Changing pattern of prescribing antidiabetic agents in patients suffering from diabetes mellitus

Vipul P. Chaudhari, Barna Ganguly


Background: Drug utilization studies are powerful exploratory tools to ascertain the role of drugs in society. They create a sound sociomedical and health economic basis for healthcare decision making. The study was aimed to find out the changing pattern of prescribing the antidiabetic agents in patients suffering from diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2.

Methods: It was a cross sectional study done on 200 patients suffering from type 1 and 2diabetes. Indoor patients and diabetes mellitus due to secondary cause were excluded. Each patient was followed up over a period of 1 year and the analysis of the prescriptions was done during that period. At end of study only 129 patients could be included for analysis.

Results: In this study the maximal change in medicine was with pioglitazone which was discontinued as a 1st change in 6.2% of patients followed by metformin [5.4%], insulin [4.6%], and glipizide [3.8%]. The drug most commonly added as a first change was glipizide [11.6%] followed by metformin [10.0%] and pioglitazone [7.7%]. In order of 2nd change the most common drug discontinued was insulin [4.6%] followed by pioglitazone [3.8%] whereas drug commonly added as second change was insulin [2.3%] followed by glipizide [1.5%] and pioglitazone [1.5%]. In our cross sectional study average onset of 1st change was found to be at 4.38±2.75 months for discontinuation of drug and 3.75±2.42 months in adding the drugs.

Conclusions: Due to lack of certain records, it is envisaged that the change of medicine both discontinuation as well as addition was done because of blood glucose control, cost factor [in case of pioglitazone] as well as patient’s compliance.


Antidiabetic agents, Prescriptions, Changing pattern

Full Text:



Mayor S. Diabetes affects nearly 6% of the world’s adults. BMJ 2006;333:1191.

King H, Aubert RE, Herman WH. Global burden of diabetes, 1995-2025: prevalence, numerical estimates and projections. Diabetes Care 1998;21:1414-31.

Mohan V, Madan Z, Jha R, Deepa R, Pradeepa R. Diabetes-Social and Economic Perspectives in the New Millennium. Int J Diab Dev Countries 2004;24:29-35.

Cantrill JA, Wood J. Diabetes mellitus. In: Walker R, Edwards C, editors. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutic. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone 2003;657-77.

The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group .The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977-86.

UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998;352:837-53.

Bureau of National Health Insurance (2004). Drug reimbursement price and date approved by Bureau of National Health Insurance. Available at: Accessed 20 June 2007.

Powers AC. Diabetes mellitus. In: Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL, editors. Harrison’s principles of internal medicines. 15th ed. New York: McGraw- Hill Inc 2001:2109-37.

Triplitt CL, Reasner CA, Isley WL. Diabetes mellitus. In: Dipiro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM, editors. Pharmacotherapy: a pathological approach. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc 2005:1333.

Kennedy J, Erb C. Prescription noncompliance due to cost among adults with disabilities in the United States. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1120-4.

Bakssas I, Lunde PKM. National drug policies: the need for drug utilization studies. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1986;7:331-4.

Press Trust of India. Insulin to cost less. The Hindu 2003 Jan 4; p.13. (Col.1).

Boccuzzi S J, Wogen J, Fox J, Sung JCY, Shah AB, Kim J. Utilization of oral hypoglycemic agents in a drug-insured US population. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1411-5.