<scp>C</scp>hina type 2 diabetes treatment status survey of treatment pattern of oral drugs users

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>The aim of the present study was to investigate the current status of oral anti‐diabetic drug (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">OAD</jats:styled-content>) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and influencing factors in a real‐world setting in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>hina.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 9872 outpatients with type 2 diabetes, who had received <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">OADs</jats:styled-content> (monotherapy or combination therapy) for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. Current antidiabetic treatment regimen and related clinical data were collected from medical records and analyzed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The most common <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">OADs</jats:styled-content> in use were insulin secretagogues (70.2%) such as sulfonylureas (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SUs</jats:styled-content>; 42.7%) or glinides (27.5%), followed by metformin (53.7%), α‐glucosidase inhibitors (35.9%), thiazolidinediones (17.2%), and dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">DPP</jats:styled-content>‐4) inhibitors (0.8%). Dual‐drug combination therapy was more common (45.4%) than monotherapy (35.8%) and combination therapy with at least three drugs (17.0%). Patients on <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">SU</jats:styled-content> or glinide monotherapy were more likely to alter their treatment frequently (odds ratio [<jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">OR</jats:styled-content>], 1.7; 95% <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">CI</jats:styled-content>, 1.38–2.08; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < 0.001).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>The status of <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">OAD</jats:styled-content> use in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>hina is varied with a majority of the patients altering their treatment regimen citing poor effectiveness. These observations from a real‐world setting may serve as guidance for improving diabetes management in <jats:styled-content style="fixed-case">C</jats:styled-content>hina.</jats:p></jats:sec>