Objective

To examine demographic, socioeconomic, and biological risk factors for all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes over 8 years and to construct mortality prediction equations.

Research design and methods

Beginning in 2000, survey and medical record information was obtained from 8,334 participants in Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a multicenter prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. The National Death Index was searched annually to obtain data on deaths over an 8-year follow-up period (2000-2007). Predictors examined included age, sex, race, education, income, smoking, age at diagnosis of diabetes, duration and treatment of diabetes, BMI, complications, comorbidities, and medication use.

Results

There were 1,616 (19%) deaths over the 8-year period. In the most parsimonious equation, the predictors of all-cause mortality included older age, male sex, white race, lower income, smoking, insulin treatment, nephropathy, history of dyslipidemia, higher LDL cholesterol, angina/myocardial infarction/other coronary disease/coronary angioplasty/bypass, congestive heart failure, aspirin, β-blocker, and diuretic use, and higher Charlson Index.

Conclusions

Risk of death can be predicted in people with type 2 diabetes using simple demographic, socioeconomic, and biological risk factors with fair reliability. Such prediction equations are essential for computer simulation models of diabetes progression and may, with further validation, be useful for patient management.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the predictors of intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes; its impact on A1C, body weight, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and health status; and patient characteristics associated with improvement in A1C.

Research design and methods

We analyzed survey, medical record, and health plan administrative data collected in Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). We examined patients who were using diet/exercise or oral antihyperglycemic medications at baseline, had A1C >7.2%, and stayed with the same therapy or intensified therapy (initiated or increased the number of classes of oral antihyperglycemic medications or began insulin) over 18 months.

Results

Of 1,093 patients, 520 intensified therapy with oral medications or insulin. Patients intensifying therapy were aged 58 +/- 12 years, had diabetes duration of 11 +/- 9 years, and had A1C of 9.1 +/- 1.5%. Younger age and higher A1C were associated with therapy intensification. Compared with patients who did not intensify therapy, those who intensified therapy experienced a 0.49% reduction in A1C (P < 0.0001), a 3-pound increase in weight (P = 0.003), and no change in anxiety/depression (P = 0.5) or health status (P = 0.2). Among those who intensified therapy, improvement in A1C was associated with higher baseline A1C, older age, black race/ethnicity, lower income, and more physician visits.

Conclusions

Treatment intensification improved glycemic control with no worsening of anxiety/depression or health status, especially in elderly, lower-income, and minority patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions are needed to overcome clinical inertia when patients might benefit from treatment intensification and improved glycemic control.

Abstract Background To evaluate the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and Framingham risk equations for predicting short-term risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events among adults with long-standing type 2 diabetes, including those with and without preexisting CHD. Methods Prospective cohort of U.S. managed care enrollees aged ≥ 18 years and mean diabetes duration of more than 10 years, participating in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study, was followed for the first occurrence of CHD events from 2000 to 2003. The UKPDS and Framingham risk equations were evaluated for discriminating power and calibration. Results A total of 8303 TRIAD participants, were identified to evaluate the UKPDS (n = 5914, 120 events), Framingham-initial (n = 5914, 218 events) and Framingham-secondary (n = 2389, 374 events) risk equations, according to their prior CHD history. All of these equations exhibited low discriminating power with Harrell’s c-index <0.65. All except the Framingham-initial equation for women and the Framingham-secondary equation for men had low levels of calibration. After adjsusting for the average values of predictors and event rates in the TRIAD population, the calibration of these equations greatly improved. Conclusions The UKPDS and Framingham risk equations may be inappropriate for predicting the short-term risk of CHD events in patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes, partly due to changes in medications used by patients with diabetes and other improvements in clinical care since the Frmaingham and UKPDS studies were conducted. Refinement of these equations to reflect contemporary CHD profiles, diagnostics and therapies are needed to provide reliable risk estimates to inform effective treatment.

Background

Studies have associated thiazolidinedione (TZD) treatment with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and questioned whether the two available TZDs, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, have different CVD risks. We compared CVD incidence, cardiovascular (CV), and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients treated with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone as their only TZD.

Methods

We analyzed survey, medical record, administrative, and National Death Index (NDI) data from 1999 through 2003 from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a prospective observational study of diabetes care in managed care. Medications, CV procedures, and CVD were determined from health plan (HP) administrative data, and mortality was from NDI. Adjusted hazard rates (AHR) were derived from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, history of diabetic nephropathy, history of CVD, insulin use, and HP.

Results

Across TRIAD's 10 HPs, 1,815 patients (24%) filled prescriptions for a TZD, 773 (10%) for only rosiglitazone, 711 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 331 (4%) for multiple TZDs. In the seven HPs using both TZDs, 1,159 patients (33%) filled a prescription for a TZD, 564 (16%) for only rosiglitazone, 334 (10%) for only pioglitazone, and 261 (7%) for multiple TZDs. For all CV events, CV, and all-cause mortality, we found no significant difference between rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.

Conclusions

In this relatively small, prospective, observational study, we found no statistically significant differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- compared to pioglitazone-treated patients. There does not appear to be a pattern of clinically meaningful differences in CV outcomes for rosiglitazone- versus pioglitazone-treated patients.

Objective

To examine racial/ethnic and economic variation in cost-related medication underuse among insured adults with diabetes.

Research design and methods

We surveyed 5,086 participants from the multicenter Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes Study. Respondents reported whether they used less medication because of cost in the past 12 months. We examined unadjusted and adjusted rates of cost-related medication underuse, using hierarchical regression, to determine whether race/ethnicity differences still existed after accounting for economic, health, and other demographic variables.

Results

Participants were 48% white, 14% African American, 14% Latino, 15% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8% other. Overall, 14% reported cost-related medication underuse. Unadjusted rates were highest for Latinos (23%) and African Americans (17%) compared with whites (13%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (11%), and others (15%). In multivariate analyses, race/ethnicity significantly predicted cost-related medication underuse (P = 0.048). However, adjusted rates were only slightly higher for Latinos (14%) than whites (10%) (P = 0.026) and were not significantly different for African Americans (11%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (7%), and others (11%). Income and out-of-pocket drug costs showed the greatest differences in adjusted rates of cost-related medication underuse (15 vs. 5% for participants with income $50,000 and 24 vs. 7% for participants with out-of-pocket costs >$150 per month vs. ConclusionsOne in seven participants reported cost-related medication underuse. Rates were highest among African Americans and Latinos but were related to lower incomes and higher out-of-pocket drug costs in these groups. Interventions to decrease racial/ethnic disparities in cost-related medication underuse should focus on decreasing financial barriers to medications.