You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content
Download PDF

Fifteen-year trends in diabetes drug management and control in French-speaking Switzerland

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 17, Article number: 56 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Drug management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) should comply with established guidelines. Still, little is known about how drug management of T2D in Switzerland has evolved over time. We aimed at assessing 15-year trends in antidiabetic drug prescription and its effectiveness in reducing fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels.

Research design and methods

Data from the baseline (2003–2006) and three follow-ups (2009–2012, 2014–2017 and 2018–2021) of a population-based study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants treated for T2D were included. At baseline and the follow-ups, participants had their antidiabetic drugs collected, together with their FPG and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.

Results

There were 274, 280, 268 and 195 participants treated for T2D at the baseline, first, second and third follow-ups, respectively, of whom 101 (36.9%), 103 (36.8%), 138 (51.5%) and 84 (43.1%) were controlled (FPG < 7 mmol/L). During the study period, the percentage of biguanides remained stable, the percentage of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones decreased, and the percentage of SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitors increased, but no consistent association with T2D control was found. On bivariate and multivariable analysis, participants with newly diagnosed T2D had a higher likelihood of being controlled than participants with established T2D: odds ratio (95% CI) 3.39 (1.89–6.07), 5.41 (2.25-13.0) and 3.47 (1.45–8.31) for the first, second and third follow-ups on multivariable analysis, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite the prescription of novel antidiabetic drugs, half of participants treated for diabetes do not achieve adequate control in Switzerland. Participants with newly diagnosed diabetes achieve much better control than participants with established diabetes.

Introduction

Prevalence of diabetes, namely type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing worldwide [1]. In Switzerland and other European countries, diabetes management is still subject to improvement, as almost half of treated patients with diabetes are inadequately controlled [2,3,4]. Diabetes treatment is based on a multitude of approaches including lifestyle modifications and antidiabetic drug prescription [5]. Diabetes medication has changed over the years; new drugs have become available, while others are used less frequently for economic and safety reasons. Most national and international guidelines propose metformin as a first-line drug treatment for T2D [6, 7]. Combining metformin with sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like 1 peptide (GLP1) analogues is also recommended [6]. Still, little is known about how T2D drug management in Switzerland has developed over time and whether these changes have led to a better control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or glucose levels.

Evaluating clinical practices in the management of T2D can significantly impact healthcare expenditures and improve patient outcomes by identifying areas for efficiency and optimization in treatment protocols. By evaluating the (cost-)effectiveness of various interventions, clinicians and policymakers can prioritize evidence-based practices that reduce unnecessary hospitalizations, complications, and long-term healthcare costs associated with poorly managed T2D. For example, early intervention strategies, better glycaemic control, and comprehensive care models can prevent progression of the disease and associated comorbidities, leading to fewer emergency room visits and less need for costly treatments. In addition, such assessments can guide healthcare systems in directing resources to the most effective therapies, ultimately improving patients’ quality of life, reducing disparities in care, and maximizing the sustainability of healthcare systems.

We thus assessed the evolution of antidiabetic drug prescription in a sample of the French-speaking Swiss population, and their association with adequate control of HbA1c or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. We also assessed whether newly diagnosed cases of T2D would benefit from the newest antidiabetic drugs. Our hypotheses were that (1) the prescription rates of the new antidiabetic drugs such as DPP4, GLP1 analogues and SGLT2-inhibitors increased, (2) participants treated with the new drugs would achieve a better control of HbA1c or glucose levels than participants who do not receive them, and (3) participants with newly diagnosed T2D would benefit more frequently from the new antidiabetic drugs than participants with established T2D.

Methods

Participants

We used data from the CoLaus study, a prospective, population-based study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. The objectives and characteristics of the CoLaus study have been reported previously [8]. Briefly, CoLaus is an ongoing prospective study aiming to assess the determinants of cardiovascular and psychiatric diseases using a population-based sample drawn from the city of Lausanne, Switzerland. The baseline study was conducted between June 2003 and May 2006; the first follow-up was performed between April 2009 and September 2012; the second follow-up was performed between May 2014 and April 2017 and the third follow-up was performed between April 2018 and May 2021. At baseline and follow-ups, participants responded to several questionnaires, underwent a physical examination, and had blood drawn for analyses.

Diabetes

All prescribed and non-prescribed medications were collected and coded according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification of the World Health Organization (WHO). The ATC codes corresponding to the different categories of antidiabetic drugs are indicated in supplementary Table 1. Combinations of antidiabetic drugs were further split into the different antidiabetic drug classes.

Blood was drawn in the fasting state and biological assays were performed by the Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV) Clinical Laboratory on fresh blood samples within 2 h of blood collection. FPG was assessed by glucose hexokinase. In the second and third follow-ups, HbA1c levels were also measured by high performance liquid chromatography using Bio-Rad, D-10TM system. For the main analysis, diabetes was defined as a FPG ≥ 7 mmol/L or presence of antidiabetic drug treatment. Diabetes control was defined as a FPG < 7 mmol/L [9]. Incident T2D was assessed at follow-ups and defined as a participant devoid of T2D in the previous survey and who developed the condition in the following one.

Covariates

Participants were queried regarding their lifestyle and socio-economic status. Educational level was self-reported using a questionnaire and categorized into low (mandatory or apprenticeship), middle (high school) and high (university). Educational level served as a proxy for socio-economic status. Smoking status was self-reported and categorized into never, former, and current. Participants were asked if they were on an antidiabetic or on any type of diet and, for the first and second follow-ups, were invited to fill a questionnaire assessing physical activity. Sedentary status was defined as spending more than 90% of the daily energy in activities below moderate- and high-intensity [10].

Body weight and height were measured with participants barefoot and in light indoor clothes. Body weight was measured in kilograms to the nearest 100 g using a Seca® scale (Hamburg, Germany). Height was measured to the nearest 5 mm using a Seca® (Hamburg, Germany) height gauge. Body mass index (BMI) was computed, and participants were further categorized into normal (BMI < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 and < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2).

Waist circumference was measured mid-way between the lowest rib and the iliac crest using a non-stretchable tape and the average of two measurements was taken. Abdominal obesity was defined as a waist circumference > 102 cm (men) or > 88 cm (women).

Blood pressure (BP) was measured three times using an Omron® HEM-907 automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer after at least a 10-minute rest in a seated position, and the average of the last two measurements was used. Hypertension was defined by a systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or a diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg or antihypertensive drug treatment.

Exclusion criteria

Participants were considered as eligible if they presented with T2D as defined previously. Participants were excluded if they had (a) no glucose measurement, or (b) missing information for any covariate. Exclusion criteria were applied for the baseline study (2003-06) and each follow-up period (2009-12, 2014-17 and 2018-21).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 18.0 for windows (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA). Descriptive results were expressed as number of participants (percentage) or as average ± standard deviation. Bivariate analyses were performed using chi-square test for categorical variables and Student’s t-test for continuous variables. Multivariable analysis was performed using logistic regression and the results were expressed as Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For control, two approaches were performed, using control level as the dependent variable: first, we assessed the associations for each individual antidiabetic drug (i.e. one antidiabetic drug = one model); second, we included all antidiabetic drugs in a single model. For newly diagnosed participants, we used each individual antidiabetic drug as the independent variable. All models were adjusted for age (continuous), marital status (alone, in couple), educational level (high, middle, low), smoking status (never, former, current), BMI categories (normal, overweight, obese), hypertension (yes, no) and presence of hypolipidemic drug treatment (yes, no). Statistical significance was assessed for a two-sided test with p < 0.05.

Ethical statement

The institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Lausanne, which afterwards became the Ethics Commission of Canton Vaud (www.cer-vd.ch) approved the baseline CoLaus study (reference 16/03, decisions of 13th January and 10th February 2003). The approval was renewed for the first (reference 33/09, decision of 23rd February 2009), the second (reference 26/14, decision of 11th March 2014) and the third (reference PB_2018-00040, decision of 20th March 2018) follow-ups. The approval for the entire CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study was confirmed in 2021 (reference PB_2018-00038, 239/09, decision of 21st June 2021). The study was performed in agreement with the Helsinki declaration and its former amendments, and in accordance with the applicable Swiss legislation. All participants gave their signed informed consent before entering the study.

Results

Selection of participants

Of the initial 6733, 5064, 4881 and 3751 participants for the baseline, first, second and third follow-ups, 436 (6.5%), 539 (10.6%), 498 (10.2%) and 383 (10.2%) were considered as eligible and 434 (99.5%), 531 (98.5%), 347 (69.7%) and 255 (66.6%) were included, respectively. The reasons for exclusion (no glucose measurement, missing information for any covariate) are summarized in supplementary Fig. 1 and the comparison between included and excluded participants is summarized in supplementary Table 2. No consistent differences were found between excluded and included participants between the different surveys. In the second follow-up, included participants were less often female and were less likely to have hypertension compared to excluded participants. In the third follow-up, included participants were more often female (supplementary Table 2).

Trends in antidiabetic drugs

The trends in the different antidiabetic drugs, expressed as % of total, are summarized in Fig. 1 for individual drugs and in Fig. 2 for antidiabetic drug classes. Between 2003 and 06 and 2019-21, the percentage of biguanides, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones decreased, while the percentage of oral drug combinations and SGLT2 inhibitors increased (Fig. 1). When oral drug combinations were split, the percentage of biguanides remained stable, the percentage of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones decreased, and the percentage of SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitors increased (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Trends in antidiabetic drug prescription, CoLaus study, Lausanne, Switzerland

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Trends in classes of antidiabetic drugs prescription, CoLaus study, Lausanne, Switzerland

Full size image

Trends in diabetes management

Of the 434, 531, 347 and 255 included participants with diabetes in the baseline, first, second and third follow-ups, 274 (63.1%), 280 (52.7%), 268 (77.2%) and 195 (76.5%) were treated, respectively. The characteristics of participants according to diabetes treatment are summarized in supplementary Table 3. In all surveys except the third follow-up, treated participants were older than non-treated. At baseline, treated participants were more likely to have abdominal obesity or hypertension. In the first follow-up, treated participants were less often current smokers, had a higher BMI and were more likely to have hypertension. In the third follow-up, treated participants were more often female.

Of the 274, 280, 268 and 195 treated participants in the baseline, first, second and third follow-ups, 101 (36.9%), 103 (36.8%), 138 (51.5%) and 84 (43.1%) were controlled, respectively. The characteristics of participants according to diabetes control are summarized in Table 1. No consistent differences were found between participants with controlled and uncontrolled diabetes for all surveys. At baseline, controlled participants were more often female, while in the second follow-up, controlled participants were older. The associations between the classes of antidiabetic drugs and diabetes control are summarized in Table 2. At baseline, on bivariate analysis, controlled participants used fewer sulfonylureas; on multivariable analysis, use of sulfonylureas or of insulin was associated with a lower likelihood of being controlled. In the first follow up, on bivariate analysis, controlled participants used fewer DPP4 inhibitors, and use of DPP4 inhibitors was associated with a lower likelihood of being controlled. In the second follow-up, on bivariate analysis, there was a trend towards reduced use of DPP4 inhibitors among controlled participants, which became statistically significant after multivariable adjustment. In the third follow-up, there were no significant differences regarding antidiabetic drug classes according to diabetes control (Table 2). Similar conclusions were obtained when all antidiabetic drugs were simultaneously included in the model (supplementary Table 4).

Table 1 Characteristics of participants according to diabetes control, by survey period, CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study, Lausanne, Switzerland
Full size table
Table 2 Distribution of antidiabetic drugs according to diabetes control, by survey period, CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study, Lausanne, Switzerland
Full size table

When biguanides were prescribed, an association with DPP4 inhibitors was found in 9.4%, 26.3% and 33.8% of the cases in the first, second and third follow-ups, respectively. Only 1% and 3.3% of biguanides were associated with GLP1 analogues in the second and third follow-ups, respectively. Regarding SGLT2 inhibitors, an association was found in 4.2% and 8.6% of the cases in the second and third follow-ups, respectively.

Management of newly diagnosed versus established diabetes

Overall, 151 new cases of diabetes were diagnosed and received antidiabetic drug treatment: 80 between the baseline and the first follow-up, 39 between the first and the second follow-ups, and 32 between the second and the third follow-ups. The characteristics of participants according to newly diagnosed or established diabetes are summarized in supplementary Table 5. In the first follow-up, participants with newly diagnosed diabetes were more often female, younger and non-smokers. In the following follow-ups, differences in smoking status were no longer statistically significant. Participants with newly diagnosed diabetes tended to be younger in the second and were more often female in the third follow-up.

The bivariate and multivariable analysis of antidiabetic drugs prescribed are summarized in Table 3. Participants with newly diagnosed diabetes were prescribed significantly less insulin, biguanides, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and DPP4 inhibitors. On bivariate and multivariable analysis, participants with newly diagnosed diabetes had a higher likelihood of being adequately controlled than participants with established diabetes (Table 3).

Table 3 Antidiabetic drugs prescribed to old and newly diagnosed diabetes, CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study, Lausanne, Switzerland
Full size table

Discussion

Our results indicate that, despite the prescription of novel antidiabetic drugs, still half of participants treated for diabetes do not achieve adequate control. Our results also suggest that participants with newly diagnosed diabetes achieve much better control than participants with established diabetes.

Trends in antidiabetic drugs

The decrease in sulfonylureas in our study is consistent with several other studies [11,12,13,14,15] and may be due to the growing awareness of hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular risk associated with these drugs [16]. Similarly, the decrease in thiazolidinediones in our study is consistent with other studies [11, 12, 14]. The slight decrease in insulin therapy in our study contrasts with increased use in other studies [12, 13] and might be due to difficulties in controlling diabetes, as indicated by the relatively low control rates consistently found in all surveys. Biguanides decreased (for individual drugs) or remained stable (for antidiabetic drug class) in our study, whereas they increased in other studies [11,12,13,14,15]. As most national and international guidelines propose metformin as a first-line drug treatment for T2D [6, 7], the reasons for this decrease are hard to explain. The increase of DPP4 or SGLT2 inhibitors and of GLP1 analogues in our study is consistent with several other studies [11,12,13,14,15], although in one study the use of DPP4 inhibitors tended to decrease [14]. Still, an increase in the association of biguanides with DPP4 inhibitors was found, which agrees with the international guidelines [7]. Conversely, the low association of GLP1 analogues with biguanides was unexpected; a possible explanation would be that SGLT2 inhibitors were preferred to GLP1 analogues, as both combinations (metformin + GLP1 analogues or metformin + SGLT2 inhibitors) are recommended by the Swiss Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes [6]. Overall, our results suggest that the Swiss guidelines tend to be implemented in clinical practice, although among a relatively small number of people.

Hence, and as observed elsewhere, our results indicate that in Switzerland, the prescription of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones is decreasing, being replaced by GLP1 analogues, SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitors. Although the combination of DPP4 and SGLT2 inhibitors with metformin increased, the overall use of metformin- and insulin-based therapies decreased, in contrast to other studies [12, 13]. Differences in outcomes may stem from variations in clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, cost-effectiveness and regional healthcare priorities. Sociodemographic and patient-related factors, such as insulin resistance and comorbidities, also influence treatment choices.

Trends in diabetes control

Despite the increasing availability of new antidiabetic drugs, there was little to no improvement in diabetes control, with one half of treated participants not achieving adequate FPG levels. Our findings are in agreement with the literature [4, 17,18,19,20,21,22]. Poor medication adherence contributes to lower diabetes control. A review of 71 studies estimated that only half (51.2%) of patients adhere to their medication [23]. Poorer diabetes control (higher HbA1c levels) has been shown to be associated with earlier intensification of treatment [24, 25]. The most poorly controlled diabetics are already under stronger medication, but their control may remain poor despite increased treatment.

Management of newly diagnosed diabetes

Little is known how management of newly diagnosed diabetes and risk factor control have evolved over time. In our study, diet and BMI did not differ between newly diagnosed and established diabetics, suggesting that lifestyle changes, such as increased physical activity and weight loss, are not effectively implemented to control blood glucose levels. People newly diagnosed with diabetes may be more motivated to adhere to recommended medications, while those with long-term diabetes may relax their monitoring. Nevertheless, in a systematic review of 27 studies, duration of diabetes was not associated with medication adherence [26].

Clinical implications

Maintaining long-term treatment for diabetes is essential to prevent cardiovascular complications [27] and poor medication adherence is associated with increased HbA1c levels, emergency department visits and hospitalizations [28, 29]. Side effects, mainly gastrointestinal and weight gain, hinder adherence to treatment [30]. Patients also lack information to better understand their condition, as well as the benefits and risks of treatment [31]. Our results show that, despite the availability of novel, potent antidiabetic drugs, no significant improvement in diabetes control was found. Hence, a closer monitoring of patients with diabetes should be performed, focusing on a healthy lifestyle, weight control, and adequate compliance to treatment.

Our results also show that participants with newly diagnosed diabetes had better blood glucose control. Clinicians should explore this window of opportunity to provide guidance regarding lifestyle changes and patient-centred care that addresses individual concerns and needs, to increase the likelihood of adequate diabetes control in the future. Metformin, as a first-line therapy for T2D, is widely endorsed by clinical guidelines due to its efficacy, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness [6, 7]. Deviations from these guidelines raise concerns about clinicians’ preferences, patient factors, or gaps in knowledge. Addressing non-adherence could improve patient outcomes by prioritizing evidence-based treatments, reducing complications, and optimizing resources.

Contrary to expected, participants on insulin or on the newer and more potent antidiabetic drugs such as GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors did not present with a better control of their condition. Possible explanations include a reverse causation, those drugs being prescribed to participants with difficulties in controlling their diabetes, or to the small number of participants receiving those drugs, leading to a low statistical power. Further, both DPP4 and SGLT2 inhibitors have a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and potential cardiovascular and renal protective effects, while their impact on glycaemic control may not be as potent as that of sulfonylureas, particularly in patients who are more insulin-resistant or those with advanced diabetes.

Strengths and limitations

There are several strengths to this study. Firstly, the importance of different antidiabetic drugs in the management and control of diabetes in Switzerland was analysed over a period of eighteen years. Secondly, a wide range of socio-demographic covariates were analysed to better understand the facilitating and inhibiting factors for diabetes control.

There are also some limitations to this study. Firstly, it was conducted in a single location, and results might not apply to the entire country or to other settings. Still, the poor control of blood glucose levels is consistent with a previous study conducted in Geneva [22], and studies abroad [32, 33], suggesting that better control among patients with newly diagnosed diabetes might be a general trend. Secondly, the sample size was relatively small, which would have reduced the statistical power. It would be interesting to replicate our study in a larger sample. Thirdly, it was not possible to assess the exact posology of the antidiabetic drugs or the compliance of the participants towards their treatment. This could lead to a possible information bias, with some participants being considered as treated while not taking their medication. Fourthly, other comorbidities beyond hypertension, such as renal impairment, were not considered, yet they can impact the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of certain diabetes medications, influencing treatment outcomes. Fifthly, although the number of excluded participants was small in the first two surveys, it increased significantly in the other two. This might lead to an information bias if excluded participants had different treatment and control levels or received different antidiabetic medications than included ones. Still, as the characteristics of included and excluded participants were globally similar, it can be expected that those differences in management, if present, would be minor. Notwithstanding, it would be of importance if other studies could replicate our findings. Finally, we relied on FPG levels < 7 mmol/L to define diabetes control, which is a rather high level. Had we considered a lower level, the control rates would have been even lower than reported.

We conclude that, in a population-based sample of French-speaking Switzerland, at least half of participants treated for diabetes do not achieve adequate control, despite the availability of novel antidiabetic drugs. Participants with newly diagnosed diabetes achieve better control than participants with established diabetes.

Data availability

The data of CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study used in this article cannot be fully shared as they contain potentially sensitive personal information on participants. According to the Ethics Committee for Research of the Canton of Vaud, sharing these data would be a violation of the Swiss legislation with respect to privacy protection. However, coded individual-level data that do not allow researchers to identify participants are available upon request to researchers who meet the criteria for data sharing of the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus Datacenter (CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland). Any researcher affiliated to a public or private research institution who complies with the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus standards can submit a research application to research.colaus@chuv.ch or research.psycolaus@chuv.ch. Proposals requiring baseline data only, will be evaluated by the baseline (local) Scientific Committee (SC) of the CoLaus and PsyCoLaus studies. Proposals requiring follow-up data will be evaluated by the follow-up (multicentric) SC of the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus cohort study. Detailed instructions for gaining access to the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus data used in this study are available at www.colaus-psycolaus.ch/professionals/how-to-collaborate/.

References

  1. Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, Pinkepank M, Ogurtsova K, Duncan BB, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183:109119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kotseva K, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Ryden L, Hoes A, Grobbee D, et al. Primary prevention efforts are poorly developed in people at high cardiovascular risk: a report from the European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme EUROASPIRE V survey in 16 European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;28(4):370–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lu W, Pikhart H, Tamosiunas A, Kubinova R, Capkova N, Malyutina S, et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, and associated risk factors in the Czech Republic, Russia, Poland and Lithuania: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):883.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Alkandari A, Vaucher J, Marques-Vidal P. Trends in glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control in adults with diabetes in Switzerland: the CoLaus|PsyCoLaus Study. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2023;11(3).

  5. ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. Comprehensive Medical evaluation and Assessment of comorbidities: standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Suppl 1):S49–67. 4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gastaldi G, Lucchini B, Thalmann S, Alder S, Laimer M, Brandle M et al. Swiss recommendations of the Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes (SGED/SSED) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (2023). Swiss Med Wkly. 2023;153:40060.

  7. Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, Bailey CJ, Ceriello A, Delgado V, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(2):255–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Firmann M, Mayor V, Vidal PM, Bochud M, Pecoud A, Hayoz D, et al. The CoLaus study: a population-based study to investigate the epidemiology and genetic determinants of cardiovascular risk factors and metabolic syndrome. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2008;8:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, Buroker AB, Goldberger ZD, Hahn EJ et al. 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation. 2019:CIR0000000000000678.

  10. Bernstein MS, Morabia A, Sloutskis D. Definition and prevalence of sedentarism in an urban population. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(6):862–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Mata-Cases M, Vlacho B, Real J, Puig-Treserra R, Bundo M, Franch-Nadal J et al. Trends in the degree of Control and Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes in a primary care setting in Catalonia during 2007–2018. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:810757.

  12. 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(23):2219–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chu CH, Hsu CC, Lin SY, Chuang LM, Liu JS, Tu ST. Trends in antidiabetic medical treatment from 2005 to 2014 in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118(Suppl 2):S74–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Iketani R, Imai S. Prescription trends for the Antidiabetic agents used to treat type 2 diabetes Mellitus in Japan from 2012–2020: a time-series analysis. Biol Pharm Bull. 2023;46(4):592–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Engler C, Leo M, Pfeifer B, Juchum M, Chen-Koenig D, Poelzl K et al. Long-term trends in the prescription of antidiabetic drugs: real-world evidence from the Diabetes Registry Tyrol 2012–2018. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1).

  16. Mohan V, Saboo B, Khader J, Modi KD, Jindal S, Wangnoo SK, et al. Position of sulfonylureas in the current ERA: review of National and International guidelines. Clin Med Insights Endocrinol Diabetes. 2022;15:11795514221074663.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mingrone G, Castagneto-Gissey L, Bornstein SR. New Horizons: emerging antidiabetic medications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(12):e4333–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niskanen L, Hannula M, Kysenius K, Kaijala S, Lassenius MI, Valle TT. Trends in clinical characteristics, medication use, and glycemic control in insulin-treated patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Finland in 2012–2019: Nationwide real-world evidence study. J Diabetes. 2024;16(5):e13491.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Presley CA, Khodneva Y, Juarez LD, Howell CR, Agne AA, Riggs KR, et al. Trends and predictors of Glycemic Control among adults with type 2 diabetes covered by Alabama Medicaid, 2011–2019. Prev Chronic Dis. 2023;20:E81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lopez-Cobo I, Rodriguez-Latre L, Cunillera O, Ruiz I, Copetti S, Albareda M, et al. Trends in glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors and chronic complications of type 2 diabetes, 2012–2016, in a healthcare area of Barcelona. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;190:110014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hu G, Ding J, Ryan DH. Trends in obesity prevalence and cardiometabolic risk factor control in US adults with diabetes, 1999–2020. Obes (Silver Spring). 2023;31(3):841–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pauli A, de Mestral C, Marques-Vidal P. Trends in Diabetes prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control in french-speaking Switzerland. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):4839.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans M, Engberg S, Faurby M, Fernandes J, Hudson P, Polonsky W. Adherence to and persistence with antidiabetic medications and associations with clinical and economic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(3):377–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Raebel MA, Ellis JL, Schroeder EB, Xu S, O’Connor PJ, Segal JB, et al. Intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy among patients with incident diabetes: a Surveillance Prevention and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(7):699–710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fu AZ, Sheehan JJ. Treatment intensification for patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycaemic control. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18(9):892–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krass I, Schieback P, Dhippayom T. Adherence to diabetes medication: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2015;32(6):725–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Taylor SI, Yazdi ZS, Beitelshees AL. Pharmacological treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(2).

  28. Lin LK, Sun Y, Heng BH, Chew DEK, Chong PN. Medication adherence and glycemic control among newly diagnosed diabetes patients. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Boye KS, Curtis SE, Lage MJ, Garcia-Perez LE. Associations between adherence and outcomes among older, type 2 diabetes patients: evidence from a Medicare Supplemental database. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1573–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Roborel de Climens A, Pain E, Boss A, Shaunik A. Understanding reasons for treatment discontinuation, attitudes and Education needs among people who discontinue type 2 diabetes treatment: results from an online patient survey in the USA and UK. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(8):1873–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gonzalez-Saldivar G, Millan-Alanis JM, Gonzalez-Gonzalez JG, Sanchez-Gomez RA, Obeso-Fernandez J, McCoy RG, et al. Treatment burden and perceptions of glucose-lowering therapy among people living with diabetes. Prim Care Diabetes. 2022;16(4):568–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. de Haan S, de Boer K, Commandeur J, Beek AM, van Rossum AC, Allaart CP. Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients eligible for ICD therapy: discrepancy between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D echocardiography. Neth Heart J. 2014;22(10):449–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Luo M, Lim WY, Tan CS, Ning Y, Chia KS, van Dam RM, et al. Longitudinal trends in HbA1c and associations with comorbidity and all-cause mortality in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;133:69–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the people who participated in the recruitment of the participants, data collection and validation, particularly Nicole Bonvin, Yolande Barreau, Mathieu Firmann, François Bastardot, Julien Vaucher, Panagiotis Antiochos, Cédric Gubelmann, Marylène Bay, Benoît Delabays and Adelin Barrier.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne

The CoLaus study was supported by research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, the Faculty of Biology and Medicine of Lausanne, the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants 33CSCO-122661, 33CS30-139468, 33CS30-148401, 33CS30_177535 and 3247730_204523) and the Swiss Personalized Health Network (grant 2018DRI01). The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Doctoral School of the Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Ariane Pauli

  2. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait City, Kuwait

    Abdullah Alkandari

  3. Department of medicine, internal medicine, Lausanne university hospital, 46 rue du Bugnon, Lausanne, 1011, Switzerland

    Pedro Marques-Vidal

Authors
  1. Ariane Pauli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdullah Alkandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Marques-Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ariane Pauli: Investigation, Methodology, Writing– Original draft preparation, Visualization. Abdullah Alkandari: Writing– Reviewing and editing. Pedro Marques-Vidal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing– Reviewing and editing, Visualization. PMV had full access to the data and is the guarantor of the study.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ariane Pauli or Pedro Marques-Vidal.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Lausanne, which afterwards became the Ethics Commission of Canton Vaud (www.cer-vd.ch) approved the baseline CoLaus study (reference 16/03, decisions of 13th January and 10th February 2003). The approval was renewed for the first (reference 33/09, decision of 23rd February 2009), the second (reference 26/14, decision of 11th March 2014) and the third (reference PB_2018-00040, decision of 20th March 2018) follow-ups. The approval for the entire CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study was confirmed in 2021 (reference PB_2018-00038, 239/09, decision of 21st June 2021). The full decisions of the CER-VD can be obtained from the authors upon request. The study was performed in agreement with the Helsinki declaration and its former amendments, and in accordance with the applicable Swiss legislation (LRH 810.30, approved by the Swiss Federal Parliament on 30th of September 2011). All participants gave their signed informed consent before entering the study.

Competing interests

PMV reports support for attending meetings and/or travel by Pierre Fabre Pharma. The other authors report no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pauli, A., Alkandari, A. & Marques-Vidal, P. Fifteen-year trends in diabetes drug management and control in French-speaking Switzerland. Diabetol Metab Syndr 17, 56 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13098-025-01620-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13098-025-01620-z

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us