Socioeconomic status is not associated with the delivery of care in people with diabetes but does modify HbA1c levels: An observational cohort study (Elzha-cohort 1)

Impact of a multicomponent healthcare intervention on glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: The INTEGRA study

AIM

To evaluate whether a specially designed multicomponent healthcare intervention improves glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cluster, non-randomized, controlled, pragmatic trial in subjects from 11 primary care centres with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c of more than 9% (> 75 mmol/mol) was conducted. The intervention (N = 225 subjects) was professional and patient-centred, including a dedicated monographic visit that encouraged therapeutic intensification by physicians. The sham control (N = 181) was identical to that of the intervention group except that the dedicated visit was omitted. The primary outcome was to compare the reductions in HbA1c values between the groups at 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age at baseline was 59.5 years, mean diabetes duration was 10.7 years and mean HbA1c was 10.3% (89.0 mmol/mol). Patients in the intervention arm achieved significantly greater HbA1c reduction than those in the sham control group at 12 months (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI = -0.2%, -1.04%; P = .002). A larger percentage of intervention participants achieved an HbA1c of less than 8% (44.8% vs. 25.5%; P = .003) and were more frequently treated with more than three antidiabetic therapies (14.4% vs. 3.5%; P = .0008). Intervention was the only variable associated with higher odds of HbA1c less than 8% (odds ratio = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.54-4.12; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention including a dedicated visit oriented at reducing therapeutic inertia by primary care physicians can improve glycaemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 2 diabetes.

Use of primary health care services among older patients with and without diabetes

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the utilization of primary healthcare services by older patients with and without type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Electronic patient records were used to identify persons over 65 years of age with a diagnosis of diabetes. Two age- and sex-adjusted controls without diabetes were extracted for each person with diagnosis of diabetes. A health questionnaire was sent by mail to 527 people with diabetes and 890 controls. Of the persons who answered the questionnaire, 518 persons were randomly selected to participate in a health examination. The study group in this analysis consisted of 187 persons with diabetes and 176 persons without diabetes who attended the health examination. The data on primary health care utilization were extracted from electronic patient records one year before and one after the health examination.

Results

Before the onset of the study, the patients with diabetes had more doctor’s appointments (p < 0.001), nurse’s appointments (< 0.001) and laboratory tests taken (p < 0.001) than those without diabetes After 1-year follow-up period the patients with diabetes had more doctor’s appointments (p = 0.002), nurse’s appointments (p = 0.006), laboratory tests taken (p = 0.006) and inpatient care at the community hospital (p = 0.004) than patients without a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The use of the community hospital increased significantly among patients with diabetes (ratio 2.50; 95% Cl 1.16–5.36) but not by patients without diabetes (ratio 0.91; 95% Cl 0.40.2.06). The number of nurse’s appointments increased for patients without diabetes (ratio 1.31; 95% Cl 1.07–1.60) but not for those with diabetes (ratio 1.04; 95% Cl 0.88–1.24).

Conclusions

Patients with diabetes visit more often physicians and nurses compared with those without diabetes. During a 1-year follow-up, the use of community hospital care increased significantly among patients with diabetes. In addition to focusing on prevention and care of diabetes, these results suggest the importance of diabetes in planning community-based health care services.

Achieving diabetes treatment targets in people with registered mental illness is similar or improved compared with those without: Analyses of linked observational datasets

AIMS

To determine the association between registered mental illness and type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment targets, while taking into account the effects of health expenditure and social determinants of health.

METHODS

This observational cross-sectional study was based on routine primary care data, linked to socio-economic and medical claims data. The main outcomes, analysed by multivariate logistic regression, were achieving primary care guideline treatment targets for HbA1c , systolic blood pressure (SBP) and LDL-cholesterol in 2017. We examined the association with diagnosed mental illness registered by the general practitioner (GP) or treated via specialist' mental healthcare between 2016 and 2018, adjusting for, medication use, body mass index, co-morbidity, smoking, and additionally examining effect-modification of healthcare expenditures, migration status, income and demographics.

RESULTS

Overall (N = 2862), 64.0% of participants achieved their treatment targets for HbA1c , 65.1% for SBP and 53.0% for LDL-cholesterol. Adjusted for migrant background, income and care expenditures, individuals <65 years of age with mental illness achieved their HbA1c treatment target more often than those without (OR (95% CI)): treatment by GP: 1.46 (1.01, 2.11), specialist care: 1.61 (1.11, 2.34), as did men with mental illness for SBP: GP OR 1.61 (1.09, 2.40), specialist care OR 1.59 (1.09, 2.45). LDL-cholesterol target was not associated with mental illness. A migrant background or low income lowered the likelihood of reaching HbA1c targets.

CONCLUSIONS

People with registered mental illness appear comparable or better able to achieve diabetes treatment targets than those without. Achieving HbA1c targets is influenced by social disadvantage.

Socioeconomic status is not associated with the delivery of care in people with diabetes but does modify HbA1c levels: An observational cohort study (Elzha-cohort 1)

BACKGROUND

Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects the delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, (1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; (2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c.

METHODS

Observational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with the implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. "Monitoring as recommended" by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning (a) recommended monitoring; (b) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Aim 1 (n = 13 601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous urban (OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous suburban (OR 2.32 (95% CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n = 11 164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely monitored people (-2.4 (95% CI -2.9; -1.8) mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95% CI -4.3; -2.4) mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95% CI -2.2; -0.4) mmol/mol).

CONCLUSIONS

Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs.