Utilization of diabetes medication and cost of testing supplies in Saskatchewan, 2001

The purpose of this study was to describe the patterns of antidiabetic medication use and the cost of testing supplies in Canada using information collected by Saskatchewan's Drug Plan (DP) in 2001. The diabetes cohort (n = 41,630) included individuals who met the National Diabetes Surveillance System (NDSS) case definition. An algorithm was then used to identify subjects as having type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Among those identified as having type 2 diabetes (n = 37,625), 38% did not have records for antidiabetic medication in 2001. One-third of patients with type 2 diabetes received monotherapy. Metformin, alone or in combination with other medications, was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication. Just over one-half of the all patients with diabetes had a DP records for diabetes testing supplies. For individuals (n = 4,005) with type 1 diabetes, 79% had a DP record for supplies, with an average annual cost of $472 ±$560. For type 2 diabetes, 50% had records for testing supplies, with an average annual cost of $122 ±$233. Those individuals with type 2 diabetes who used insulin had higher testing supply costs than those on oral antidiabetic medication alone ($359 vs$131; p < 0.001)

Prevalence of Fracture Risk Factors in Postmenopausal Women Enrolled in the POSSIBLE US Treatment Cohort

Experience (POSSIBLE US) were used to assess the prevalence of risk factors (RFs) and on-study fracture. RFs assessed at study entry were age &gt;70 years; fracture since age 50; minimum T-score (hip/spine) ≤ −2.5 at diagnosis; body mass index &lt;18.5 kg/m 2 ; rheumatoid arthritis; parental history of hip fracture; current smoking; and recent oral glucocorticoid use. Data were collected with semiannual self-administered questionnaires. Results were stratified by physician-reported osteoporosis/osteopenia diagnosis. Low T-score and age &gt;70 years were the most common RFs in the osteoporosis group, and age &gt;70 years and prior fracture were the most common risk factors in the osteopenia group. Multiple RFs were more common than a single RF in osteoporotic women (54.2% versus 34.6%; &lt; 0.0001) but not osteopenic women (13.8% versus 33.6%; &lt; 0.0001). Women with multiple RFs had more on-study osteoporosis-related fractures than women with a single RF (osteoporosis group: 9.9% versus 6.2%; = 0.0092; osteopenia group: 11.2% versus 4.7%; &lt; 0.0001). In postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment, multiple RFs increased fracture risk. RFs, in addition to bone mineral density, can help identify candidates for osteoporosis treatment

Prevalence of Fracture Risk Factors in Postmenopausal Women Enrolled in the POSSIBLE US Treatment Cohort

Subject- and physician-reported data from 4,429 postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment in the Prospective Observational Scientific Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience (POSSIBLE US) were used to assess the prevalence of risk factors (RFs) and on-study fracture. RFs assessed at study entry were age >70 years; fracture since age 50; minimum T-score (hip/spine) ≤−2.5 at diagnosis; body mass index 70 years were the most common RFs in the osteoporosis group, and age >70 years and prior fracture were the most common risk factors in the osteopenia group. Multiple RFs were more common than a single RF in osteoporotic women (54.2% versus 34.6%; P<0.0001) but not osteopenic women (13.8% versus 33.6%; P<0.0001). Women with multiple RFs had more on-study osteoporosis-related fractures than women with a single RF (osteoporosis group: 9.9% versus 6.2%; P=0.0092; osteopenia group: 11.2% versus 4.7%; P<0.0001). In postmenopausal women receiving osteoporosis treatment, multiple RFs increased fracture risk. RFs, in addition to bone mineral density, can help identify candidates for osteoporosis treatment

Reasons given by general practitioners for non-treatment decisions in younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a survey study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are less likely to receive antihyperglycaemic therapy compared to their younger counterparts. The purpose of this study was to assess the reasons of general practitioners (GPs) for not treating younger and older patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with antihyperglycaemic agents.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a survey conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, 358 GPs from the United Kingdom selected reasons for not initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy in younger (< 65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and untreated with any antihyperglycaemic agent for at least six months following diagnosis. Thirty-six potential reasons were classified into four major categories: <it>Mild hyperglycaemia</it>, <it>Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents</it>, <it>Comorbidities and polypharmacy</it>, and <it>Patient-related reasons</it>. Reasons for non-treatment were compared between younger (n = 1, 023) and older (n = 1, 005) patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Non-treatment reasons related to <it>Mild hyperglycaemia </it>were selected more often by GPs for both younger (88%) and older (86%) patients than those in other categories. For older patients, <it>Factors related to antihyperglycaemic agents </it>(46% vs. 38%) and <it>Comorbidities and polypharmacy </it>(33% vs. 19%), both including safety-related issues, were selected significantly (p < 0.001) more often by GPs. No between-group difference was observed for the <it>Patient-related reasons </it>category. The GP-reported HbA_1cthreshold for initiating antihyperglycaemic therapy was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for younger patients (mean ± standard deviation: 7.3% ± 0.7) compared to older patients (7.5% ± 0.9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GPs selected reasons related to <it>Mild hyperglycaemia </it>for non-treatment of their untreated patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus, despite nearly one-third of these patients having their most recent HbA_1cvalue ≥7%. The findings further suggest that safety-related issues may influence the non-treatment of older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.</p

Validation of two generic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior to using a generic patient-reported outcome measure (PRO), the measure should be validated within the target population. The purpose of the current study was to validate two generic measures in patients with type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with type 2 diabetes in Scotland and England completed two generic measures: EQ-5D and Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB). Two diabetes-specific measures were administered: ADS and DSC-R. Analyses assessed reliability and validity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 130 participants (53 Scotland; 77 England; 64% male; mean age = 55.7 years). Responses on the EQ-5D and PGWB reflected moderate impairment consistent with previous diabetes samples: mean EQ-5D Index score, 0.75; EQ-5D VAS, 68.8; PGWB global score, 67.9. All scales of the PGWB demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77 to 0.97). The EQ-5D and PGWB demonstrated convergent validity through significant correlations with the ADS (r = 0.48 to 0.61), DSC-R scales (r = 0.33 to 0.81 except ophthalmology subscale), and Body Mass Index (r = 0.15 to 0.38). The EQ-5D and PGWB discriminated between groups of patients known to differ in diabetes-related characteristics (e.g., history of hypoglycemia).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Results support the use of the EQ-5D and PGWB among patients with type 2 diabetes, possibly in combination with condition-specific measures.</p