Using the IMEDS distributed database for epidemiological studies in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Issue 6 (19th December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Huang, Ting-Ying; Rodriguez-Watson, Carla; Wang, Tongtong; Calhoun, Shawna R; Marshall, James; Burk, Jillian; Nam, Young Hee; Mendelsohn, Aaron B; Jamal-Allial, Aziza; Greenlee, Robert T; Selvan, Mano; Pawloski, Pamala A; McMahill Walraven, Cheryl N; Rai, Ashish; Toh, Sengwee; Brown, Jeffery S
• Is Part Of: BMJ open diabetes research and care. Volume 10:Issue 6(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-12-19
• Subjects: database -- diabetes mellitus, type 2 -- pharmacoepidemiology -- safety; Diabetes -- Periodicals; 616.462005
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2022-002916
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2052-4897

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: This study aimed to assess data relevancy and data quality of the Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance System Distributed Database (IMEDS-DD) for diabetes research and to evaluate comparability of its type 2 diabetes cohort to the general type 2 diabetes population. Research design and methods: A retrospective study was conducted using the IMEDS-DD. Eligible members were adults with a medical encounter between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 (index period). Type 2 diabetes and co-existing conditions were determined using all data available from April 1, 2016 to the most recent encounter within the index period. Type 2 diabetes patient characteristics, comorbidities and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) values were summarized and compared with those reported in national benchmarks and literature. Results: Type 2 diabetes prevalence was 12.6% in the IMEDS-DD. Of 4 14 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, 52.8% were male, and the mean age was 65.0 (SD 13.3) years. Common comorbidities included hypertension (84.5%), hyperlipidemia (82.8%), obesity (45.3%), and cardiovascular disease (44.7%). Moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease was observed in 20.2% patients. The most commonly used antihyperglycemic agents included metformin (35.7%), sulfonylureas (14.8%), and insulin (9.9%). Less than one-half (48.9%) had an HbA1c value recorded. These findings demonstrated the notable similarity in patient characteristics between type 2 diabetes populations identified within the IMEDS-DD and other large databases. Conclusions: Despite the limitations related to HbA1c data, our findings indicate that the IMEDS-DD contains robust information on key data elements to conduct pharmacoepidemiological studies in diabetes, including member demographic and clinical characteristics and health services utilization.