Explore the vast range of titles available.

The disclosure of proven cardiorenal benefits with certain antidiabetic agents was supposed to herald a new era in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially for the many patients with T2D who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events. However, as the evidence in favour of various sodium–glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) accumulates, prescriptions of these agents continue to stagnate, even among eligible, at-risk patients. By contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) DPP-4i remain more widely used than SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in these patients, despite a similar cost to SGLT2i and a large body of evidence showing no clear benefit on cardiorenal outcomes. We are a group of diabetologists united by a shared concern that clinical inertia is preventing these patients from receiving life-saving treatments, as well as placing them at greater risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease. We propose a manifesto for change, in order to increase uptake of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in appropriate patients as a matter of urgency, especially those who could be readily switched from an agent without proven cardiorenal benefit. Central to our manifesto is a shift from linear treatment algorithms based on HbA1c target setting to parallel, independent considerations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure and renal risks, in accordance with newly updated guidelines. Finally, we call upon all colleagues to play their part in implementing our manifesto at a local level, ensuring that patients do not pay a heavy price for continued clinical inertia in T2D.

Despite an enormous improvement in heart failure management during the last decades, the hospitalization and mortality rate of heart failure patients still remain very high. Clinical inertia, defined as the lack of treatment intensification in a patient not at evidence-based goals for care, is an important underlying cause. Clinical inertia is extensively described in hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus, but increasingly recognized in heart failure as well. Given the well-established guidelines for the management of heart failure, these are still not being reflected in clinical practice. While the absolute majority of patients were treated by guideline-directed heart failure drugs, only a small percentage of these patients reached the correct guideline-recommended target dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. This considerable under-treatment leads to a large number of avoidable hospitalizations and deaths. This review discusses clinical inertia in heart failure and explains its major contributing factors (i.e., physician, patient, and system) and touches upon some recommendations to prevent clinical inertia and ameliorate heart failure treatment.

Clinical inertia, the failure to intensify treatment despite unmet glycemic goals, is a key factor in poor glycemic management for type 2 diabetes. No studies have defined clinical inertia based on HbA1c trends. In this study, we aimed to assess treatment intensification according to HbA1c trends. We analyzed data from the Japan Diabetes Comprehensive Database Project based on an Advanced Electronic Medical Record System (J-DREAMS) between 2016 and 2023. Eligible patients with type 2 diabetes had (1) unchanged prescriptions for the past 90 days; (2) two consecutive consultations within 90 days; and (3) HbA1c levels ≥7%, or ≥7.5%, for patients aged ≥65 years at both consultations. Treatment intensification was defined as an addition or increased dose or switch in antidiabetic medications, inclusive of insulin, at the second consultation. Moreover, factors associated with treatment intensification were assessed. Of the 5,683 patients, 1,130 (19.9%) received intensified treatment at the second consultation. Intensification occurred more frequently with higher HbA1c levels or worsening HbA1c trends. However, treatments were not intensified in approximately 50% of the patients, with HbA1c levels >8% or a worsening of >1%. Predictive factors included the HbA1c levels at the second consultation, changes in the HbA1c levels between the first and second consultations, the number of oral hypoglycemic medications, and the use of sulfonylureas or glinides. Physicians should consider HbA1c trends to guide treatment intensification when HbA1c levels exceed target thresholds. Clinical inertia remains an important issue in diabetes management.

Adequate glycemic control is key to prevent morbi-mortality from type 2 diabetes (T2D). Despite the increasing availability of novel, effective, and safe medications for the treatment of T2D, and periodically updated guidelines on its management, the overall rate of glycemic goal attainment remains low (around 50%) and has not improved in the past decade. Therapeutic inertia (TI), defined as the failure to advance or de-intensify medical therapy when appropriate to do so, has been identified as a central contributor to the lack of progress in the rates of HbA1c goal attainment. The time to treatment intensification in patients not meeting glycemic goals has been estimated to be between 1 and 7 years from the time HbA1c exceeded 7%, and often, even when an intervention is carried out, it proves insufficient to achieve glycemic goals, which led to the concept of intensification inertia. Therefore, finding strategies to overcome all forms of TI in the management of T2D is a fundamental initiative, likely to have an enormous impact in health outcomes for people with T2D. There are several factors that have been described in the literature leading to TI, including clinician-related, patient-related, and healthcare system-related factors, which are discussed in this review. Likewise, several interventions addressing TI had been tested, most of them proving limited efficacy. Within the most effective interventions, there appear to be two common factors. First, they involve a team-based effort, including nurses, pharmacists, and diabetes educators. Second, they were built upon a framework based on results of qualitative studies conducted in the same context where they were later implemented, as will be discussed in this article. Given the complex nature of TI, it is crucial to use a research method that allows for an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. Most of the literature on TI is focused on quantitatively describing its consequences; unfortunately, however, not many study groups have undertaken qualitative studies to deeply investigate the drivers of TI in their diverse contexts. This is particularly true in the United States, where there is an abundance of publications exploring the effects of different strategies to overcome TI in type 2 diabetes, but a severe shortage of qualitative studies aiming to truly understand the phenomenon.

Background The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of delay in treatment intensification (IT; clinical inertia) in conjunction with glycaemic burden on the risk of macrovascular events (CVE) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out using United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including T2DM patients diagnosed from 1990 with follow-up data available until 2012. Results In the cohort of 105,477 patients mean HbA1c was 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at diagnosis, 11% had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 7.1% experienced at least one CVE during 5.3 years of median follow-up. In patients with HbA1c consistently above 7/7.5% (53/58 mmol/mol, n = 23,101/11,281) during 2 years post diagnosis, 26/22% never received any IT. Compared to patients with HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol), in patients with HbA1c ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol), a 1 year delay in receiving IT was associated with significantly increased risk of MI, stroke, HF and composite CVE by 67% (HR CI: 1.39, 2.01), 51% (HR CI: 1.25, 1.83), 64% (HR CI: 1.40, 1.91) and 62% (HR CI: 1.46, 1.80) respectively. One year delay in IT in interaction with HbA1c above 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was also associated with similar increased risk of CVE. Conclusions Among patients with newly diagnosed T2DM, 22% remained under poor glycaemic control over 2 years, and 26% never received IT. Delay in IT by 1 year in conjunction with poor glycaemic control significantly increased the risk of MI, HF, stroke and composite CVE.

To analyze therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes (T2D) subjects with suboptimal glycemic control and treated with ≥2 non-insulin antidiabetic agents in a primary care setting. A retrospective study was conducted using electronic medical records from subjects with HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol). Therapeutic inertia was defined as the absence of treatment intensification despite suboptimal glycemic control where intensification should have been implemented (HbA1c ≥7.5% [≥58 mmol/mol]). Time to the first intensification with non-insulin antidiabetic agent or insulin and HbA1c values at the time of intensification were evaluated by competing risk analysis. 2652 adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.0% (≥53 mmol/mol) were included. During the 4-year follow-up, among 1628 individuals with HbA1c ≥7.5% [≥58 mmol/mol], therapeutic inertia was present in 42.9% of cases. Median time to intensification was 14.5 months (IQR25–75, 4–24 months). In this subgroup, 72.7% of subjects initiated non-insulin agents whereas 27.3% initiated insulin. Mean HbA1c values at initiation of treatment intensification were 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) and 9.2% (77 mmol/mol), respectively. Therapeutic inertia occurred in over 40% of subjects. Treatment intensification took longer and was performed at higher HbA1c than recommended in clinical guidelines. Reducing therapeutic inertia is a priority to achieve therapeutic goals and prevent chronic complications in T2D. •2652 T2D adults treated with ≥2 oral agents and HbA1c ≥7.0% were followed for 4 years.•Therapeutic inertia occurred in over 40% of T2D individuals (cut-off HbA1c ≥7.5%).•The median time to treatment intensification was 14.5 months.•Treatment intensification was performed at higher HbA1c values than recommended.•Therapeutic inertia is an important barrier to achieve adequate glycemic control.