REVIEW ARTICLE
Under-treatment of type 2 diabetes: Causes and outcomes of clinical inertia
Clifford J. Bailey,
Corresponding Author
Clifford J. Bailey
Diabetes Research, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Correspondence
Clifford J. Bailey, PhD, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorClifford J. Bailey,
Corresponding Author
Clifford J. Bailey
Diabetes Research, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Correspondence
Clifford J. Bailey, PhD, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
Aims
To assess the impact of clinical inertia on type 2 diabetes (T2D) care.
Methods
PubMed database search from January 2000 until December 2015.
Results
Clinical inertia, defined as resistance to initiate or intensify treatment in a patient not at the evidence-based glycated haemoglobin goal, is conservatively estimated to occur in at least 25% of patients with T2D. Consequently, many patients with diagnosed and treated T2D experience extended periods, in some cases years, of ineffectively controlled hyperglycaemia, potentially causing serious microvascular and macrovascular harm. Delayed treatment does not appear to be specific to primary care, but also occurs in the specialist setting. The causes of clinical inertia appear to be complex, involving both reasonable and unacceptable delays on the part of the clinician and poor compliance with treatment regimens on the part of the patient. Evidence suggests that the clinical and organisational context may be particularly important in reinforcing clinical inertia, notably the increasingly severe time constraints for diagnosis and management of multiple morbidities, consideration of complex guidelines, assessment of cost and appreciation of patient concerns, all of which may hamper prioritisation of the important issue of under-treatment.
Conclusions
Since the pharmacotherapeutic tools for good control of blood glucose exist in all advanced healthcare systems, initiatives to address the important and widespread problem of clinical inertia may require focused campaigns that encourage attention to guideline recommendations and their adaptation for individualised care.
References
- 1Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT, Grunberger G, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology - clinical practice guidelines for developing a diabetes mellitus comprehensive care plan - 2015. Endocr Pract. 2015; 21(suppl 1): 1–87.
- 2Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015; 38: 140–149.
- 3Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 1364–1379.
- 4The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 977–986.
- 5Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 854–865.
- 6Stratton IM, Adler AI, Neil HA, et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ. 2000; 321: 405–412.
- 7Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, et al. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1577–1589.
- 8Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 129–139.
- 9Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 2545–2559.
- 10Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 2560–2572.
- 11Riddle MC, Karl DM. Individualizing targets and tactics for high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes: practical lessons from ACCORD and other cardiovascular trials. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 2100–2107.
- 12Ismail-Beigi F, Moghissi E, Tiktin M, et al. Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154: 554–559.
- 13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A1c Distribution Among Adults with Diagnosed Diabetes, 1988-1994 to 1999-2006. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/a1c/a1c_dist.htm. Accessed January 2016.
- 14Hoerger TJ, Segel JE, Gregg EW, Saaddine JB. Is glycemic control improving in U.S. adults? Diabetes Care. 2008; 31: 81–86.
- 15Liebl A, Mata M, Eschwege E; ODE-2 Advisory Board. Evaluation of risk factors for development of complications in Type II diabetes in Europe. Diabetologia. 2002; 45: S23–S28.
- 16de Pablos-Velasco P, Parhofer KG, Bradley C, et al. Current level of glycaemic control and its associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes across Europe: data from the PANORAMA study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014; 80: 47–56.
- 17Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, et al. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 825–834.
- 18Lafata JE, Dobie EA, Divine GW, et al. Sustained hyperglycemia among patients with diabetes: what matters when action is needed? Diabetes Care. 2009; 32: 1447–1452.
- 19Shah BR, Hux JE, Laupacis A, et al. Clinical inertia in response to inadequate glycemic control: do specialists differ from primary care physicians? Diabetes Care. 2005; 28: 600–606.
- 20Miccoli R, Penno G, Del Prato S. Multidrug treatment of type 2 diabetes: a challenge for compliance. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34(Suppl 2): S231–S235.
- 21Khunti K, Wolden ML, Thorsted BL, et al. Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36: 3411–3417.
- 22 UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998; 352: 837–853.
- 23Hayward RA, Reaven PD, Wiitala WL, et al. Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2197–2206.
- 24Brownlee M. Biochemistry and molecular cell biology of diabetic complications. Nature. 2001; 414: 813–820.
- 25Brownlee M. The pathobiology of diabetic complications: a unifying mechanism. Diabetes. 2005; 54: 1615–1625.
- 26Kosiborod M, Inzucchi SE, Krumholz HM, et al. Glucometrics in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: defining the optimal outcomes-based measure of risk. Circulation. 2008; 117: 1018–1027.
- 27Svensson AM, McGuire DK, Abrahamsson P, Dellborg M. Association between hyper- and hypoglycaemia and 2 year all-cause mortality risk in diabetic patients with acute coronary events. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1255–1261.
- 28Opie LH, Yellon DM, Gersh BJ. Controversies in the cardiovascular management of type 2 diabetes. Heart. 2011; 97: 6–14.
- 29Aujoulat I, Jacquemin P, Rietzschel E, et al. Factors associated with clinical inertia: an integrative review. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2014; 5: 141–147.
- 30Parchman ML, Pugh JA, Romero RL, Bowers KW. Competing demands or clinical inertia: the case of elevated glycosylated hemoglobin. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5: 196–201.
- 31Jaen CR, Stange KC, Nutting PA. Competing demands of primary care: a model for the delivery of clinical preventive services. J Fam Pract. 1994; 38: 166–171.
- 32Cramer JA. A systematic review of adherence with medications for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004; 27: 1218–1224.
- 33Currie CJ, Peyrot M, Morgan CL, et al. The impact of treatment noncompliance on mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2012; 35: 1279–1284.
- 34 Medical Defense Union. Diabetes diagnosis dilemmas. http://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/latest-updates-and-advice/diabetes-diagnosis-dilemmas. Accessed October 2015.
- 35DeFronzo RA. Banting Lecture. From the triumvirate to the ominous octet: a new paradigm for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 2009; 58: 773–795.
- 36DeFronzo RA. Lilly lecture 1987. The triumvirate: beta-cell, muscle, liver. A collusion responsible for NIDDM. Diabetes 1988; 37: 667–687.
- 37DeFronzo RA, Eldor R, Abdul-Ghani M. Pathophysiologic approach to therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36(suppl 2): S127–S138.
- 38Gastaldelli A, Ferrannini E, Miyazaki Y, et al. Beta-cell dysfunction and glucose intolerance: results from the San Antonio metabolism (SAM) study. Diabetologia. 2004; 47: 31–39.
- 39 UKPDS. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 854–865.
- 40Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 2427–2443.
- 41Abdul-Ghani MA, Puckett C, Triplitt C, et al. Initial combination therapy with metformin, pioglitazone and exenatide is more effective than sequential add-on therapy in subjects with new-onset diabetes. Results from the Efficacy and Durability of Initial Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes (EDICT): a randomized trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2015; 17: 268–275.
- 42Weng J, Li Y, Xu W, et al. Effect of intensive insulin therapy on beta-cell function and glycaemic control in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a multicentre randomised parallel-group trial. Lancet. 2008; 371: 1753–1760.
- 43O'Connor PJ, Bodkin NL, Fradkin J, et al. Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions. Diabetes Care. 2011; 34: 1651–1659.
- 44Fleming BB, Greenfield S, Engelgau MM, et al. The Diabetes Quality Improvement Project: moving science into health policy to gain an edge on the diabetes epidemic. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 1815–1820.
- 45Saaddine JB, Cadwell B, Gregg EW, et al. Improvements in diabetes processes of care and intermediate outcomes: United States, 1988-2002. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 465–474.
- 46Kerr EA, Fleming B. Making performance indicators work: experiences of US Veterans Health Administration. BMJ. 2007; 335: 971–973.
- 47McCoy RG, Zhang Y, Herrin J, et al. Changing trends in type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment intensification, 2002-2010. Am J Manag Care. 2015; 21: e288–e296.
- 48Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, et al. Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 1613–1624.
- 49Landon BE, Hicks LS, O'Malley AJ, et al. Improving the management of chronic disease at community health centers. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 921–934.
- 50 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) Fact Sheet, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/pdfs/triad_fact_sheet.pdf. Accessed March 2016.
- 51 Triad Study Group. The Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study: a multicenter study of diabetes in managed care. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25: 386–389.
- 52Mangione CM, Gerzoff RB, Williamson DF, et al. The association between quality of care and the intensity of diabetes disease management programs. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145: 107–116.
- 53Ackermann RT, Thompson TJ, Selby JV, et al. Is the number of documented diabetes process-of-care indicators associated with cardiometabolic risk factor levels, patient satisfaction, or self-rated quality of diabetes care? The Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study. Diabetes Care. 2006; 29: 2108–2113.
- 54Doran T, Kontopantelis E, Reeves D, et al. Setting performance targets in pay for performance programmes: what can we learn from QOF? BMJ. 2014; 348: g1595.
