Intensive multifactorial intervention improves modelled coronary heart disease risk in screen-detected Type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Improving diabetic patients' adherence to treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (Office Guidelines Applied to Practice-IMPACT Study)-a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Despite nationwide improvements in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and morbidity, CVD deaths in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are 2-4 times higher than among those without T2DM. A key contributor to these poor health outcomes is medication non-adherence. Twenty-one to 42% of T2DM patients do not take blood sugar, blood pressure (BP), or statin medications as prescribed. Interventions that foster and reinforce patient-centered communication show promise in improving health outcomes. However, they have not been widely implemented, in part due to a lack of compelling evidence for their effectiveness in real-life primary care settings.

METHODS

This pragmatic cluster-randomized trial randomizes 17 teams in 12 Federally Qualified Healthcare Centers (FQHCs) to two experimental groups: intervention (group 1): Office-Gap + Texting vs. control (group 2): Texting only. Office-GAP (Office-Guidelines Applied to Practice) is a patient activation intervention to improve communication and patient-provider partnerships through brief patient and provider training in shared decision-making (SDM) and use of a guideline-based checklist. The texting intervention (Way2Health) is a cell phone messaging service that informs and encourages patients to adhere to goals, adhere to medication use and improve communication. After recruitment, patients in groups 1 and 2 will both attend (1) one scheduled group visit, (90-120 min) conducted by trained research assistants, and (2) follow-up visits with their providers after group visit at 0-1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Data will be collected over 12-month intervention period. Our primary outcome is medication adherence measured using eCAP electronic monitoring and self-report. Secondary outcomes are (a) diabetes-specific 5-year CVD risk as measured with the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Engine score, (b) provider engagement as measured by the CollaboRATE Shared-Decision Making measure, and (c) patient activation measures (PAM).

DISCUSSION

This study will provide a rigorous pragmatic evaluation of the effectiveness of combined mHealth, and patient activation interventions compared to mHealth alone, targeting patients and healthcare providers in safety net health centers, in improving medication adherence and decreasing CVD risk. Given that 20-50% of adults with chronic illness demonstrate medication non-adherence, increasing adherence is essential to improve CVD outcomes as well as healthcare cost savings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT04874116.

Autonomy support from informal health supporters: links with self-care activities, healthcare engagement, metabolic outcomes, and cardiac risk among Veterans with type 2 diabetes

This study examined the role of autonomy support from adults' informal health supporters (family or friends) in diabetes-specific health behaviors and health outcomes. Using baseline data from 239 Veterans with type 2 diabetes at risk of complications enrolled in behavioral trial, we examined associations between autonomy support from a support person and that support person's co-residence with the participant's diabetes self-care activities, patient activation, cardiometabolic measures, and predicted risk of a cardiac event. Autonomy support from supporters was associated with significantly increased adherence to healthy lifestyle behaviors (diet, p < .001 and exercise, p = .003); higher patient activation (p < .001); greater patient efficacy in interacting with healthcare providers, and lower 5-year (p = .044) and 10-year (p = .027) predicted cardiac risk. Autonomy support was not significantly associated with diabetes-specific behaviors (checking blood glucose, foot care, or medication taking); or hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, or non-HDL cholesterol. There was a significant interaction of autonomy support and supporter residence in one model such that lack of autonomy support was associated with lower patient activation only among individuals with in-home supporters. No other interactions were significant. Findings suggest that autonomy support from family and friends may play a role in patient self-management, patient activation, and lower cardiac risk.

Effectiveness of a Diabetes Education Program based on Tailored interventions and Theory of Planned Behaviour: Cluster randomized controlled trial protocol

AIM

To measure the Effectiveness of a Diabetes Education Program for people with T2DM, based on Tailored interventions and the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

This multicentre study will be carried out at 30 primary healthcare centres, where 436 persons with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), aged between 18-75 years, will be recruited. The experimental educational program to be applied is modelled using components obtained from a systematic review and prior qualitative analysis. In addition, a taxonomy of nursing practice is used to standardize the program, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a conceptual model. The intervention will be carried out by community nurses, using ADAPP-Ti^® , an application developed with FileMaker Pro v.18. The control group will receive usual care and data will be collected at 6, 12, and 18 months, for both groups. The primary outcome considered will be glycosylated haemoglobin and cardiovascular factors, while the secondary ones will be tobacco consumption, body mass index, barriers to self-care, health-related quality of life, and lifestyle modification. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Province of Malaga (Spain) in November 2014.

DISCUSSION

The degree of metabolic control in T2DM is not always associated with healthy lifestyles and significant levels of medication are often prescribed to achieve clinical objectives. An intervention focused on needs, based on the best available evidence and a solid conceptual framework, might successfully consolidate appropriate self-care behaviour in this population.

IMPACT

The study will result in the publication of an educational program featuring well-defined interventions and activities that will enable clinicians to tailor health care to the individual's needs and to combat treatment inertia in attending this population.

Intensive versus standard multifactorial cardiovascular risk factor control in screen-detected type 2 diabetes: 5-year and longer-term modelled outcomes of the ADDITION-Leicester study

AIMS

Diabetes treatment algorithms recommend intensive intervention in those with a shorter duration of disease. Screening provides opportunities for earlier multifactorial cardiovascular risk factor control. Using data from the ADDITION-Leicester study (NCT00318032), we estimated the effects of this approach on modelled risk of diabetes-related complications in screen-detected patients.

METHODS

A total of 345 (41% South Asian) people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes were cluster randomised to receive 5 years of (1) intensive multifactorial risk factor intervention or (2) standard treatment according to national guidance. Estimated 10 to 20-year risk of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, congestive cardiac failure, and death was calculated using UK-PDS risk equations.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, mean treatment differences for intensive management at 5 years were -11.7(95%CI: -15.0, -8.4) and -6.6(-8.8, -4.4) mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively; -0.27 (-0.66, -0.26) % for HbA1c; and -0.46(-0.66; -0.26), -0.34 (-0.51; -0.18), and -0.19 (-0.28; -0.10) mmol/L for total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides, respectively. There was no significant weight gain in the intensive group despite additional medication use. Modelled risks were consistently lower for intensively managed patients. Absolute risk reduction associated with intensive treatment at 10 and 20 years were 3.5% and 6.2% for ischaemic heart disease and 6.3% and 8.8% for stroke. Risk reduction for congestive heart failure plateaued after 15 years at 5.3%. No differences were observed for blindness and all-cause death.

CONCLUSION

Intensive multifactorial intervention in a multi-ethnic population with screen-detected type 2 diabetes results in sustained improvements in modelled ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive cardiac failure.

Switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide to manage patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

The recent LIRA-SWITCH trial showed that switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg led to statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) and body mass index (BMI). Based on these findings, the aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model Version 8.5+ was used to project costs and clinical outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from the LIRA-SWITCH trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. Costs were accounted in pounds sterling (GBP) and expressed in 2016 values. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Model projections showed improved quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients with poorly controlled HbA1c upon switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide, compared with continuing sitagliptin treatment (9.18 vs 9.02 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Treatment switching was associated with increased overall costs (GBP 24737 vs GBP 22362). Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by reduced diabetes-related complication costs in patients who switched to liraglutide. Switching to liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 15423 per QALY gained vs continuing with sitagliptin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg in patients with poor glycaemic control was projected to improve clinical outcomes and is likely to be considered cost-effective in the UK setting and, therefore, a good use of limited NHS resources.

Engaging family supporters of adult patients with diabetes to improve clinical and patient-centered outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Most adults with diabetes who are at high risk for complications have family or friends who are involved in their medical and self-care (“family supporters”). These family supporters are an important resource who could be leveraged to improve patients’ engagement in their care and patient health outcomes. However, healthcare teams lack structured and feasible approaches to effectively engage family supporters in patient self-management support. This trial tests a strategy to strengthen the capacity of family supporters to help adults with high-risk diabetes engage in healthcare, successfully enact care plans, and lower risk of diabetes complications.

Methods/design

We will conduct a randomized trial evaluating the CO-IMPACT (Caring Others Increasing EnageMent in Patient Aligned Care Teams) intervention. Two hunded forty adults with diabetes who are at high risk for diabetes complications due to poor glycemic control or high blood pressure will be randomized, along with a family supporter (living either with the patient or remotely), to CO-IMPACT or enhanced usual primary care for 12 months. CO-IMPACT provides patient-supporter dyads: it provides one coaching session addressing supporter techniques for helping patients with behavior change motivation, action planning, and proactive communication with healthcare providers; biweekly automated phone calls to prompt dyad action on new patient health concerns; phone calls to prompt preparation for patients’ primary care visits; and primary care visit summaries sent to both patient and supporter. Primary outcomes are changes in patient activation, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure-13, and change in 5-year cardiac event risk, as measured by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study cardiac risk score for people with diabetes. Secondary outcomes include patients’ diabetes self-management behaviors, diabetes distress, and glycemic and blood pressure control. Measures among supporters will include use of effective support techniques, burden, and distress about patient’s diabetes care.

Discussion

If effective in improving patient activation and diabetes management, CO-IMPACT will provide healthcare teams with evidence-based tools and techniques to engage patients’ available family or friends in supporting patient self-management, even if they live remotely. The core skills addressed by CO-IMPACT can be used by patients and their supporters over time to respond to changing patient health needs and priorities.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02328326. Registered on 31 December 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2785-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Metformin in non-diabetic hyperglycaemia: the GLINT feasibility RCT

BACKGROUND

The treatment of people with diabetes with metformin can reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) and may reduce the risk of cancer. However, it is unknown whether or not metformin can reduce the risk of these outcomes in people with elevated blood glucose levels below the threshold for diabetes [i.e. non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH)].

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of the Glucose Lowering In Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia Trial (GLINT) and to estimate the key parameters to inform the design of the full trial. These parameters include the recruitment strategy, randomisation, electronic data capture, postal drug distribution, retention, study medication adherence, safety monitoring and remote collection of outcome data.

DESIGN

A multicentre, individually randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic, primary prevention trial. Participants were individually randomised on a 1 : 1 basis, blocked within each site.

SETTING

General practices and clinical research facilities in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Leicestershire.

PARTICIPANTS

Males and females aged ≥ 40 years with NDH who had a high risk of CVD.

INTERVENTIONS

Prolonged-release metformin (500 mg) (Glucophage® SR, Merck KGaA, Bedfont Cross, Middlesex, UK) or the matched placebo, up to three tablets per day, distributed by post.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recruitment rates; adherence to study medication; laboratory results at baseline and 3 and 6 months; reliability and acceptability of study drug delivery; questionnaire return rates; and quality of life.

RESULTS

We sent 5251 invitations, with 511 individuals consenting to participate. Of these, 249 were eligible and were randomised between March and November 2015 (125 to the metformin group and 124 to the placebo group). Participants were followed up for 0.99 years [standard deviation (SD) 0.30 years]. The use of electronic medical records to identify potentially eligible individuals in individual practices was resource intensive. Participants were generally elderly [mean age 70 years (SD 6.7 years)], overweight [mean body mass index 30.1 kg/m2 (SD 4.5 kg/m2)] and male (88%), and the mean modelled 10-year CVD risk was 28.8% (SD 8.5%). Randomisation, postal delivery of the study drug and outcome assessment using registers/medical records were feasible and acceptable to participants. Most participants were able to take three tablets per day, but premature discontinuation of the study drug was common (≈30% of participants by 6 months), although there were no differences between the groups. All randomised participants returned questionnaires at baseline and 67% of participants returned questionnaires by the end of the study. There was no between-group difference in Short Form questionnaire-8 items or EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores. Compared with placebo, metformin was associated with small improvements in the mean glycated haemoglobin level [-0.82 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to -0.24 mmol/mol], mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (2.31 ml/minute/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.2 to 4.81 ml/minute/1.73 m2) and mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (-0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02 mmol/l) and a reduction in mean plasma vitamin B12 level (-16.4 ng/l, 95% CI -32.9 to -0.01 ng/l). There were 35 serious adverse events (13 in the placebo group, 22 in the metformin group), with none deemed to be treatment related.

LIMITATIONS

Changes to sponsorship reduced the study duration, the limited availability of information in medical records reduced recruitment efficiency and discontinuation of study medication exceeded forecasts.

CONCLUSIONS

A large, pragmatic trial comparing the effects of prolonged-release metformin and placebo on the risk of CVD events is potentially feasible. However, changes to the study design and conduct are recommended to enable an efficient scaling up of the trial. Recommendations include changing the inclusion criteria to recruit people with pre-existing CVD to increase the recruitment and event rates, using large primary/secondary care databases to increase recruitment rates, conducting follow-up remotely to improve efficiency and including a run-in period prior to randomisation to optimise trial adherence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34875079.

FUNDING

The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Merck KGaA provided metformin and matching placebo.

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

AIMS

Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs lixisenatide 20 μg for five end-points.

RESULTS

Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 μg for targets of HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% and no weight gain, HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and no confirmed hypoglycemia, and HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20 μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide vs lixisenatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK setting

AIMS

To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg, in the UK setting based on the LIRA-LIXI trial (NCT01973231).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Projections of costs (in 2015 pounds sterling [£]) and clinical outcomes were made over patient lifetimes using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (IMS Health, Basel, Switzerland). The baseline cohort and treatment effects applied after initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists were taken from the LIRA-LIXI trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (8.87 vs 8.76 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) vs lixisenatide 20 µg. A greater reduction in glycated haemoglobin with liraglutide 1.8 mg led to fewer diabetes-related complications and delayed their time of onset. Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs (£37 153 vs £36 174), driven by higher acquisition costs, but this was partially offset by savings from diabetes-related complications avoided (£26 969 vs £27 912). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8901 per QALY gained vs lixisenatide 20 µg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections suggest that treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered highly cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg treatment in the UK setting.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Daily Administered GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist class has grown in the last decade, with several agents available in the UK. However there is currently a paucity of evidence regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.2 mg versus other daily administered GLP-1 receptor agonists, due to a lack of head-to-head trial data. Therefore the present analysis was performed, using results from a network meta-analysis (NMA), to compare the cost-effectiveness of three currently available daily administered GLP-1 receptor agonists for treatment of diabetes in the UK setting.

METHODS

A validated and published diabetes model was used to make long-term projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2015 GBP) for patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg once-daily, exenatide 10 μg twice daily and lixisenatide 20 μg once-daily. Treatment effects were taken from an NMA evaluating the efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and were applied in a cohort based on the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes 6 (LEAD-6) trial. Costs and utilities were based on published sources.

RESULTS

Liraglutide 1.2 mg was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy versus exenatide [9.19 versus 9.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and lixisenatide (9.19 versus 9.12 QALYs). Improvements were driven by benefits in glycemic control, leading to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Liraglutide 1.2 mg was associated with reduced costs versus exenatide (GBP 36,394 versus GBP 36,547) and lixisenatide (GBP 36,394 versus GBP 36,496), with cost savings as a result of complications avoided entirely offsetting increased acquisition costs. Based on the projected outcomes, liraglutide was found to be dominant over both exenatide and lixisenatide.

CONCLUSION

Liraglutide 1.2 mg is likely to be considered cost-effective versus alternative daily administered GLP-1 receptor agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Intra-cluster and inter-period correlation coefficients for cross-sectional cluster randomised controlled trials for type-2 diabetes in UK primary care

Background

Clustered randomised controlled trials (CRCTs) are increasingly common in primary care. Outcomes within the same cluster tend to be correlated with one another. In sample size calculations, estimates of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) are needed to allow for this nonindependence. In studies with observations over more than one time period, estimates of the inter-period correlation (IPC) and the within-period correlation (WPC) are also needed.

Methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study of all patients aged 18 or over with a diagnosis of type-2 diabetes, from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, between 1 October 2007 and 31 March 2010. We report estimates of the ICC, IPC, and WPC for typical outcomes using unadjusted and adjusted generalised linear mixed models with cluster and cluster by period random effects. For binary outcomes we report on the proportions scale, which is the appropriate scale for trial design. Estimated ICCs were compared to those reported from a systematic search of CRCTs undertaken in primary care in the UK in type-2 diabetes.

Results

Data from 430 general practices, with a median [IQR] number of diabetics per practice of 241 [150–351], were analysed. The ICC for HbA1c was 0.032 (95 % CI 0.026–0.038). For a two-period (each of 12 months) design, the WPC for HbA1c was 0.035 (95 % CI 0.030–0.040) and the IPC was 0.019 (95 % CI 0.014–0.026). The difference between the WPC and the IPC indicates a decay of correlation over time. Following dichotomisation at 7.5 %, the ICC for HbA1c was 0.026 (95 % CI 0.022–0.030). ICCs for other clinical measurements and clinical outcomes are presented. A systematic search of ICCs used in the design of CRCTs involving type-2 diabetes with HbA1c (undichotomised) as the outcome found that published trials tended to use more conservative ICC values (median 0.047, IQR 0.047–0.050) than those reported here.

Conclusions

These estimates of ICCs, IPCs, and WPCs for a variety of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials can be useful for the design of CRCTs. In studies with observations taken at different time-points, the correlation of observations may decay over time, as reflected in lower values for the IPC than for the ICC. The IPC and WPC estimates are the first reported for UK primary care data.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1532-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for type 2 diabetes: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

An estimated 850,000 people have diabetes without knowing it and as many as 7 million more are at high risk of developing it. Within the NHS Health Checks programme, blood glucose testing can be undertaken using a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) test but the relative cost-effectiveness of these is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of screening for type 2 diabetes using a HbA1c test versus a FPG test. In addition, to compare the use of a random capillary glucose (RCG) test versus a non-invasive risk score to prioritise individuals who should undertake a HbA1c or FPG test.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using the Sheffield Type 2 Diabetes Model to model lifetime incidence of complications, costs and health benefits of screening.

SETTING

England; population in the 40-74-years age range eligible for a NHS health check.

DATA SOURCES

The Leicester Ethnic Atherosclerosis and Diabetes Risk (LEADER) data set was used to analyse prevalence and screening outcomes for a multiethnic population. Alternative prevalence rates were obtained from the literature or through personal communication.

METHODS

(1) Modelling of screening pathways to determine the cost per case detected followed by long-term modelling of glucose progression and complications associated with hyperglycaemia; and (2) calculation of the costs and health-related quality of life arising from complications and calculation of overall cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), net monetary benefit and the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Based on the LEADER data set from a multiethnic population, the results indicate that screening using a HbA1c test is more cost-effective than using a FPG. For National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-recommended screening strategies, HbA1c leads to a cost saving of £12 and a QALY gain of 0.0220 per person when a risk score is used as a prescreen. With no prescreen, the cost saving is £30 with a QALY gain of 0.0224. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that the likelihood of HbA1c being more cost-effective than FPG is 98% and 95% with and without a risk score, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicate that the results based on prevalence in the LEADER data set are insensitive to a variety of alternative assumptions. However, where a region of the country has a very different joint HbA1c and FPG distribution from the LEADER data set such that a FPG test yields a much higher prevalence of high-risk cases relative to HbA1c, FPG may be more cost-effective. The degree to which the FPG-based prevalence would have to be higher depends very much on the uncertain relative uptake rates of the two tests. Using a risk score such as the Leicester Practice Database Score (LPDS) appears to be more cost-effective than using a RCG test to identify individuals with the highest risk of diabetes who should undergo blood testing.

LIMITATIONS

We did not include rescreening because there was an absence of required relevant evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the multiethnic LEADER population, among individuals currently attending NHS Health Checks, it is more cost-effective to screen for diabetes using a HbA1c test than using a FPG test. However, in some localities, the prevalence of diabetes and high risk of diabetes may be higher for FPG relative to HbA1c than in the LEADER cohort. In such cases, whether or not it still holds that HbA1c is likely to be more cost-effective than FPG depends on the relative uptake rates for HbA1c and FPG. Use of the LPDS appears to be more cost-effective than a RCG test for prescreening.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Social inequalities in prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose regulation in participants in the Health Surveys for England series

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain the extent of socioeconomic and health condition inequalities in people with diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and impaired glucose regulation (IGR) in random samples of the general population in England, as earlier diagnosis of diabetes and treatment of people with IGR can reduce adverse sequelae of diabetes. Various screening instruments were compared to identify IGR, in addition to undiagnosed diabetes.

DESIGN

5, annual cross-sectional health examination surveys; data adjusted for complex survey design.

SETTING

Random selection of private homes across England, new sample annually 2009-2013.

PARTICIPANTS

5, nationally representative random samples of the general, free-living population: ≥ 1 adult interviewed in 24,254 of 36,889 eligible addresses selected. 18,399 adults had a valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement and answered the diabetes questions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol), IGR (HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol).

RESULTS

Overall, 11% of the population had IGR, 2% undiagnosed and 6% diagnosed diabetes. Age-standardised prevalence was highest among Asian (19% (95% CI 16% to 23%), 3% (2% to 5%) and 12% (9% to 16%) respectively) and black participants (17% (13% to 21%), 2% (1% to 4%) and 14% (9% to 20%) respectively). These were also higher among people with lower income, less education, lower occupational class and greater deprivation. Education (OR 1.49 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.74) for no qualifications vs degree or higher) and income (1.35 (1.12 to 1.62) for lowest vs highest income quintile) remained significantly associated with IGR or undiagnosed diabetes on multivariate regression. The greatest odds of IGR or undiagnosed diabetes were with increasing age over 34 years (eg, OR 18.69 (11.53 to 30.28) aged 65-74 vs 16-24). Other significant associations were ethnic group (Asian (3.91 (3.02 to 5.05)), African-American (2.34 (1.62 to 3.38)) or 'other' (2.04 (1.07 to 3.88)) vs Caucasian); sex (OR 1.32(1.19 to 1.46) for men vs women); body mass index (3.54 (2.52 to 4.96) for morbidly obese vs not overweight); and waist circumference (2.00 (1.67 to 2.38) for very high vs low).

CONCLUSIONS

Social inequalities in hyperglycaemia exist, additional to well-known demographic and anthropometric risk factors for diabetes and IGR.

Effects on All-cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes by Comparing Insulin With Oral Hypoglycemic Agent Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Retrospective, case-control studies and prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on insulin treatment for diabetic patients yielded contradictory mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the effects of insulin versus oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang Data, up to July 10, 2015, for RCTs on insulin and OHAs that assessed all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular death as primary end points. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) as summary statistics.

RESULTS

Three trials were included in which 7649 patients received insulin and 8322 received OHAs, with mean (SD) diabetes duration of 5.0 (6.2) and 4.4 (5.9) years, respectively. Insulin did not differ from OHAs in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.07), cardiovascular death (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.16), angina (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.06), sudden death (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.66-1.56), or stroke (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15). Insulin reduced the risk of heart failure compared with OHAs (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). In the subgroup of secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or very high risk of CVDs, insulin did not differ from OHAs in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07), cardiovascular death (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15), heart failure (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.34-1.40), or stroke (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21).

IMPLICATIONS

Insulin did not provide a clear benefit over OHAs in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with T2D. Insulin therapy has many shortcomings, including inconvenience (injection, strict blood glucose monitoring), hypoglycemia, and obvious weight gain. Thus, we conclude that no robust evidence supports the active use of insulin for this population at present.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

METHODS

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

CONCLUSION

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.

WITHDRAWN: Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group withdrew this review as of Issue 7, 2015 because the involvement of two authors (C Hemmingsen and SS Lund) being employed in pharmaceutical companies. The authors of the review and the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group did not find that this was a breach of the rules of the Cochrane Collaboration at the time when it was published. However, after the publication of the review, the Cochrane Collaboration requested withdrawal of the review due to the employment of the two authors. A new protocol for a review to cover this topic will be published. This will have a new title and a markedly improved protocol fulfilling new and important developments and standards within the Cochrane Collaboration as well as an improved inclusion and search strategy making it necessary to embark on a completely new review project.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

The impact of intensive multifactorial treatment on perceptions of chronic care among individuals with screen-detected diabetes: results from the ADDITION-Denmark trial

OBJECTIVES

To describe perceptions of chronic care among diabetes patients 6 years after diagnosis by screening and to examine the impact of intensive treatment on patients' perceptions of chronic care.

METHODS

The ADDITION-Denmark (2001-2006) trial compared the effects of intensive multifactorial therapy (IT) with routine care (RC) among individuals with screen-detected diabetes. Perceptions of chronic care were assessed using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) measure after 6-year follow-up (n = 937). Analysis was by intention-to-treat, accounting for clustering by general practice.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) summary PACIC score was 2.4 (0.79) in the RC and 2.4 (0.82) in the IT group. The highest mean (SD) PACIC subscale score was for Delivery System Design/Decision Support [RC: 3.2 (0.95), IT: 3.3 (0.91)] and the lowest was for Follow-up/Coordination [RC: 2.1 (0.84), IT: 2.1 (0.87)]. Perceptions of chronic care did not differ between trial groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to RC, an intensive multifactorial intervention was not associated with differences in perceptions of chronic care among patients with screen-detected diabetes after 6 years. Intensive treatment does not adversely affect perceptions of chronic care early in the course of the disease. However, there is potentially room for improvement in some aspects of chronic care.

Does early intensive multifactorial therapy reduce modelled cardiovascular risk in individuals with screen-detected diabetes? Results from the ADDITION-Europe cluster randomized trial

AIMS

Little is known about the long-term effects of intensive multifactorial treatment early in the diabetes disease trajectory. In the absence of long-term data on hard outcomes, we described change in 10-year modelled cardiovascular risk in the 5 years following diagnosis, and quantified the impact of intensive treatment on 10-year modelled cardiovascular risk at 5 years.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, 3057 people with screen-detected Type 2 diabetes were randomized by general practice to receive (1) routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (1379 patients) or (2) intensive multifactorial target-driven management (1678 patients). Ten-year modelled cardiovascular disease risk was calculated at baseline and 5 years using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Risk Engine (version 3β).

RESULTS

Among 2101 individuals with complete data at follow up (73.4%), 10-year modelled cardiovascular disease risk was 27.3% (sd 13.9) at baseline and 21.3% (sd 13.8) at 5-year follow-up (intensive treatment group difference -6.9, sd 9.0; routine care group difference -5.0, sd 12.2). Modelled 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was lower in the intensive treatment group compared with the routine care group at 5 years, after adjustment for baseline cardiovascular disease risk and clustering (-2.0; 95% CI -3.1 to -0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing age and diabetes duration, there was a decline in modelled cardiovascular disease risk in the 5 years following diagnosis. Compared with routine care, 10-year modelled cardiovascular disease risk was lower in the intensive treatment group at 5 years. Our results suggest that patients benefit from intensive treatment early in the diabetes disease trajectory, where the rate of cardiovascular disease risk progression may be slowed.

Evaluating gender differences in prognosis following SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging among patients with diabetes and known or suspected coronary disease in the modern era

BACKGROUND

Previous data suggested that diabetic women were at greater risk for future cardiac events than diabetic men. Increasing awareness of coronary artery disease (CAD) in women and advances in the management of CAD may have changed this paradigm.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate gender differences in prognosis among patients with diabetes who were clinically referred for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI).

METHODS

Patients with diabetes undergoing SPECT-MPI from 1996 to 2006 were followed for 5 years or until cardiac death or non-fatal myocardial infarction. Clinical characteristics and nuclear parameters were compared with χ (2) and t tests. Multivariable Cox regression controlled for baseline differences and tested the impact of gender on survival.

RESULTS

A total of 4,628 SPECT-MPI patients with diabetes (50% women, mean age 63 ± 12 years) were analyzed. There were 380 events, with rates higher in men (10% vs 7%, P < .001). Patients of either gender with abnormal scans had higher event rates than patients with normal scans. There were fewer cardiac events in diabetic females with no known CAD and normal scans compared to similar males (P = .044). However, diabetic males and females with known CAD had similar event rates for all degrees of perfusion abnormalities. Only age, history of heart failure, nuclear perfusion defect, and LVEF predicted survival; gender did not. LVEF ≤ 50% had the strongest association with cardiac events (hazard ratio = 2.518, 95% confidence interval, 1.922-3.298).

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes, regardless of a history of CAD, were similar in women and men. The size and severity of stress-induced perfusion abnormalities predicted outcomes equally in both genders.

Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality compared to the background population. Observational studies report an association between reduced blood glucose and reduced risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with T2D. Our previous systematic review of intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control was based on 20 randomised clinical trials that randomised 29 ,986 participants with T2D. We now report our updated review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeted intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control in patients with T2D.

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were obtained from searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL (all until December 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that prespecified targets of intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control targets in adults with T2D.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were assessed by risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention were assessed with standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% Cl.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials with 34,912 T2D participants randomised 18,717 participants to intensive glycaemic control versus 16,195 participants to conventional glycaemic control. Only two trials had low risk of bias on all risk of bias domains assessed. The duration of the intervention ranged from three days to 12.5 years. The number of participants in the included trials ranged from 20 to 11,140. There were no statistically significant differences between targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08; 34,325 participants, 24 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.21; 34,177 participants, 22 trials). Trial sequential analysis showed that a 10% relative risk reduction could be refuted for all-cause mortality. Targeting intensive glycaemic control did not show a statistically significant effect on the risks of macrovascular complications as a composite outcome in the random-effects model, but decreased the risks in the fixed-effect model (random RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02; and fixed RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99; P = 0.02; 32,846 participants, 14 trials). Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control seemed to reduce the risks of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; P = 0.02; 30,417 participants, 14 trials), amputation of a lower extremity (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94; P = 0.02; 11,200 participants, 11 trials), as well as the risk of developing a composite outcome of microvascular diseases (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; P = 0.0008; 25,927 participants, 6 trials), nephropathy (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 28,096 participants, 11 trials), retinopathy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; P = 0.002; 10,300 participants, 9 trials), and the risk of retinal photocoagulation (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.97; P = 0.03; 11,212 participants, 8 trials). No statistically significant effect of targeting intensive glucose control could be shown on non-fatal stroke, cardiac revascularization, or peripheral revascularization. Trial sequential analyses did not confirm a reduction of the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction but confirmed a 10% relative risk reduction in favour of intensive glycaemic control on the composite outcome of microvascular diseases. For the remaining microvascular outcomes, trial sequential analyses could not establish firm evidence for a 10% relative risk reduction. Targeting intensive glycaemic control significantly increased the risk of mild hypoglycaemia, but substantial heterogeneity was present; severe hypoglycaemia (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.11; 28,794 participants, 12 trials); and serious adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10; P = 0.007; 24,280 participants, 11 trials). Trial sequential analysis for a 10% relative risk increase showed firm evidence for mild hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events and a 30% relative risk increase for severe hypoglycaemia when targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control. Overall health-related quality of life, as well as the mental and the physical components of health-related quality of life did not show any statistical significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although we have been able to expand the number of participants by 16% in this update, we still find paucity of data on outcomes and the bias risk of the trials was mostly considered high. Targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control did not show significant differences for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Targeting intensive glycaemic control seemed to reduce the risk of microvascular complications, if we disregard the risks of bias, but increases the risk of hypoglycaemia and serious adverse events.

Feasibility and effectiveness in clinical practice of a multifactorial intervention for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: the 2-year interim analysis of the MIND.IT study: a cluster randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an intensive, multifactorial cardiovascular risk reduction intervention in a clinic-based setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, with the diabetes clinic as the unit of randomization. Clinics were randomly assigned to either continue their usual care (n = 5) or to apply an intensive intervention aimed at the optimal control of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and hyperglycemia (n = 4). To account for clustering, mixed model regression techniques were used to compare differences in CVD risk factors and HbA1c. Analyses were performed both by intent to treat and as treated per protocol.

RESULTS

Nine clinics completed the study; 1,461 patients with type 2 diabetes and no previous cardiovascular events were enrolled. After 2 years, participants in the interventional group had significantly lower BMI, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels and significantly higher HDL cholesterol level than did the usual care group. The proportion of patients reaching the treatment goals was systematically higher in the interventional clinics (35% vs. 24% for LDL cholesterol, P = 0.1299; 93% vs. 82% for HDL cholesterol, P = 0.0005; 80% vs. 64% for triglycerides, P = 0.0002; 39% vs. 22% for HbA1c, P = 0.0259; 13% vs. 5% for blood pressure, P = 0.1638). The analysis as treated per protocol confirmed these findings, showing larger and always significant differences between the study arms for all targets.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifactorial intensive intervention in type 2 diabetes is feasible and effective in clinical practice and it is associated with significant and durable improvement in HbA1c and CVD risk profile.

Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy compared with routine care on self-reported health status, general well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction in screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The study aimed to examine the effects of intensive treatment (IT) vs routine care (RC) on patient-reported outcomes after 5 years in screen-detected diabetic patients.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial, 343 general practices in Denmark, Cambridge and Leicester (UK) and the Netherlands were randomised to screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus plus IT of multiple risk factors in people 40-69 years without known diabetes (n = 1,678 patients) or screening plus RC (n = 1,379 patients). Practices were randomised in a 1:1 ratio according to a computer-generated list. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed according to WHO criteria. Exclusions were: life expectancy <1 year, housebound, pregnant or lactating, or psychological or psychiatric problems. Treatment targets for IT were: HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), BP ≤135/85 mmHg, cholesterol <5 mmol/l in the absence of a history of coronary heart disease and <4.5 mmol/l in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease; prescription of aspirin to people taking antihypertensive medication and, in cases of CV disease or BP >120/80 mmHg, ACE inhibitors were recommended. After 2003, the treatment algorithm recommended statins to all patients with cholesterol of ≥3.5 mmol/l. Outcome measures were: health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]) at baseline and at follow-up; and health status (36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] and Euroquol Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-VAS]), well-being (12-item Short Form of the Well-Being Questionnaire), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at follow-up. At baseline, standardised self-report questionnaires were used to collect information. Questionnaires were completed at the same health assessment visit as the anthropometric and biochemical measurements. The patients and the staff assessing the outcomes were unaware of the group assignments. Participants were followed for a mean of 5.7 years. Outcome data were available for 1,250 participants in the intensive treatment group (74%) and 967 participants in the routine care group (70%). The estimated differences in means from the four centres were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Baseline EQ-5D level was used as a covariate in all analyses.

RESULTS

EQ-5D values did not change between diagnosis and follow-up, with a median (interquartile range) of 0.85 (0.73-1.00) at baseline and 0.85 (0.73-1.00) at 5 year follow-up. Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the intensive treatment and routine care groups. There was some heterogeneity between centres (I 2 being between 13% [SF-36 physical functioning] and 73% [EQ-VAS]).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

There were no differences in health status, well-being, quality of life and treatment satisfaction between screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving intensive treatment and those receiving routine care. These results suggest that intensive treatment does not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549 FUNDING: ADDITION-Denmark was supported by the National Health Services, the Danish Council for Strategic Research, the Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, the Diabetes Fund of the National Board of Health, the Danish Medical Research Council and the Aarhus University Research Foundation. In addition, unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies were received. ADDITION-Cambridge was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, National Health Service R&D support funding and the National Institute for Health Research. SJG received support from the Department of Health NIHR grant funding scheme. ADDITION-Leicester was supported by Department of Health, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, National Health Service R&D support funding and the National Institute for Health Research. ADDITION-Netherlands was supported by unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk, Glaxo Smith Kline and Merck, and by the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht.

Feasibility of community-based screening for cardiovascular disease risk in an ethnic community: the South Asian Cardiovascular Health Assessment and Management Program (SA-CHAMP)

Background

South Asian Canadians experience disproportionately high rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The goal of this qualitative study was to determine the feasibility of implementing a sustainable, culturally adapted, community-based CVD risk factor screening program for this population.

Methods

South Asians (≥ 45 years) in Calgary, Alberta underwent opportunistic cardiovascular risk factor screening by lay trained volunteers at local religious facilities. Those with elevated blood pressure (BP) or ≥ 1 risk factor underwent point of care cholesterol testing, 10-year CVD risk calculation, counseling, and referral to family physicians and local culturally tailored chronic disease management (CDM) programs. Participants were invited for re-screening and were surveyed about health system follow-up, satisfaction with the program and suggestions for improvement. Changes in risk factors from baseline were estimated using McNemar’s test (proportions) and paired t-tests (continuous measures).

Results

Baseline assessment was completed for 238 participants (median age 64 years, 51% female). Mean TC, HDL and TC/HDL were 5.41 mmol/L, 1.12 mmol/L and 4.7, respectively. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (mmHg) were 129 and 75 respectively. Blood pressure and TC/HDL ratios exceeded recommended targets in 36% and 58%, respectively, and 76% were at high risk for CVD. Ninety-nine participants (47% female) attended re-screening. 82% had accessed health care providers, 22% reported medication changes and 3.5% had attended the CDM programs. While BP remained unchanged, TC and TC/HDL decreased and HDL increased significantly (mean differences: -0.52 mmol/L, -1.04 and +0.07 mmol/L, respectively). Participants were very satisfied (80%) or satisfied (20%) with the project. Participants suggested screening sessions and CDM programs be more accessible by: delivering evening or weekends programs at more sites, providing transportation, offering multilingual programs/translation assistance, reducing screening wait times and increasing numbers of project staff.

Conclusions

SA-CHAMP demonstrated the feasibility and value of implementing a lay volunteer–led, culturally adapted, sustainable community-based CVD risk factor screening program in South Asian places of worship in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Subsequent screening and CDM programs were refined based on the learnings from this study. Further research is needed to determine physician and patient factors associated with uptake of and adherence to risk reduction strategies.

Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Target Goal Attainment Rate and Physician Perceptions about Target Goal Achievement in Korean Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the discrepancy between clinicians' perceptions and actual achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in Korean patients with diabetes according to updated American Diabetes Association (ADA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACC) recommendations.

METHODS

This is a multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional, observational study. Diabetic patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had been diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia or were receiving a lipid-lowering therapy between May 2010 and August 2010. The information was obtained by reviewing medical records and using a self-completed questionnaire to examine physician perceptions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,591 subjects who satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Highest-risk and high-risk patients accounted for 61.9% and 38.1% of the patients, respectively. Although most (96.3%) underwent a statin monotherapy or a statin-based combination therapy, just 47.4% of patients attained the LDL-C target. However, the physicians' perceptions on target achievement rate (70.6%) were different from the actual results (47.4%). Many patients (65.3%) remained on the starting doses of statins, despite evidence of poor achievement of lipid goals.

CONCLUSION

Only less than half of patients with diabetes attained the LDL-C goal. The surveys showed that poor physician performance might be due to the lack of recognition on ADA/ACC consensus causing a low LDL-C target attainment rate. Therefore, changes in doctor perception are needed to attain target LDL-C level and reduce cardiovascular risk in Korean patients with diabetes.