Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30979373›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2019

What to do with diabetes therapies when HbA1c lowering is inadequate: add, switch, or continue? A MASTERMIND study.

Andrew P McGovern, John M Dennis, Beverley M Shields, Andrew T Hattersley, Ewan R Pearson, Angus G Jones, MASTERMIND Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Andrew P McGovernUniversity of Exeter Medical School, The Institute of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. a.mcgovern@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6833-9399
John M DennisHealth Statistics Group, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Beverley M ShieldsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, The Institute of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Andrew T HattersleyUniversity of Exeter Medical School, The Institute of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Ewan R PearsonDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Angus G JonesUniversity of Exeter Medical School, The Institute of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. Angus.Jones@exeter.ac.uk.
MASTERMIND Consortium

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K005707/1Medical Research Council MR/N00633X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear what to do when people with type 2 diabetes have had no or a limited glycemic response to a recently introduced medication. Intra-individual HbA1c variability can obscure true response. Some guidelines suggest stopping apparently ineffective therapy, but no studies have addressed this issue.

methodsIn a retrospective cohort analysis using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we assessed the outcome of 55,530 patients with type 2 diabetes starting their second or third non-insulin glucose-lowering medication, with a baseline HbA1c > 58 mmol/mol (7.5%). For those with no HbA1c improvement or a limited response at 6 months (HbA1c fall < 5.5 mmol/mol [0.5%]), we compared HbA1c 12 months later in those who continued their treatment unchanged, switched to new treatment, or added new treatment.

resultsAn increase or a limited reduction in HbA1c was common, occurring in 21.9% (12,168/55,230), who had a mean HbA1c increase of 2.5 mmol/mol (0.2%). After this limited response, continuing therapy was more frequent (n = 9308; 74%) than switching (n = 1177; 9%) or adding (n = 2163; 17%). Twelve months later, in those who switched medication, HbA1c fell (- 6.8 mmol/mol [- 0.6%], 95%CI - 7.7, - 6.0) only slightly more than those who continued unchanged (- 5.1 mmol/mol [- 0.5%], 95%CI - 5.5, - 4.8). Adding another new therapy was associated with a substantially better reduction (- 12.4 mmol/mol [- 1.1%], 95%CI - 13.1, - 11.7). Propensity score-matched subgroups demonstrated similar results.

conclusionsWhere glucose-lowering therapy does not appear effective on initial HbA1c testing, changing agents does not improve glycemic control. The initial agent should be continued with another therapy added.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesGlycated HemoglobinHypoglycemic AgentsAdditionContinuationGlycemic controlHbA1cOral glucose-lowering medicationSwitchingType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30979373
PMCPMC6460517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.