CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT05933174Updated Sep 4, 2026

Promoting Alternatives to Sulfonylureas to Improve Patient Safety in Type 2 Diabetes

An interventional study of Prompt-sheet and Usual education in Type2diabetes, sponsored by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center. Recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 45 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-04.

Sponsored by University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
220
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
45 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Sulfonylurea medications are unsafe for older patients with diabetes. They are associated not only with hypoglycemia, but also with falls and increased cardiovascular risk. Yet they continue to be prescribed frequently. Indeed, older adults with type 2 diabetes, who are especially prone to adverse effects, are more likely to be prescribed sulfonylureas than younger patients. This is unfortunate since over the past several years, newer, safer, and more effective classes of medications (GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2-inhibitors) have emerged. The investigators acknowledge that sulfonylureas are inexpensive and that their low cost is a driver of continued use. However, the investigators believe patients and providers should have discussions about the risks of sulfonylureas and safer and more effective alternatives, to make diabetes care safer overall in ambulatory settings. Our research is designed to promote such discussions. The investigators will first identify patients taking sulfonylureas regularly. Next, using recommendations from AHRQ and the Canadian Deprescribing Network, the investigators will empower patients to discuss their medications with their providers through a simple question prompt sheet. Patients will be divided into an intervention group which receives explicit prompting questions, and a control group that receives a general brochure on diabetes medications. Health care providers will receive education about newer diabetes medications through case-based discussions and academic detailing. Finally the investigators will measure key outcomes including the proportion of patients who have discussions about sulfonylureas and alternatives, rates of discontinuation, and measures of control of diabetes and associated cardiovascular risks. The investigators will also evaluate the experiences of patients and providers qualitatively through brief, semi-structured interviews. Should our multi-faceted, patient-oriented intervention prove effective in promoting discussions of sulfonylureas and alternatives, and also discontinuation of sulfonylureas and switching to newer alternatives, the investigators will incorporate our prompting questions into routine care for patients taking sulfonylureas. Our intervention can be easily disseminated to other settings and therefore has considerable potential to improve safety among patients with type 2 diabetes nationwide.

Read the detailed description

The objectives of this study are to systematically (a) identify middle-aged and older adults taking SU within a large integrated health system, and empower them to explore alternative, evidence-based treatments with their primary care providers to address and implement the ADA practice guideline as an actionable target to improve patient safety; and (b) engage our primary care providers in a systematic quality implementation and improvement program that includes education about contemporary T2D guideline recommendations, benefits, and drawbacks of different classes of agents, and formulary alternatives to SU. These objectives will be accomplished in the following 3 aims:

  1. Empower patients to discuss treatments options with their primary care provider.

    Using an electronic data warehouse, the investigators will identify patients aged ≥45 years with type 2 diabetes who are currently prescribed SU and implement a strategy to encourage patients to discuss SU and alternatives with their primary care providers using a question-based prompt sheet. A control group will receive an overview sheet of diabetes medications.

  2. Engage primary care providers in a quality implementation and improvement program.

    The program includes education about contemporary T2D guideline recommendations, benefits, and drawbacks of different classes of agents, and formulary alternatives to SU. An academic detailer will visit each primary care practice up to twice during the study period to provide targeted education about alternatives to SU to promote safety.

  3. Measure key process outcomes and patient-centered outcomes at regular intervals.

Participants will be surveyed every 3 months during their first year of participation to identify if they had discussed alternatives. The investigators hypothesize that half of intervention group patients will have had such discussions compared with only 25% in the control group. Other outcomes will include assessment of hypoglycemia symptoms, discontinuation rates of SU, initiation of new medications, diabetes and financial distress (via surveys), and clinical outcomes (extracted from the electronic medical record) including glycosylated hemoglobin (Hb A1c), body weight, blood pressure, and lipids.

02

Conditions studied

  • Type2diabetes

Keywords

  • Sulfonylureas
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
45 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Age ≥ 45 years
  • Type 2 diabetes (diagnosed on or before 12/31/2021)
  • Current/active prescription for one or more SU medications
  • Established care (≥2 visits) with UH primary care provider (PCP) since 2021

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Type 1 diabetes
  • PCP provides a reason why patient participation is inappropriate (e.g., known cost barriers without any alternatives, prior discussion with patient about alternatives, etc.)
  • Patient unable or unwilling to have conversation with their PCP regarding SU
  • Unable to provide informed consent
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
220 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Prompt-sheet

    Question-prompt group patients will receive a simple prompt sheet with the questions with which they will encouraged to use to guide a conversation with their provider at their next visit for routine diabetes care. These questions are based on recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Question Builder App and also on recommendations from the Canadian Deprescribing Network which specifically addresses SU use.

    Other: Prompt-sheet

  • Active comparator
    Usual education

    Control group patients will be sent an information brochure with content from the NIDDK about diabetes medications (https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/insulin-medicines-treatments).

    Other: Usual education

Interventions

  • OtherPrompt-sheet

    Simple prompt sheet with which participants will encouraged to use to guide a conversation with their provider at their next visit for routine diabetes care. These questions are based on recommendations from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Question Builder App and also on recommendations from the Canadian Deprescribing Network which specifically addresses SU use.

  • OtherUsual education

    Control group patients will be sent an information brochure with content from the NIDDK about diabetes medications (https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/insulin-medicines-treatments).

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of patients who had a conversation with their primary care provider about SU use and alternatives for their diabetes management

    Proportion of patients who had a conversation with their primary care provider about SU use and alternatives for their diabetes management

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of patients who switched from a SU to an alternative medication

    Proportion of patients who switched from a SU to an alternative medication

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. Proportion of patients who discontinued a SU

    Proportion of patients who discontinued a SU

    Time frame: 12 months

  3. Proportion of patients who experienced a hypoglycemia event by self-report

    Proportion of patients who experienced a hypoglycemia event by self-report

    Time frame: 12 months

  4. Hb A1c

    glycosylated hemoglobin

    Time frame: 12 months

  5. BMI

    body mass index

    Time frame: 12 months

  6. Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic)

    Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic)

    Time frame: 12 months

  7. Lipid levels

    Lipid levels

    Time frame: 12 months

  8. The Personal Financial Well-being Scale

    . The financial well-being scale is a free tool to help measure the financial well-being of people you serve. The scale, which was developed and rigorously tested by The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, contains 10 questions to capture how people feel about their financial security and freedom of choice, plus 2 questions to assist with scoring. Responses to the questions can be converted into an overall financial well-being "score" between 0 and 100.

    Time frame: 12 months

  9. Diabetes Distress Scale

    17-item self-report survey to assess an individual's level of stress related to living with diabetes. Each question has an answer rating from 1 ("not a problem") to 5 ("a very serious problem").

    Time frame: 12 months

06

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05933174
Lead sponsor
University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
Collaborators
American Heart Association
Responsible party
Ian J. Neeland, MD (Principal Investigator, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 6, 2023
Start date
Oct 1, 2023
Primary completion
Jun 30, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 30, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 4, 2026

Study contacts

Ian Neeland, MD
Contact
ian.neeland@uhhospitals.org
216-844-5965
Amanda Davies, MBA
Contact
Amanda.Davies@UHhospitals.org
216-844-7635
Ian Neeland, MD
principal investigator · University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion