首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology >Use of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to Identify Glycemic Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes
【2h】

Use of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to Identify Glycemic Intensification Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes

机译:使用电子病历(EMR)识别2型糖尿病的血糖升高策略

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background: Current treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommend individualized intensification of therapy for glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥ 7% in most patients. The purpose of this investigation was to explore the ability of an electronic medical record (EMR) to identify glycemic intensification strategies among T2D patients receiving pharmacologic therapy. >Methods: Patient records between 2005 and 2011 with documentation of A1C and active prescriptions for any diabetes medications were queried to identify potential candidates for intensification based on A1C ≥ 7% while on 1-2 oral diabetes medications (ODM). Patients with follow-up A1C values within 1 year of index A1C were grouped according to intensification with insulin, GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), a new class of ODM, or no intensification. Changes in A1C and continuation of intensification therapy were determined. >Results: A total of 4921 patients meeting inclusion criteria were intensified with insulin (n = 416), GLP-1RA (n = 68), ODM (n = 1408), or no additional therapy (n = 3029). Patients receiving insulin had higher baseline (9.3 ± 2.0 vs 8.3 ± 1.2 vs 8.3 ± 1.3 vs 7.6 ± 1.0%, P < .0001) and follow-up A1C (8.1 ± 1.6 vs 7.5 ± 1.2 vs 7.6 ± 1.3 vs 7.2 ± 1.1%, P < .0001) despite experiencing larger absolute A1C reductions (−1.2 ± 2.1 vs −0.8 ± 1.4 vs −0.7 ± 1.4 vs −0.3 ± 1.1%, P < .0001). Patients receiving GLP-1RA were more obese at baseline (BMI: 33.6 ± 7.1 vs 37.7 ± 6.1 vs 33.7 ± 6.8 vs 32.9 ± 7.1 kg/m2, P < .0001) and follow-up (BMI: 33.9 ± 7.3 vs 36.6 ± 6.1 vs 33.8 ± 7.0 vs 32.4 ± 7.0 kg/m2, P < .0001) despite experiencing more absolute weight reduction. Insulin was the most and GLP-1RA the least likely therapy to be continued. >Conclusions: An EMR allows identification of prescribing practices and compliance with T2D treatment guidelines. Patients receiving intensification of glycemic medications had baseline A1C >8% suggesting that treatment recommendations are not being followed.
机译:>背景:当前的2型糖尿病(T2D)治疗指南建议在大多数患者中个体化强化治疗糖化血红蛋白(A1C)≥7%。这项研究的目的是探讨电子病历(EMR)在接受药物治疗的T2D患者中确定血糖强化策略的能力。 >方法:查询2005年至2011年之间的病历以及A1C文档和任何糖尿病药物的有效处方,以基于A1C≥7%和1-2种口服糖尿病药物(ODM)来确定可能的强化药物候选者)。根据胰岛素强化,GLP-1受体激动剂(GLP-1RA),新型ODM或无强化对1年以内A1C指数随访的A1C值的患者进行分组。确定A1C的变化和强化治疗的继续。 >结果:共有4921名符合入选标准的患者接受了胰岛素(n = 416),GLP-1RA(n = 68),ODM(n = 1408)或无其他治疗(n = 3029)。接受胰岛素治疗的患者基线较高(9.3±2.0 vs 8.3±1.2 vs 8.3±1.3 vs 7.6±1.0%,P <.0001)和随访A1C(8.1±1.6 vs 7.5±1.2 vs 7.6±1.3 vs 7.2±1.1)尽管经历了更大的绝对A1C降低(-1.2±2.1 vs -0.8±1.4 vs -0.7±1.4 vs -0.3±1.1%,P <.0001),P <.0001)。接受GLP-1RA治疗的患者在基线时(BMI:33.6±7.1 vs 37.7±6.1 vs 33.7±6.8 vs 32.9±7.1 kg / m 2 ,P <.0001)较肥胖体重指数(BMI):33.9±7.3 vs 36.6±6.1 vs 33.8±7.0 vs 32.4±7.0 kg / m 2 ,P <.0001),尽管绝对重量有所降低。胰岛素是最多的,而GLP-1RA是最不可能继续治疗的。 >结论:EMR允许识别处方实践并符合T2D治疗指南。接受高血糖药物治疗的患者基线A1C> 8%,表明未遵循治疗建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号