Cited by 143Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Intensive treatment and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes

Open access
McCoy, Rozalina G., Lipska, Kasia J., Yao, Xiaoxi, Ross, Joseph S., Montori, Victor M., Shah, Nilay D.·2016·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Intensive glucose-lowering treatment among patients with non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes may increase the risk of hypoglycemia. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of intensive treatment and the association between intensive treatment, clinical complexity, and incidence of severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of administrative, pharmacy, and laboratory data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2013. The study included nonpregnant adults 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who achieved and maintained a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level less than 7.0% without use of insulin and had no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia in the prior 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk-adjusted probability of intensive treatment and incident severe hypoglycemia, stratified by patient clinical complexity. Intensive treatment was defined as use of more glucose-lowering medications than recommended by practice guidelines at specific index HbA1c levels. Severe hypoglycemia was ascertained by ambulatory, emergency department, and hospital claims for hypoglycemia during the 2 years after the index HbA1c test. Patients were categorized as having high vs low clinical complexity if they were 75 years or older, had dementia or end-stage renal disease, or had 3 or more serious chronic conditions. RESULTS: Of 31 542 eligible patients (median age, 58 years; interquartile range, 51-65 years; 15 483 women [49.1%]; 18 188 white [57.7%]), 3910 (12.4%) had clinical complexity. The risk-adjusted probability of intensive treatment was 25.7% (95% CI, 25.1%-26.2%) in patients with low clinical complexity and 20.8% (95% CI, 19.4%-22.2%) in patients with high clinical complexity. In patients with low clinical complexity, the risk-adjusted probability of severe hypoglycemia during the subsequent 2 years was 1.02% (95% CI, 0.87%-1.17%) with standard treatment and 1.30% (95% CI, 0.98%-1.62%) with intensive treatment (absolute difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, -0.10% to 0.66%). In patients with high clinical complexity, intensive treatment significantly increased the risk-adjusted probability of severe hypoglycemia from 1.74% (95% CI, 1.28%-2.20%) with standard treatment to 3.04% (95% CI, 1.91%-4.18%) with intensive treatment (absolute difference, 1.30%; 95% CI, 0.10%-2.50%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: More than 20% of patients with type 2 diabetes received intensive treatment that may be unnecessary. Among patients with high clinical complexity, intensive treatment nearly doubles the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2275

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCoy, R. G., Lipska, K. J., Yao, X., Ross, J. S., Montori, V. M., & Shah, N. D.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Division of Endocrinology Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota9Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Corresponding author
McCoy, Rozalina G.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2016-07-01
Volume
176
Issue
7
Pages
969
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2413896585
Cited by
143
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
21.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18HS018339)
  • National Institute on Aging (K23AG048359, P30AG021342)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, severe hypoglycemia, clinical complexity, HbA1c, glucose-lowering medications, older adults, end-stage renal disease, dementia, comorbidities, hypoglycemia risk, glycemic control, hyperglycemia, risk adjustment
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Management, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Drug Monitoring, Risk Adjustment, Needs Assessment, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review