Evidence Hub

Comparison of diabetes-associated secondary healthcare utilization between alternative oral antihyperglycaemic dual therapy combinations with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: an observational cohort study

Strongman H, D'Oca K, Langerman H, Das R

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2015

1,704 participants

Abstract

AIMS: To compare diabetes-associated secondary healthcare utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) prescribed sulphonylureas (SUs) versus other oral antihyperglycaemic agents (OHAs) as an add-on to metformin monotherapy (metformin + SU vs metformin + OHA).

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. Adults with T2DM initiated on metformin + SU or metformin + OHA from April 2003 to March 2012 were identified. Patients were matched using propensity scores. Diabetes-associated secondary healthcare visits were counted from >6 months post-initiation of dual therapy until treatment change or end of follow-up. Outcomes were calculated as rate ratios, adjusted for over-dispersion using negative binomial regression and propensity score for covariates.

RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1704 patients were included in each cohort. For the primary objective (diabetes-associated inpatient and outpatient visits combined), the metformin + SU cohort had a directionally higher rate of diabetes-associated secondary healthcare utilization than the metformin + OHA cohort [adjusted rate ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.29]. For the secondary outcomes, the adjusted rate ratio was 1.38 (95% CI 0.95-2.00) for inpatient admissions and 1.10 (95% CI 0.95-1.28) for outpatient visits. Macrovascular complications, accounting for 77.2% of inpatient admissions, occurred at a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,704 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free