Cited by 52Diabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and Education

Does Clinical Inertia Vary by Personalized A1C Goal? A Study of Predictors and Prevalence of Clinical Inertia In A U.S. Managed-Care Setting

Lin, Jay, Zhou, Steve, Wei, Wenhui, Pan, Chunshen, Lingohr-Smith, Melissa, Levin, Philip·2016·Endocrine Practice

Abstract

Objective Clinical inertia is defined as failure to initiate or intensify therapy despite an inadequate treatment response. We assessed the prevalence and identified the predictors of clinical inertia among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) based on personalized goals. Methods Three hemoglobin A1c (A1C) targets (American Diabetes Association A1C Results Irrespective of A1C target, the majority of patients with T2DM (70.4 to 72.8%) experienced clinical inertia in the 6 months following the index event, with 5.3 to 6.2% of patients intensifying treatment with insulin. Patients with a lower likelihood of intensification were older, used >1 oral antidiabetes drug during the baseline period, and had an above-target A1C more recently. Treatment intensification was associated with patients who had point-of-service insurance, mental illness, an endocrinologist visit in the baseline period, or higher index A1C. Conclusion The prevalence of clinical inertia among patients with T2DM in a U.S. managed-care setting is high and has increased over more recent years. Factors predicting increased risk of clinical inertia may help identify "at-risk" populations and assist in developing strategies to improve their management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4158/ep15868.or

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, Point-of-Service insurance, high index HbA1c, baseline endocrinologist visit, and use of comedications were associated with a reduced likelihood of clinical inertia.

    “In contrast, a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, Point-of-Service (POS) insurance, a high index HbA1c, a baseline endocrinologist visit, and the use of comedications were associated with a reduced likelihood of clinical inertia [34].”
  • A higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score predicts the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.

    “However, they reported that a higher CCI score, POS insurance, high index HbA1c, baseline endocrinologist visit, and use of comedications predict the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.”
  • POS insurance predicts the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.

    “However, they reported that a higher CCI score, POS insurance, high index HbA1c, baseline endocrinologist visit, and use of comedications predict the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.”
  • A baseline endocrinologist visit predicts the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.

    “However, they reported that a higher CCI score, POS insurance, high index HbA1c, baseline endocrinologist visit, and use of comedications predict the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.”
  • High index HbA1c predicts the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.

    “However, they reported that a higher CCI score, POS insurance, high index HbA1c, baseline endocrinologist visit, and use of comedications predict the likelihood of treatment intensification or reduced clinical inertia.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, J., Zhou, S., Wei, W., Pan, C., Lingohr-Smith, M., & Levin, P.
Affiliations
  • Sanofi (United States) (US)
  • Model Clinical Research (US)
Corresponding author
Lin, Jay
Venue
Endocrine Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
151-161
ISSN
1530-891X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1752565673
Cited by
52
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Endocrine Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Sanofi
  • Novo Nordisk
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 › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
clinical inertia, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, treatment intensification, insulin initiation, managed care, mental illness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Goals, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Managed Care Programs, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, United States, Prevalence, Young Adult, Precision Medicine, Physicians, Primary Care, Time-to-Treatment

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