A Retrospective Observational Analysis of Clinical Outcomes before and after the Publication of the AACE/ACE Guidelines

Rajesh Peddaiahgari, Ayoade O. Adeyemi, Jamie C. Barner, Debra A. Lopez, Jason R. Jokerst

CommUnityCare Clinics, Austin, USA.
The University of Texas, College of Pharmacy, Austin, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2014.512098                

Abstract

Background: The influence of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology (AACE/ACE) guidelines (hereafter, “guidelines”) on clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes is yet to be assessed. Objectives: To determine if differences occurred in type of: 1) medication class prescribed; 2) therapy by A1c strata in type 2 diabetic (T2DM) patients before and after guidelines were published (December 2009). Methods: Data for this retrospective cohort study were extracted from community health center clinics’ electronic medical records for patients who: 1) were adults (18 - 80 years) with T2DM; and 2) had at least one A1c value before and after guidelines. Demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes [oral anti-diabetic (OAD) medication class, therapy type (mono, dual, triple), and A1c values] were collected. A1c was stratified into four levels: <6.5; 6.5 - 7.5; 7.6 - 9.0; >9.0. Descriptive and inferential statis-tics were used. Results: The random sample of 302 patients was 55.4 ± 11.7 years of age, primarily female (65.9%) and Hispanic (68.8%). Regarding medication class, most (68.5% before and 72.2% after guidelines) patients were prescribed metformin. The proportion of patients across individual medication classes increased significantly (p < 0.05) between the periods before and after guidelines, with the greatest percentage increase observed with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (36.2%). Chi-square results revealed a significant difference (p < 0.0001) between type of therapy and A1c strata. Before guidelines, 55.7% of patients with A1c values < 6.5% were on monotherapy, while 44.1% of patients with A1c values > 9% were on dual therapy. After guidelines, 48.4% of patients with A1c values < 6.5% were on monotherapy, while 31.8% of patients with A1c values > 9% were on dual therapy. Almost one-half (48.3%) of patients remained in the same A1c strata before and after guidelines were published and there were no significant changes in mean A1c. Conclusions: DPP-4 inhibitor use showed the largest increase after guidelines were issued, however, there were no improvements in A1c. Additional research is warranted to evaluate healthcare providers’ adherence to AACE/ACE guidelines and how this influences patients’ health outcomes.

Keywords

AACE/ACE Guidelines, Type 2 Diabetes, Non-Insulin Antidiabetic Medications, HbA1c

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) National Diabetes Fact Sheet: National Estimates and General Information on Diabetes and Prediabetes in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.
[2]	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Diabetes: Successes and Opportunities for Population-Based Prevention and Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/diabetes.pdf
[3]	Brown, J.B., Harris, S.B., Webster-Bogaert, S., Wetmore, S., Faulds, C. and Stewart, M. (2002) The Role of Patient, Physician and Systemic Factors in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Family Practice, 19, 344-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.4.344
[4]	Nathan, D.M., Buse, J.B., Davidson, M.B., et al. (2009) Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 32, 193-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc08-9025
[5]	American Diabetes Association (2009) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009. Diabetes Care, 32, S13-S61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc09-S013
[6]	Rodbard, H.W., Jellinger, P.S., Davidson, J.A., et al. (2009) Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Consensus Panel on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Algorithm for Glycemic Control. Endocrine Practice, 15, 540-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.4158/EP.15.6.540
[7]	The Management of Diabetes Mellitus Working Group (1999) VHA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Diabetes in the Primary Care Setting. http://www.va.gov/diabetes/docs/Clinical_Practice_Guidelines.doc
[8]	International Diabetes Federation CGT (2005) Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes. http://www.idf.org/webdata/docs/IDF%20GGT2D.pdf
[9]	Liday, C. (2011) Overview of the Guidelines and Evidence for the Pharmacologic Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Pharmacotherapy, 31, 37S-43S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1592/phco.31.12.37S
[10]	Levetan, C. (2007) Oral Antidiabetic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23, 945-952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/030079907X178766
[11]	Cohen, A. and Horton, E.S. (2007) Progress in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: New Pharmacologic Approaches to Improve Glycemic Control. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23, 905-917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/030079907X182068
[12]	Larme, A.C. and Pugh, J.A. (2001) Evidence-Based Guidelines Meet the Real World: The Case of Diabetes Care. Diabetes Care, 24, 1728-1733. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diacare.24.10.1728
[13]	Grant, R.W., Wexler, D.J., Watson, A.J., et al. (2007) How Doctors Choose Medications to Treat Type 2 Diabetes: A National Survey of Specialists and Academic Generalists. Diabetes Care, 30, 1448-1453. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc06-2499
[14]	Francke, A.L., Smit, M.C., de Veer, A.J. and Mistiaen, P. (2008) Factors Influencing the Implementation of Clinical Guidelines for Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Meta-Review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8, 38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-38
[15]	Cabana, M.D., Rand, C.S., Powe, N.R., et al. (1999) Why Don’t Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines? A Framework for Improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1458-1465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.15.1458
[16]	Derosa, G. and Maffioli, P. (2012) Glp-1 Agonists Exenatide and Liraglutide: A Review about their Safety and Efficacy. Current Clinical Pharmacology, 7, 214-228.