{"title":"Therapeutic Inertia Quantification in Diabetes Care: A Narrative Review and Synthesis","authors":"Ikram Zoukh PharmD , Zeinab Dabbous MBChB , Yaw Owusu MSc , Ahmed Awaisu PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Therapeutic inertia, which refers to the failure to adjust therapy despite suboptimal glycemic control, is a growing concern. This phenomenon is associated with significant adverse health consequences and reflects the gap between population health goals and patient outcomes. Current research lacks harmonized and effective ways to measure therapeutic inertia, posing significant challenges to addressing this issue in diabetes care. This review aimed to summarize the approaches used to quantify therapeutic inertia in diabetes care, with the goal of improving clinical management and patient outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A narrative review was conducted to identify relevant articles through a search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception until August 2024, employing search terms related to <em>therapeutic inertia, quantification,</em> and <em>diabetes care</em>. We included all articles that focused on quantifying therapeutic inertia in diabetes care. Quantification methods were summarized with respect to key aspects of formula, scoring, validation, advantages, and limitations.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Four approaches for quantifying therapeutic inertia were identified from the retrieved articles. However, these methods have several limitations that have led to the development of a therapeutic inertia index. The primary goal of the index as a quality measure is to describe healthcare providers’ practices and establish a connection between the implemented process measures and key glycemic outcomes. Three commonly used therapeutic inertia indices have been reported in the literature: the norm-based method, standard-based method (SBM), and American Diabetes Association method.</div></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><div>There is a need to standardize therapeutic inertia measurement approaches and develop comprehensive interventions to enhance the management of diabetes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10699,"journal":{"name":"Clinical therapeutics","volume":"47 5","pages":"Pages 384-389"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149291825000463","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Therapeutic inertia, which refers to the failure to adjust therapy despite suboptimal glycemic control, is a growing concern. This phenomenon is associated with significant adverse health consequences and reflects the gap between population health goals and patient outcomes. Current research lacks harmonized and effective ways to measure therapeutic inertia, posing significant challenges to addressing this issue in diabetes care. This review aimed to summarize the approaches used to quantify therapeutic inertia in diabetes care, with the goal of improving clinical management and patient outcomes.
Methods
A narrative review was conducted to identify relevant articles through a search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Web of Science databases from their inception until August 2024, employing search terms related to therapeutic inertia, quantification, and diabetes care. We included all articles that focused on quantifying therapeutic inertia in diabetes care. Quantification methods were summarized with respect to key aspects of formula, scoring, validation, advantages, and limitations.
Findings
Four approaches for quantifying therapeutic inertia were identified from the retrieved articles. However, these methods have several limitations that have led to the development of a therapeutic inertia index. The primary goal of the index as a quality measure is to describe healthcare providers’ practices and establish a connection between the implemented process measures and key glycemic outcomes. Three commonly used therapeutic inertia indices have been reported in the literature: the norm-based method, standard-based method (SBM), and American Diabetes Association method.
Implications
There is a need to standardize therapeutic inertia measurement approaches and develop comprehensive interventions to enhance the management of diabetes.
目的:治疗惯性,指的是在血糖控制不理想的情况下调整治疗的失败,这是一个越来越受到关注的问题。这一现象与严重的不良健康后果有关,并反映了人口健康目标与患者结果之间的差距。目前的研究缺乏统一和有效的方法来衡量治疗惯性,这对解决糖尿病护理中的这一问题提出了重大挑战。本综述旨在总结用于量化糖尿病治疗惯性的方法,以改善临床管理和患者预后。方法:通过检索MEDLINE (PubMed)、Embase和Web of Science数据库从建立到2024年8月的相关文章,采用与治疗惯性、量化和糖尿病护理相关的搜索词,进行叙述性回顾。我们纳入了所有专注于量化糖尿病治疗惯性的文章。对量化方法的公式、评分、验证、优势和局限性等关键方面进行了总结。结果:从检索到的文章中确定了四种量化治疗惯性的方法。然而,这些方法有一些局限性,导致了治疗惯性指数的发展。该指数作为一种质量指标的主要目标是描述医疗保健提供者的做法,并在实施的过程措施和关键血糖结局之间建立联系。文献报道了三种常用的治疗惯性指标:基于规范的方法,基于标准的方法(SBM)和美国糖尿病协会的方法。意义:有必要规范治疗惯性测量方法,并制定综合干预措施,以加强糖尿病的管理。
期刊介绍:
Clinical Therapeutics provides peer-reviewed, rapid publication of recent developments in drug and other therapies as well as in diagnostics, pharmacoeconomics, health policy, treatment outcomes, and innovations in drug and biologics research. In addition Clinical Therapeutics features updates on specific topics collated by expert Topic Editors. Clinical Therapeutics is read by a large international audience of scientists and clinicians in a variety of research, academic, and clinical practice settings. Articles are indexed by all major biomedical abstracting databases.