
doi: 10.1111/dom.12015
pmid: 23013323
The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ( T2DM ) do not achieve the glycaemic goals recommended by leading diabetes organizations using monotherapy alone, and often require multiple antihyperglycaemic agents to achieve glycaemic control. Fixed‐dose combination ( FDC ) therapies offer a means to simplify complex treatment regimens, and have several advantages that help patients reach their glycaemic goals. In this review, four key benefits are identified and discussed in support of FDC s for treatment of patients with T2DM : (i) Greater efficacy compared with higher dose monotherapy, (ii) Reduced risk of adverse reactions relative to higher dose monotherapy, (iii) Lower overall costs and (iv) Improved medication concordance. Given these advantages, the place of fixed combination therapy in the course of treatment is discussed. Establishing a therapeutic strategy that incorporates fixed combination therapy (including combinations with insulin) will simplify the treatment of diabetes, ideally resulting in improved medication concordance, clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with T2DM .
Blood Glucose, Glycated Hemoglobin, Male, Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors, Incretins, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Costs, Metformin, Medication Adherence, Drug Combinations, Sulfonylurea Compounds, Treatment Outcome, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Quality of Life, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Female
Blood Glucose, Glycated Hemoglobin, Male, Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors, Incretins, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Costs, Metformin, Medication Adherence, Drug Combinations, Sulfonylurea Compounds, Treatment Outcome, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Quality of Life, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Female
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 96 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
