Development of a diabetes treatment simulation model: With application to assessing alternative treatment intensification strategies on survival and diabetes-related complications

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism

Volumn 10, Issue SUPPL.1, 2008, Pages 33-42

  Chen, J ^a   Alemao, E ^a   Yin, D ^a   Cook, J ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical inertia; Computer simulation; Diabetes related complications; Discrete event simulation; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; UKPDS

Indexed keywords

2,4 THIAZOLIDINEDIONE DERIVATIVE; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; GLYCOSYLATED HEMOGLOBIN; INSULIN; METFORMIN; ROSIGLITAZONE; SULFONYLUREA DERIVATIVE;

AMPUTATION; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BLINDNESS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG EFFECT; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PROGNOSIS; UNITED KINGDOM;

AMPUTATION; BLINDNESS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIABETES COMPLICATIONS; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; GREAT BRITAIN; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INSULIN; KIDNEY FAILURE; METFORMIN; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROGNOSIS; SULFONYLUREA COMPOUNDS; THIAZOLIDINEDIONES;

EID: 43449116068     PISSN: 14628902     EISSN: 14631326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2008.00885.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003; 26 (Suppl. 1): S33-S50.
2. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27 (Suppl. 1): S15-S35.
3. International Diabetes Federation IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force: Global Guideline for Type 2 Diabetes. Brussels: IDF, 2005. Available from URL: www.idf.org/webdata/docs/IDF%20GGT2D.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2007.
4. Rydén L, Standl E, Bartnik M et al. Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 88-136.
5. Grant RW, Buse JB, Meigs JB. Quality of diabetes care in U.S. academic medical centers: low rates of medical regimen change. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 337-442.
6. Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA 2004; 291: 335-342.
7. Brown JB, Nichols GA, Perry A. The burden of treatment failure in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 1535-1540.
8. Rodondi N, Peng T, Karter AJ et al. Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 475-484.
9. Wetzler HP, Snyder JW. Linking pharmacy and laboratory data to assess the appropriateness of care in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 1637-1641.
10. Shah BR, Hux JE, Laupacis A, Zinman B, Van Walraven C. Clinical inertia in response to inadequate glycemic control: do specialists differ from primary care physicians? Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 600-606.
11. Ziemer DC, Miller CD, Rhee MK et al. Clinical inertia contributes to poor diabetes control in a primary care setting. Diabetes Educ 2005; 31: 564-571.
12. Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB et al. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 825-834.
13. Brown JB, Nichols GA. Slow response to loss of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Manag Care 2003; 9: 213-217.
14. American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel Guidelines for Computer Modeling of Diabetes and Its Complications. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 2262-2265.
15. Mount Hood 4 Modeling Group Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care 2007; 30: 1638-1646.
16. Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia 2004; 47: 1747-1759.
17. Schwarz B, Gouveia M, Chen J et al. Cost-effectiveness of sitagliptin-based treatment regimens in European patients with type 2 diabetes and haemoglobin A1c above target on metformin monotherapy. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007 (In press).
18. Scott R, Loeys T, Davies MJ, Engel SS. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes, Obes, Metab 2008; [Epub ahead of print].
19. Guisasola FA, Povedano ST, Krishnarajah G, Lyu R, Mavros P, Yin D. Hypoglycaemic symptoms, treatment satisfaction, adherence, and their associations with glycaemic goal, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: findings from the Real-Life Effectiveness and Care Patterns of Diabetes Management (RECAP-DM) study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007 (in press).
20. Nauck MA, Meininger G, Sheng D, Terranella L, Stein PP. Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, compared with the sulfonylurea, glipizide, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin alone: a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2007; 9: 194-205.
21. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853.
22. Turner R, Cull C, Holman R. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 17: a 9-year update of a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of improved metabolic control on complications in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 136-145.
23. UKPDS Group UK prospective diabetes study 16. Overview of 6 years' therapy of type II diabetes: a progressive disease. U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Diabetes 1995; 44: 1249-1258.
24. UKPDS Group United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). 13: Relative efficacy of randomly allocated diet, sulphonylurea, insulin, or metformin in patients with newly diagnosed non-insulin dependent diabetes followed for three years. Br Med J 1995; 310: 83-88.
25. Zhou H, Isaman DJ, Messinger S et al. A computer simulation model of diabetes progression, quality of life, and cost. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 2856-2863.
26. Raskin P, Allen E, Hollander P et al. Initiating insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a comparison of biphasic and basal insulin analogs. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 260-265.
27. Janka HU, Plewe G, Riddle MC, Kliebe-Frisch C, Schweitzer MA, Yki-Jarvinen H. Comparison of basal insulin added to oral agents versus twice-daily premixed insulin as initial insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 254-259.
28. Schreiber SA, Russmann A. Insulin glargine and educational intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes in clinical practice: long-term improvement in glycaemic control without weight gain. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2006; 114: 41-42.
29. Hanefeld M, Brunetti P, Schernthaner GH, Matthews DR, Charbonnel BH. One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 141-147.