Abstract
Background
Therapeutic inertia leading to delays in insulin initiation or intensification is a major contributor to lack of optimal diabetes care. This report reviews the literature summarizing data on therapeutic inertia and delays in insulin intensification in the management of type 2 diabetes.
Methods
A literature search was conducted of the Allied & Complementary Medicine, BIOSIS Previews, Embase, EMCare, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, and ToxFile databases for clinical studies, observational research, and meta-analyses from 2012 to 2022 using search terms for type 2 diabetes and delay in initiating/intensifying insulin. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria.
Results
Time until insulin initiation among patients on two to three antihyperglycemic agents was at least 5 years, and mean A1C ranged from 8.7 to 9.8%. Early insulin intensification was linked with reduced A1C by 1.4%, reduction of severe hypoglycemic events from 4 to <1 per 100 person-years, and diminution in risk of heart failure (HF) by 18%, myocardial infarction (MI) by 23%, and stroke by 28%. In contrast, delayed insulin intensification was associated with increased risk of HF (64%), MI (67%), and stroke (51%) and a higher incidence of diabetic retinopathy. In the views of both patients and providers, hypoglycemia was identified as a primary driver of therapeutic inertia; 75.5% of physicians reported that they would treat more aggressively if not for concerns about hypoglycemia.
Conclusion
Long delays before insulin initiation and intensification in clinically eligible patients are largely driven by concerns over hypoglycemia. New diabetes technology that provides continuous glucose monitoring may reduce occurrences of hypoglycemia and help overcome therapeutic inertia associated with insulin initiation and intensification.
New diabetes medications (e.g., sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists) and new technology for monitoring glucose levels (e.g., continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] systems) have proven to be effective in the management of diabetes (1). Despite their availability, the proportion of the U.S. population with diabetes achieving healthy A1C levels has failed to improve (2,3). A comparison of data collected from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) on adults with diabetes between the periods 2003–2010 and 2011–2014 revealed that a lower proportion of individuals in the latter time period achieved the recommended A1C target of <7% (52.2 vs. 50.9%, respectively) (2). The same study showed only small changes in the achievement of individualized targets (69.8 vs. 63.8%, respectively). Conversely, the percentage of patients with diabetes who had an A1C >9% actually increased by ∼3% from 2003–2010 to 2011–2014 (2). A similar study comparing NHANES data between the periods of 2007–2010 and 2015–2018 revealed a decline of 4% in individuals who achieved an A1C target of <8%, from 79.4% in 2007–2010 to 75.4% in 2015–2018 (3).
Many factors contribute to these disappointing findings. One important factor is therapeutic inertia, defined by the American Diabetes Association as “a lack of timely adjustment to therapy when a patient’s treatment goals are not met” (4). In the context of diabetes care, therapeutic inertia refers to being slow to add or change a patient’s care plan, which includes medications, health checks, diabetes education, nutrition therapy, exercise, and emotional support, when the patient’s A1C is above goal (4). A recent review by Andreozzi et al. (5) described the roles of health care professionals, patients, and the national health care system in therapeutic inertia in diabetes. It highlighted clinician-based factors contributing to therapeutic inertia specific to insulin initiation or intensification, including concerns about the risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain, as well as a perceived lack of patient ability to adhere to insulin-based therapies, among others.
Disparities in diabetes care contributing to higher rates of diabetes complications and mortality among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income adults in the United States have been well documented, prompting greater scrutiny of social determinants of health (SDOH) and implicit bias in diabetes care in these populations (6,7). Recent reviews focused on SDOH in diabetes (6,7) have described several key factors contributing to these disparities. Although these factors are numerous and varied, racial bias and discrimination, coupled with poor access to quality care, are likely the ones most closely related to therapeutic inertia. Additionally, underserved populations are significantly less likely to have access to, or to use, newer medications and diabetes-related technology (8–12).
To better understand therapeutic inertia and delays in insulin intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes, we performed a literature search to clarify attitudes toward therapeutic inertia and insulin intensification, time until insulin intensification, consequences of delay in insulin intensification, clinical benefits of insulin intensification, and the relationship between insulin intensification and health care resources.
Research Design and Methods
For this review, we conducted a comprehensive search of recent human-related literature on type 2 diabetes and delay in initiating or intensifying insulin published from January 2012 to March 2022 using the Allied & Complementary Medicine, BIOSIS Previews, Embase, EMCare, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, and ToxFile databases. Keywords in titles and abstracts were combined using “OR”/“AND” operators and included search terms for type 2 diabetes and delay in initiating or intensifying insulin. Additionally, references cited in key articles were also searched manually.
After the initial search was performed, studies were screened for eligibility. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were clinical studies, meta-analyses, or observational research pertaining to humans. Exclusion criteria included articles that were 1) not relevant to the subject; 2) published >10 years before the search date range; 3) pertaining to pregnancy; 4) not clinical studies, meta-analyses, or observational research; and 5) nonhuman studies.
Results
A total of 116 publications were initially identified. Ninety-nine publications were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. The final inclusion set consisted of 22 publications (13–34), of which 17 were based on the search criteria and an additional five were detected through a review of references included in key studies. Results are presented by categorical organization of findings.
Attitudes Toward Therapeutic Inertia and Insulin Intensification
Therapeutic inertia in diabetes care is multifactorial, with clinician, provider, and health system contributions (13–16). Major drivers of therapeutic inertia include fear of hypoglycemia, concerns about weight gain, and the perceived complexity of insulin regimens (13–16). For example, the results of a physician survey–based study conducted by Peyrot et al. (13) found that 87.6% of physicians agreed that insulin-treated patients do not have adequate glucose control and that 75.5% would treat more aggressively if not for concerns over hypoglycemia. Results from a more recent physician survey–based study conducted by Leto et al. (17) revealed that the five most inappropriate actions contributing to therapeutic inertia in clinical practice were 1) nonuse of sulfonylureas/glinides, 2) failure to appreciate the risk of lack of hypoglycemia awareness, 3) reluctance to initiate intensification of diabetes therapy, 4) failure to initiate treatment changes for patients who are not at glycemic target, and 5) failure to train patients for hypoglycemia treatment.
Time Until Insulin Intensification
In a review of published literature on the subject, Giugliano et al. (18) concluded that the greatest contributing factors to therapeutic inertia were failure to initiate or intensify insulin treatment. In support of this assertion, several studies have documented long delays in the time until insulin intensification. Escalada et al. (19) found that, in patients with poorly controlled diabetes, 31–46% of general practitioners, internists, and endocrinologists waited 3–6 months before initiating insulin, and 58–71% confirmed elevated A1C levels twice before initiating insulin. Other studies have found that, for patients with type 2 diabetes on two or three antihyperglycemic agents, the median time to insulin initiation was from 5 years to >7.1 years (20–22). Furthermore, the mean A1C for patients with type 2 diabetes on two to three antihyperglycemic agents who were initiating insulin was observed to be 8.7–9.8% (20,21,23–25), indicating a significant delay in insulin initiation. Khunti et al. (26) documented a median time until 3.7 years for insulin intensification from basal insulin, despite having an A1C >7.5%. Other studies have detected low rates of insulin intensification (5.1–30.9%) among clinically eligible (A1C ≥7.5%) patients with type 2 diabetes (16,20,26,27). A study following type 2 diabetes patients who were newly initiated on basal insulin therapy found that, after 6 months, 81% remained in poor glycemic control, and after 12 months, only 34% of the patients with uncontrolled glycemia underwent the addition of another antihyperglycemic agent (28).
Consequences of Delayed Insulin Intensification
A study by Paul et al. (27) identified significantly increased risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (67%), stroke (51%), heart failure (64%), and composite macrovascular events (62%) after a 1-year delay in treatment intensification. Hosomura et al. (29) found that clinically eligible patients who initiated insulin for the first time as recommended by physicians had a median time to an A1C of 7.0% of 18 months compared with 30 months for those who did not initiate insulin the first time. A meta-analysis of the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes), UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study), ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation), and VADT (Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial) cardiovascular trials showed reductions of 15% in MI and 9% in cardiovascular events in the tight glycemic control group (30). It has also been shown that therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes was associated with a shorter median time of 46 months to progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) compared with the median not being reached during a 4-year study in the noninertia group, in addition to the finding of a higher incidence of DR (10 vs. 2.2 cases per 1,000 person-months, in the inertia vs. noninertia groups, respectively) (31).
Clinical Benefits of Insulin Intensification
A retrospective study conducted by Hersi et al. (32) compared groups with early insulin intensification (<1 year), delayed insulin intensification (>1 year), and no insulin intensification. Findings indicated that early treatment intensification was linked to 18, 23, and 28% reductions in the risk of heart failure, MI, and stroke, respectively. The results from one study in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin found a decrease in A1C of 1.4% and a decrease of severe hypoglycemic events from 4 to <1 per 100 person-years (33).
Relationship Between Insulin Intensification and Health Care Resources
Using Medicare Benefits Schedule codes (general practitioner [GP], specialist, allied health, nurse, procedures, imaging, and pathology), Johnson et al. (34) detected an increase in health service usage (HSU) events from a median of 18–23 6 months after insulin initiation. The investigators reported that this increase was largely attributable to an increase in GP consultations from six to eight. HSU and GP consultations subsequently returned to baseline at 12 months (34).
Discussion
This literature review revealed a time to insulin intensification of at least 5 years in patients with type 2 diabetes with an average A1C before intensification >8%. These findings are strongly suggestive of significant delays in insulin initiation and intensification for clinically eligible patients with type 2 diabetes.
The main reason for this delay appears to be fear of hypoglycemia; however, there was even a decrease in hypoglycemia as insulin was intensified. This counterintuitive finding is corroborated by the ACCORD study; the highest rates of severe hypoglycemia were observed in those with the highest baseline A1C and the smallest A1C reductions (35,36).
Additional findings suggest that such delays pose a variety of serious health risks, including the risk of DR progression and potentially fatal cardio- and cerebrovascular events. Several of the reviewed studies have shown that these risks can be dramatically reduced when insulin intensification is initiated promptly, indirectly highlighting the dangers of therapeutic inertia. In addition to decreasing health risks, insulin intensification was not found to be associated with long-term increases in HSU, which should stimulate a greater interest in reducing therapeutic inertia at the payer level.
Recognizing the lack of improvement of outcomes in type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association in 2020 launched its Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia initiative (37). Part of addressing therapeutic inertia is understanding and addressing the patient and physician attitudes contributing to less timely treatment modification. Survey-based publications on patient and provider attitudes pertaining to insulin initiation and intensification identified in this literature search indicated that fear of hypoglycemia and a history of severe hypoglycemic events contribute importantly to therapeutic inertia (15,19).
However, patient-related factors must also be considered. For example, many patients are resistant to initiating and/or intensifying insulin because of their beliefs and perceptions about this mode of therapy, a condition first referred to by Polonsky et al. (38) as “psychological insulin resistance.” In addition to fear of hypoglycemia, some patients are resistant because they believe insulin therapy will be harmful (e.g., will cause blindness), or they may believe that starting insulin means their diabetes is worsening (38). Other reasons can include the desire to avoid the pain of injections, low confidence in their ability to safely use insulin, and the worry that insulin therapy will be too restrictive (38). Lack of social support (39) and psychological conditions such as depression, distress, and anxiety can also affect patient acceptance and adherence to insulin therapy (40).
Treatment with newer medications such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors provide an alternative to insulin in managing hyperglycemia with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. However, these medications may not be acceptable for some patients because of intolerance of side effects and/or cost.
It is noteworthy that the advent of new diabetes-related technology specifically focused on assessing glucose levels in a continuous manner to avoid hypoglycemic events (41) and improve quality of life and psychological conditions (42,43) may alleviate these concerns and contribute to decreased therapeutic inertia. Numerous studies conducted over the past decade have shown that use of CGM is associated with significant reductions in A1C and severe hypoglycemic events in patients with diabetes receiving insulin via a variety of delivery methods (41–44). Gavin and Bailey (43) recently noted that, in addition to improvements in clinical outcomes for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes using CGM, the results of several studies have also indicated significant improvements in patient psychosocial measures, including reduced fear of hypoglycemia.
Additionally, associations between CGM use and significant reductions in hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) have been detected in large observational registry and database studies (45), strongly suggesting a level of cost-effectiveness that may be valuable for consideration by payers interested in reducing the huge financial burden associated with diabetes.
Given that new diabetes technology has been found to improve diabetes management, better understanding of how racial/ethnic group identity and socioeconomic status affect access to these new tools may be useful to help mitigate therapeutic inertia. The 2021 U.S. Census found that Hispanics and Blacks have lower median incomes than non-Hispanic Whites ($51,560, $41,361, and $70,642, respectively) (46). Lower socioeconomic status and minority race/ethnicity have been associated with higher A1C levels (12,47,48) and greater risks for negative health outcomes (e.g., DKA, DR, lower limb amputation, major cardiovascular disease, stroke, and end-stage renal disease) in patients with diabetes (6,49–52), and these populations are also the most likely to experience therapeutic inertia (53,54). Non-Hispanic Blacks and people with the lowest annual incomes also have the highest rates of severe hypoglycemia (55–58). A study conducted by Miller et al. (47) showed that, regardless of income level and type of insurance (i.e., none, state/federal, or private), individuals using CGM had lower A1C levels than nonusers of CGM. In addition, initiating CGM has been found to reduce severe hypoglycemia (41,59). Recent evidence suggests that patients with diabetes from minority racial/ethnic groups are less likely than their non-Hispanic White counterparts to use CGM (8–12), and likewise that those with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to use diabetes technology (47,48).
Collectively, the results of this comprehensive literature review on the causes and consequences of delay in initiating and intensifying insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes support an urgent need for overcoming the therapeutic inertia that places this patient population at high risk for negative health outcomes. New diabetes technology, including CGM, may contribute to a dramatic decline in the therapeutic inertia driven by concerns about increased hypoglycemia with insulin initiation or intensification, which can now be readily assessed and more comprehensively addressed.
Conclusion
Therapeutic inertia remains a barrier to the optimal care of patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Patients, providers, and payers are uncomfortable with insulin initiation and intensification largely because of concerns about provoking hypoglycemia, which can lead to hospitalizations and an ever-increasing cost burden. Based on recent developments in diabetes technology, including the widespread use of CGM, hypoglycemia may become less of a persistent consequence of intensified insulin treatment, and this in turn may reduce therapeutic inertia via improved confidence among all stakeholders. Barriers to CGM access will need to be addressed to decrease therapeutic inertia and provide effective treatment for all patients regardless of their racial/ethnic identity or socioeconomic status.
Article Information
Acknowledgments
The authors thank William Perlman, PhD, CMPP, for his editorial assistance in developing this article.
Funding
This study was funded by Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA.
Duality of Interest
J.R.G. has served on advisory boards and/or speaker bureaus for Abbott Diabetes Care, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Novo Nordisk. R.M.A. and N.S.V. are employees of Abbott Diabetes Care. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.
Author Contributions
J.R.G. contributed to the concept and design of the study, provided data regarding health disparities, participated in writing the initial draft, and provided critical revision of the manuscript. R.M.A. contributed to the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. N.S.V. participated in the acquisition of the data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript and provided administrative, technical, or logistic support and supervision. All authors reviewed the manuscript and approved its submission. J.R.G. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA.
References
- 1. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee . 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 2022;45(Suppl. 1):S125–S143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Carls G, Huynh J, Tuttle E, Yee J, Edelman SV. Achievement of glycated hemoglobin goals in the US remains unchanged through 2014. Diabetes Ther 2017;8:863–873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Fang M, Wang D, Coresh J, Selvin E. Trends in diabetes treatment and control in U.S. adults, 1999–2018. N Engl J Med 2021;384:2219–2228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. American Diabetes Association . Overcoming therapeutic inertia in diabetes care. Available from https://www.therapeuticinertia.diabetes.org/about-therapeutic-inertia. Accessed 26 July 2022
- 5. Andreozzi F, Candido R, Corrao S, et al. Clinical inertia is the enemy of therapeutic success in the management of diabetes and its complications: a narrative literature review. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2020;12:52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hill-Briggs F, Ephraim PL, Vrany EA, et al. Social determinants of health, race, and diabetes population health improvement: Black/African Americans as a population exemplar. Curr Diab Rep 2022;22:117–128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hill-Briggs F, Adler NE, Berkowitz SA, et al. Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care 2020;44:258–279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Wilcox A, Mencher S, Nally LM, Weinzimer SA. Racial disparities in diabetes distress and technology use in adolescents with type 1 diabetes [Abstract]. Diabetes 2022;71(Suppl. 1):1025–P [Google Scholar]
- 9. Stein CR, Ilkowitz J, Gonzalez JE, Gallagher MP. Differences in diabetes technology use only partially explain disparities in type 1 diabetes outcomes in minority youth [Abstract]. Diabetes 2022;71(Suppl. 1):1006–P [Google Scholar]
- 10. Grundman J, Castro MG, Hoover AE, et al. Disparities in CGM uptake and sustained use among youth with type 1 diabetes [Abstract]. Diabetes 2022;71(Suppl. 1):1015–P [Google Scholar]
- 11. Agarwal S, Schechter C, Gonzalez J, Long JA. Racial-ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use among young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23:306–313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Majidi S, Ebekozien O, Noor N, et al.; T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative Study Group . Inequities in health outcomes in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: data from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. Clin Diabetes 2021;39:278–283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Peyrot M, Barnett AH, Meneghini LF, Schumm-Draeger PM. Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational Global Attitudes of Patients and Physicians in Insulin Therapy study. Diabet Med 2012;29:682–689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Iqbal N, Ali Z, Ullah I, Uddin Z, Awan MB, Mahmood K. Psychological barriers towards early insulin initiation in uncontrolled type 2 diabetic patients. Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute 2019;33:13–18 [Google Scholar]
- 15. Perez-Nieves M, Polonsky W, Fisher L, et al. Attitudes among adults with type 2 diabetes affecting insulin initiation and discontinuation. Diabetologia 2018;61(Suppl. 1):S438 [Google Scholar]
- 16. Bailey CJ. Under-treatment of type 2 diabetes: causes and outcomes of clinical inertia. Int J Clin Pract 2016;70:988–995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Leto G, Barchetta I, De Candia L, et al. Identification of the inappropriate clinical actions (DON’T) to improve the management of patients with type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral treatment: results of survey for a panel of diabetes specialists in Italy. Diabetes Ther 2021;12:2645–2661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Giugliano D, Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Esposito K. Clinical inertia, reverse clinical inertia, and medication non-adherence in type 2 diabetes. J Endocrinol Invest 2019;42:495–503 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Escalada J, Orozco-Beltran D, Morillas C, et al. Attitudes towards insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes patients among healthcare providers: a survey research. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2016;122:46–53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Khunti K, Wolden ML, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ. Clinical inertia in people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study of more than 80,000 people. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Kim SG, Kim NH, Ku BJ, et al. Delay of insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycemic agents (analysis of patient- and physician-related factors): a prospective observational DIPP-FACTOR study in Korea. J Diabetes Investig 2017;8:346–353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Mast MR, Jansen APD, Kostense PJ, et al. What is the delay in time to insulin therapy initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes not responding to oral glucose lowering agents? Delay time to insulin initiation [Abstract]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Diabetologie 2013;11:138 [Google Scholar]
- 23. Mcgovern A, Hinton W, Whyte M, et al. What are the HbA1c thresholds for initiating insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care? [Abstract] Diabetologia 2016;59(Suppl. 1):S416–S417 [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jabbar A, Mohamed WMIBW, Ozaki R, et al. Patterns and trends in insulin initiation and intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Western Pacific region. Curr Med Res Opin 2018;34:1653–1662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Jabbar A, Abdallah K, Hassoun A, et al. Patterns and trends in insulin initiation and intensification among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Middle East and North Africa region. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019;149:18–26 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Khunti K, Nikolajsen A, Thorsted BL, Andersen M, Davies MJ, Paul SK. Clinical inertia with regard to intensifying therapy in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Obes Metab 2016;18:401–409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Paul SK, Klein K, Thorsted BL, Wolden ML, Khunti K. Delay in treatment intensification increases the risks of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2015;14:100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Mocarski M, Yeaw J, Divino V, et al. Slow titration and delayed intensification of basal insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2018;24:390–400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Hosomura N, Zhang H, Turchin A. Blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes who decline insulin therapy [Abstract]. Endocr Rev 2018;39(Suppl. 1):i184–i185 [Google Scholar]
- 30. Control Group; Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ, et al. Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2009;52:2288–2298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Osataphan S, Chalermchai T, Ngaosuwan K. Clinical inertia causing new or progression of diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. J Diabetes 2017;9:267–274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Hersi M, Adan Hag S, Seidu K, et al. Treatment intensification and risk of cardiovascular events in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a United Kingdom retrospective cohort study [Abstract]. Value Health 2020;23(Suppl. 2):S408 [Google Scholar]
- 33. Caputo S, Andersen H, Kaiser M, Karnieli E, Meneghini LF; SOLVE Study Group . Effect of baseline glycosylated hemoglobin A1c on glycemic control and diabetes management following initiation of once-daily insulin detemir in real-life clinical practice. Endocr Pract 2013;19:462–470 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Johnson S, Thuraisingam S, Furler J, Nankervis JM. Changes in health services usage associated with insulin initiation in primary care. Aust J Prim Health 2018;24:155–161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Miller ME, Bonds DE, Gerstein HC, et al.; ACCORD Investigators . The effects of baseline characteristics, glycaemia treatment approach, and glycated haemoglobin concentration on the risk of severe hypoglycaemia: post hoc epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ 2010;340:b5444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Bonds DE, Miller ME, Bergenstal RM, et al. The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study. BMJ 2010;340:b4909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gabbay RA, Kendall D, Beebe C, et al. Addressing therapeutic inertia in 2020 and beyond: a 3-year initiative of the American Diabetes Association. Clin Diabetes 2020;38:371–381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Guzman S, Villa-Caballero L, Edelman SV. Psychological insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes: the scope of the problem. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2543–2545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Song Y, Song H-J, Han H-R, Park SY, Nam S, Kim MT. Unmet needs for social support and effects on diabetes self-care activities in Korean Americans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2012;38:77–85 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Świątoniowska-Lonc N, Tański W, Polański J, Jankowska-Polańska B, Mazur G. Psychosocial determinants of treatment adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes: a review. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2021;14:2701–2715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Addala A, Zaharieva DP, Gu AJ, et al. Clinically serious hypoglycemia is rare and not associated with time-in-range in youth with new-onset type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2021;106:3239–3247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Anderson JE, Gavin JR, Kruger DF. Current eligibility requirements for CGM coverage are harmful, costly, and unjustified. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:169–173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Gavin JR, Bailey CJ. Real-world studies support use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 and type 2 diabetes independently of treatment regimen. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021;23(Suppl. 3):S19–S27 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther 2019;21:66–72 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Roussel R, Riveline JP, Vicaut E, et al. Important drop in rate of acute diabetes complications in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes after initiation of flash glucose monitoring in France: the RELIEF study. Diabetes Care 2021;44:1368–1376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. U.S. Census Bureau . Real median household income by race and Hispanic origin: 1967 to 2018. Available from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2019/demo/p60-266/figure2.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2020
- 47. Miller KM, Beck RW, Foster NC, Maahs DM. HbA1c levels in type 1 diabetes from early childhood to older adults: a deeper dive into the influence of technology and socioeconomic status on HbA1c in the T1D Exchange clinic registry findings. Diabetes Technol Ther 2020;22:645–650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Addala A, Auzanneau M, Miller K, et al. A decade of disparities in diabetes technology use and HbA1c in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a transatlantic comparison. Diabetes Care 2021;44:133–140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Borschuk AP, Everhart RS. Health disparities among youth with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review of the current literature. Fam Syst Health 2015;33:297–313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Smalls BL, Ritchwood TD, Bishu KG, Egede LE. Racial/ethnic differences in glycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetes: United States 2003–2014. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Haw JS, Shah M, Turbow S, Egeolu M, Umpierrez G. Diabetes complications in racial and ethnic minority populations in the USA. Curr Diab Rep 2021;21:2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Lindner LME, Rathmann W, Rosenbauer J. Inequalities in glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis according to socio-economic status and area-level deprivation in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Diabet Med 2018;35:12–32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Mathur R, Farmer RE, Eastwood SV, Chaturvedi N, Douglas I, Smeeth L. Ethnic disparities in initiation and intensification of diabetes treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes in the UK, 1990–2017: a cohort study. PLoS Med 2020;17:e1003106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Chudasama YV, Zaccardi F, Coles B, et al. Ethnic, social and multimorbidity disparities in therapeutic inertia: a UK primary care observational study in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 2021;23:2437–2445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Engler R, Routh TL, Lucisano JY. Adoption barriers for continuous glucose monitoring and their potential reduction with a fully implanted system: results from patient preference surveys. Clin Diabetes 2018;36:50–58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Willi SM, Miller KM, DiMeglio LA, et al.; T1D Exchange Clinic Network . Racial-ethnic disparities in management and outcomes among children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatrics 2015;135:424–434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Redondo MJ, Libman I, Cheng P, et al.; Pediatric Diabetes Consortium . Racial/ethnic minority youth with recent-onset type 1 diabetes have poor prognostic factors. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1017–1024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. McCoy RG, Lipska KJ, Van Houten HK, Shah ND. Association of cumulative multimorbidity, glycemic control, and medication use with hypoglycemia-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among adults with diabetes. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e1919099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Lanzinger S, Best F, Bergmann T, et al. Dynamics of hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, and rates of severe hypoglycemia in 4434 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes after initiation of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther 2022;24:763–769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]