Evidence Hub

Effectiveness and clinical inertia in patients with antidiabetic therapy

Machado-Duque ME, Ramírez-Riveros AC, Machado-Alba JE

International journal of clinical practice, 2017

363 participants

Abstract

AIMS: To establish the effectiveness of antidiabetic therapy and the frequency of clinical inertia in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Colombia.

METHODS: A cross-sectional study with follow-up of patients who had been treated for at least 1 year and were receiving medical consultation for antidiabetic treatment. Effectiveness was established when haemoglobin-A1c levels were <7% and when clinical inertia was reached, which was defined as no therapeutic modifications despite not achieving management controls. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables were evaluated, and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS: In total, 363 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were evaluated, with a mean age of 62.0±12.2 years. A total of 1,016 consultations were evaluated, and the therapy was effective at the end of the follow-up in 57.9% of cases. Clinical inertia was found in 56.8% of patients who did not have metabolic control. The most frequently prescribed medications were metformin (84.0%), glibenclamide (23.4%) and insulin glargine (20.7%). Moreover, 57.6% of the patients were treated with two or more antidiabetic medications. Having metabolic control in the first consult of the follow-up was a protective factor against clinical inertia in the subsequent consultations (OR: 0.08; 95%CI: 0.04-0.15; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus has increased in Colombia, and for the first time, clinical…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 363 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