Smith, Steven A.

OBJECTIVE While metformin is generally accepted as the first-line agent in treatment of type 2 diabetes, there are insufficient evidence and extensive debate about the best second-line agent. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of four commonly used antihyperglycemia treatment regimens considering clinical effectiveness, quality of life, and cost. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We developed and validated a new population-based glycemic control Markov model that simulates natural variation in HbA1c progression. The model was calibrated using a U.S. data set of privately insured individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We compared treatment intensification of metformin monotherapy with sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, or insulin. Outcome measures included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), mean time to insulin dependence, and expected medication cost per QALY from diagnosis to first diabetes complication (ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, stroke, blindness, renal failure, amputation) or death. RESULTS According to our model, all regimens resulted in similar LYs and QALYs regardless of glycemic control goal, but the regimen with sulfonylurea incurred significantly lower cost per QALY and resulted in the longest time to insulin dependence. An HbA1c goal of 7% (53 mmol/mol) produced higher QALYs compared with a goal of 8% (64 mmol/mol) for all regimens. CONCLUSIONS Use of sulfonylurea as second-line therapy for type 2 diabetes generated glycemic control and QALYs comparable with those associated with other agents but at lower cost. A model that incorporates HbA1c and diabetes complications can serve as a useful clinical decision tool for selection of treatment options.

Objective: The objective is to report a contemporary population-based estimate of hypoglycemia requiring emergency medical services (EMS), its burden on medical resources, and its associated mortality in patients with or without diabetes mellitus (DM, non-DM), which will enable development of prospective strategies that will capture hypoglycemia promptly and provide an integrated approach for prevention of such episodes. Methods: We retrieved all ambulance calls activated for hypoglycemia in Olmsted County, Minnesota, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. Results: A total of 1473 calls were made by 914 people (DM 8%, non-DM 16%, unknown DM status 3%). Mean age was 60 ± 16 years with 49% being female. A higher percentage of calls were made by DM patients (87%) with proportionally fewer calls coming from non-DM patients (11%) (chi-square test, p < .001), and the remaining 2% calls by people with unknown DM status. Emergency room transportation and hospitalization were significantly higher in non-DM patients compared to DM patients ( p < .001) and type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to type 1 diabetes mellitus ( p < .001). Sulphonylureas alone or in combination with insulin varied during the study period ( p = .01). The change in incidence of EMS for hypoglycemia was tracked during this period. However, causality has not been established. Death occurred in 240 people, 1.2 (interquartile range 0.2–2.7) years after their first event. After adjusting for age, mortality was higher in non-DM patients compared with DM patients ( p < .001) but was not different between the two types of DM. Conclusions: The population burden of EMS requiring hypoglycemia is high in both DM and non-DM patients, and imposes significant burden on medical resources. It is associated with long-term mortality.