatment decisions by patients and physicians. Better patient education about the progressive nature of T2DM and the risks inherent in long-term poor glycaemic control may also reinforce the need for regular treatment reviews, with intensification when required

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: Clinical consequences and strategies for improvement

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formula-tions) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients’ adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient’s therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes

Five-year survival and causes of death in patients on home parenteral nutrition for severe chronic and benign intestinal failure

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is the primary treatment for chronic intestinal failure (IF). Intestinal transplantation (ITx) is indicated when there is an increased risk of death due to HPN complications or to the underlying disease. Age, pathophysiologic conditions and underlying disease are known predictors of HPN dependency and overall survival. Although the cause of death on HPN is mostly related to underlying disease in these patients, the relationship between mortality and duration of HPN use remains unclear. The purpose of the present study is to describe factors associated with survival and HPN dependency as well as causes of death in adult patients requiring HPN for chronic intestinal failure during the first 5 years of treatment with HPN. A multicenter international (European and USA) questionnaire-based retrospective follow-up of a cohort of 472 IF patients who started HPN was conducted between June and December 2000. Study endpoint was either end of 5-year follow-up, weaned-off HPN, ITx, or death on HPN. Data were analyzed for HPN dependence and overall survival using Kaplan-Meier models and log rank tests. The overall survival probability was 88%, 74% and 64% at 1, 3 and 5 years respectively. Survival was inversely related to age (p < .001) and higher in patients with Crohn's disease or chronic idiopathic pseudo-obstruction. A total of 169 (36.5%) patients were weaned-off HPN mainly (80%) within the first year and most frequently in patients with fistulae. Five of the 14 patients who underwent ITx died. By the end of the study, 104 (23%) of patients died on HPN; 65% of deaths occurred within the first 2.5 years of HPN. Younger ages at HPN initiation and underlying pathologies are significantly predictive of survival on HPN. Risk of death is greatest during the first 2 years of HP