Journal of diabetes · 2014
China type 2 diabetes treatment status survey of treatment pattern of oral drugs users.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ji Linong, Lu Juming, Weng Jianping, Jia Weiping, Tian Haoming, Zhu Dalong, Xing Xiaoping, Guo Lixin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the current status of oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and influencing factors in a real-world setting in China.
METHODS: A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received OADs (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed.
RESULTS: The most common OADs in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (SUs; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual-drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on SU or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The status of OAD use in China is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real-world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in China.
METHODS: A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received OADs (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed.
RESULTS: The most common OADs in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (SUs; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual-drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on SU or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.38-2.08; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The status of OAD use in China is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real-world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in China.