Use Of The GLYCEMIZER® Tool By General Practitioners To Meet Individual Glycated Hemoglobin Goals In Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Abstract

Background — For general practitioners (GPs), it is often not easy to determine the individual glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)-goal of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in order to offer them a tailored treatment and minimize side effects. Usually, they simply rely on their gut feeling. Objective — We assessed the usefulness of an easy-to-use algorithm (GLYCEMIZER®) to calculate individual HbA1c-goals and compared them with targeted (‘gut feeling’ of the GP’s) and achieved levels. Material and Methods — In this cross-sectional survey, general practitioners were asked to report anonymized data of at least 30 consecutive patients with T2DM presenting in their offices from May 1st to August 15th 2016 after obtaining informed consent. Demographic, clinical and biochemical data were used for the GLYCEMIZER® tool to calculate the individual HbA1c-goals. A statistical analysis was conducted in order to compare the calculated HbA1c-goals with targeted and achieved HbA1c-levels. Results — A total of 184 patients (mean age: 69y) were enrolled by 6 participating general practitioners from the Werdenberg-Sarganserland region in eastern Switzerland. Four patients did not meet the inclusion criteria. The overall median calculated HbA1c-goal did not differ from the targeted and achieved levels (7.1% vs. 7.0% vs. 7.1%, p=0.894). There was a significant difference between achieved and calculated HbA1c-levels in patients aged <50 (n=13, median 7.2% vs. 6.5%, p=0.014), goals not achieved) and patients aged >71 (n=85, median 6.9% vs. 7.5%, p=0.005), lower levels achieved in relation to calculated HbA1c-goals). Both in patients treated with insulin (n=44) and in patients without insulin (n=136) the achieved HbA1c-levels met the calculated goals (no insulin: 6.9% vs. 7.0%, ns; with insulin: 7.8% vs. 7.7%, ns). In regard to CKD-stages 3 and 4 the achieved HbA1c-levels were significantly lower than calculated (n= 41, median 6.9% vs. 7.6%, p=0.001). Conclusion — Calculating HbA1c-goals using the GLYCEMIZER tool is more accurate than relying on gut feeling alone, and is specifically useful in the treatment of patients with T2DM of less than 50, as well as more than 70 years of age. Furthermore, it is helpful to meet individual HbA1c-goals in patients with CKD-stages 3+.