Clinical inertia in the treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes patients in primary care
Abstract
Objective To assess clinical inertia, defined as failure to intensify antidiabetic treatment of patients who have not achieved the HbA1c therapeutic goal (≤7%). Research design and methods Multicenter cross-sectional study. Clinical inertia was assessed in a random sample of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients seen in primary care centers. Results A total of 2783 patients (51.3% males; mean age: 68 [±11.5] years; diabetes duration: 7.1 [±5.6] years; mean HbA1c: 6.8 [±1.5]) were analyzed. Of those, 997 (35.8%) had HbA1c >7%. Treatment was intensified in 66.8% and consisted of: dose increase (40.5%); addition of oral antidiabetic (45.8%); or insulin treatment initiation (3.7%). Mean HbA1c values in patients for whom treatment was intensified vs. non-intensified were 8.4% (±1.2) vs. 8.2% (±1.2), p Limitations The retrospective design of the study precluded an accurate investigation about reasons for lack of intensification that could actually be justified by some patient conditions, especially patients' lack of adherence. Conclusions Clinical inertia affected one third of T2DM patients with poor glycemic control and was greater in patients treated with only lifestyle changes or oral monotherapy. Treatment changes were performed when mean HbA1c values were 1.4 points above therapeutic goals.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Inertia was remarkably higher in patients with mean HbA1c close to the target (7-8%) or those at initial steps of diabetes management such as lifestyle modification and monotherapy.
“Studies show that inertia was remarkably higher in patients with mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) close to the target (i.e., 7–8%) or those at the initial steps of diabetes management such as lifestyle modification and monotherapy [14].”
From Clinical Inertia in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Mata-Cases, M., Benito-Badorrey, B., Roura-Olmeda, P., Franch-Nadal, J., Pepió-Vilaubí, J. M., Saez, M., Coll-de-Tuero, G., & on behalf of the GEDAPS (Primary Care Group for the study of Diabetes) of the Catalonian Society of Family and Community Medicine
- Venue
- Current Medical Research and Opinion
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-09-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1495-1502
- ISSN
- 0300-7995 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-4877
- OpenAlex
- W1997734717
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 6.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Medical Research and Opinion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- clinical inertia, type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia, glycemic control, HbA1c, primary care, oral antidiabetic drugs, insulin initiation, treatment complexity, diabetes duration, lifestyle intervention, treatment phases, medication adherence, glycemic variability, glycemic variability index, glycemic variability index 2, glycemic variability index 3
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Blood Glucose, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, Spain, Treatment Outcome, Physicians, Primary Care
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