Background Landmark clinical trials have led to optimal treatment recommendations for patients with diabetes. Whether optimal treatment is actually delivered in practice is even more important than the efficacy of the drugs tested in trials. To this end, treatment quality indicators have been developed and tested against intermediate outcomes. No studies have tested whether these treatment quality indicators also predict hard patient outcomes. Methods A cohort study was conducted using data collected from >10.000 diabetes patients in the Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Treatment (GIANTT) database and Dutch Hospital Data register. Included quality indicators measured glucose-, lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status and treatment intensification. Hard patient outcome was the composite of cardiovascular events and all-cause death. Associations were tested using Cox regression adjusting for confounding, reporting hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Lipid and albuminuria treatment status, but not blood pressure lowering treatment status, were associated with the composite outcome (HR = 0.77, 0.67–0.88; HR = 0.75, 0.59–0.94). Glucose lowering treatment status was associated with the composite outcome only in patients with an elevated HbA1c level (HR = 0.72, 0.56–0.93). Treatment intensification with glucose-lowering but not with lipid-, blood pressure- and albuminuria-lowering drugs was associated with the outcome (HR = 0.73, 0.60–0.89). Conclusion Treatment quality indicators measuring lipid- and albuminuria-lowering treatment status are valid quality measures, since they predict a lower risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes. The quality indicators for glucose-lowering treatment should only be used for restricted populations with elevated HbA1c levels. Intriguingly, the tested indicators for blood pressure-lowering treatment did not predict patient outcomes. These results question whether all treatment indicators are valid measures to judge quality of health care and its economics.
References
[1]
Hemmingsen B, Lund SS, Gluud C, Vaag A, Almdal T, et al. (2011) Intensive glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 343: d6898.
[2]
de Vries FM, Denig P, Pouwels KB, Postma MJ, Hak E (2012) Primary prevention of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events with statins in diabetic patients: a meta-analysis. Drugs 72(18): 2365–2373.
[3]
Turnbull F, Neal B, Algert C, Chalmers J, Chapman N, et al. (2005) Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 165(12): 1410–1419.
[4]
Ma TK, Kam KK, Yan BP, Lam YY (2010) Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade for cardiovascular diseases: current status. Br J Pharmacol 160(6): 1273–1292.
[5]
Sidorenkov G, Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, de Zeeuw D, Denig P (2013) Association between performance measures and glycemic control among patients with diabetes in a community-wide primary care cohort. Med Care 51(2): 172–179.
[6]
Sidorenkov G, Voorham J, Zeeuw D, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Denig P (2013) Treatment quality indicators predict short-term outcomes in patients with diabetes: a prospective cohort study using the GIANTT database. BMJ Qual Saf 22(4): 339–347.
[7]
NHS Employers (2013) Quality and Outcomes Framework guidance for GMS contract 2013/14. The NHS Confederation (Employers) Company Ltd. Ref: EINF28001. Available: http://www.nhsemployers.org/Aboutus/Publ？ications/Pages/qof-2013-14.aspx. Accessed 2013 Jun 28.
[8]
van Althuis TR, Bastiaanssen EHC, Bouma M (2011) The Dutch College of General Practitioners (Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap (NHG)). Overview and definition of diabetes indicators in general practice (Overzicht en definitie van diabetesindicatoren huisartsenzorg). Versie 1.4. Available: https://www.nhg.org/themas/artikelen/dow？nload-indicatoren. Accessed 28 June 2013.
[9]
National Quality Forum (2010) National Voluntary Consensus Standards For Ambulatory Care Using Clinically Enriched Administrative Data. A Consensus Report; Available: http://www.qualityforum.org/projects/amb？ulatory_clinically_enriched_data.aspx. Accessed 28 June 2013.
[10]
Martirosyan L, Braspenning J, Denig P, de Grauw WJ, Bouma M, et al. (2008) Prescribing quality indicators of type 2 diabetes mellitus ambulatory care. Qual Saf Health Care 17(5): 318–323.
[11]
Voorham J, Denig P, Wolffenbuttel BH, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM (2008) Cross-sectional versus sequential quality indicators of risk factor management in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med Care 46(2): 133–141.
[12]
Selby JV, Uratsu CS, Fireman B, Schmittdiel JA, Peng T, et al. (2009) Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures. Med Care 47(4): 395–402.
[13]
van Bruggen R, Gorter K, Stolk R, Klungel O, Rutten G (2009) Clinical inertia in general practice: widespread and related to the outcome of diabetes care. Fam Pract 26(6): 428–436.
[14]
Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, et al. (2005) Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 366(9493): 1267–1278.
[15]
Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, et al. (2002) Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 360: 1903–1913.
[16]
Nichols GA, Joshua-Gotlib S, Parasuraman S (2013) Independent Contribution of A1C, Systolic Blood Pressure, and LDL Cholesterol Control to Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Hospitalizations in Type 2 Diabetes: An Observational Cohort Study. J Gen Intern Med J Gen Intern Med 28(5): 691–697.
[17]
Zhang Y, Hu G, Yuan Z, Chen L (2012) Glycosylated hemoglobin in relationship to cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7(8): e42551.
[18]
Sidorenkov G, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, de Zeeuw D, Bilo H, Denig P (2011) Review: relation between quality-of-care indicators for diabetes and patient outcomes: a systematic literature review. Med Care Res Rev 68(3): 263–289.
[19]
The GIANTT project (2013) Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 diabetes Treatment Project Website. Available: http://www.giantt.nl. Accessed 2013 Jun 28.
[20]
Lamberts W, (1987) International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Oxford University Press.
[21]
Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands. Microdata services: conduct your own research using data from Statistics Netherlands. Available: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/informatie/？beleid/zelf-onderzoeken/default.htm. Accessed 2013 Jun 28.
[22]
Bouma M, Rutten GE, de Grauw WJ, Wiersma T, Goudswaard AN (2006) Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap. Summary of the practice guideline ‘Diabetes mellitus type 2’ (second revision) from the Dutch College of General Practitioners. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 150(41): 2251–2256.
[23]
O'Connor PJ, Bodkin NL, Fradkin J, Glasgow RE, Greenfield S, et al. (2011) Diabetes performance measures: current status and future directions. Diabetes Care 34(7): 1651–1659.
[24]
Aron D, Pogach L (2008) Quality indicators for diabetes mellitus in the ambulatory setting: using the Delphi method to inform performance measurement development. Qual Saf Health Care 17(5): 315–7.
[25]
Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (2013) Dutch Pharmacotherapy Compendium. Avalable: http://www.fk.cvz.nl. Accessed 2013 Jun 28.
[26]
Lv J, Neal B, Ehteshami P, Ninomiya T, Woodward M, et al. (2012) Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 9(8): e1001293.
[27]
Timbie JW, Hayward RA, Vijan S (2010) Diminishing efficacy of combination therapy, response-heterogeneity, and treatment intolerance limit the attainability of tight risk factor control in patients with diabetes. Health Serv Res 45(2): 437–456.
[28]
Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Wolffenbuttel BH, de Zeeuw D, Stolk RP, et al. (2012) Differential effects of comorbidity on antihypertensive and glucose-regulating treatment in diabetes mellitus—a cohort study. PLoS One 7(6): e38707.
[29]
Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Stolk RP, Wolffenbuttel BH, Denig P (2008) Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Group. Influence of elevated cardiometabolic risk factor levels on treatment changes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 31(3): 501–503.
[30]
Okonofua EC, Simpson KN, Jesri A, Rehman SU, Durkalski VL, et al. (2006) Therapeutic inertia is an impediment to achieving the Healthy People 2010 blood pressure control goals. Hypertension 47(3): 345–351.
[31]
Rose AJ, Berlowitz DR, Manze M, Orner MB, Kressin NR (2009) Comparing methods of measuring treatment intensification in hypertension care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2(4): 385–391.
[32]
Ho PM, Magid DJ, Shetterly SM, Olson KL, Peterson PN, et al. (2008) Importance of therapy intensification and medication nonadherence for blood pressure control in patients with coronary disease. Arch Intern Med 168(3): 271–6.
[33]
Pittman DG, Fenton C, Chen W, Haffner S (2012) Pendergrass M. Relation of statin nonadherence and treatment intensification. Am J Cardiol 110(10): 1459–1463.
[34]
Voorham J, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Wolffenbuttel BH, Stolk RP, Denig P (2011) Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Group. Medication adherence affects treatment modifications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 33(1): 121–134.
[35]
Rose AJ, Berlowitz DR, Manze M, Orner MB, Kressin NR (2009) Intensifying therapy for hypertension despite suboptimal adherence. Hypertension 54(3): 524–529.
[36]
Bulger JB, Shubrook JH, Snow R (2012) Racial disparities in African Americans with diabetes: process and outcome mismatch. Am J Manag Care 18(8): 407–413.
[37]
Botsis T, Bassoe CF, Hartvigsen G (2010) Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 10: 11.
