Supporting insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes in primary care: results of the Stepping Up pragmatic cluster randomised controlled clinical trial

Insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes is often delayed, but access to a diabetes nurse may help-insights from Norwegian general practice

Objective: We opted to study how support staff operational capacity and diabetes competences may impact the timeliness of basal insulin-initiation in general practice patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).Design/Setting/Outcomes: This was an observational and retrospective study on Norwegian primary care patients with T2D included from the ROSA4-dataset. Exposures were (1) support staff size, (2) staff size relative to number of GPs, (3) clinic access to a diabetes nurse and (4) share of staff with diabetes course (1 and 2 both relate to staff operational capacity, whereas 3 and 4 are both indicatory of staff diabetes competences). Outcomes were 'timely basal insulin-initiation' (primary) and 'attainment of HbA1c<7%' after insulin start-up (secondary). Associations were analyzed using multiple linear regression, and directed acyclic graphs guided statistical adjustments.Subjects: Insulin naïve patients with 'timely' (N = 294), 'postponed' (N = 219) or 'no need of' (N = 3,781) basal insulin-initiation, respectively.Results: HbA1c [median (IQR)] increased to 8.8% (IQR, 8.0, 10.2) prior to basal insulin-initiation, which reduced HbA1c to 7.3 (6.8-8.1) % by which only 35% of the subjects reached HbA1c <7%. Adjusted risk of 'timely basal insulin-initiation' was more than twofold higher if access to a diabetes nurse (OR = 2.40, [95%CI, 1.68, 3.43]), but related only vaguely to staff size (OR = 1.01, [95%CI, 1.00, 1.03]). No other staff factors related significantly to neither the primary nor the secondary outcome.Conclusion: In Norwegian general practice, insulin initiation in people with T2D may be affected by therapeutic inertia but access to a diabetes nurse may help facilitating more timely insulin start-up.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of nurse-led care in reducing glycated haemoglobin in adults with Type 1 or 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Type 1 and 2 diabetes care, especially within primary health-care settings, has traditionally involved doctor-led clinics. However, with increasing chronic disease burden, there is scope for nurses to expand their role in assisting diabetes self-management.

AIMS

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of nurse-led care in reducing glycated haemoglobin in adults with Type 1 or 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Methodology from the Joanna Briggs Institute Method for Systematic Review Research and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, including identifying publications, assessing study quality, summarizing evidence and interpreting findings. The search strategy involved using the Medical Subject Headings and keyword variations when searching MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, PubMed and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Inclusion criteria were samples with Type 1 or 2 diabetes, mean age of ≥18 years, English language studies and publication date of January 2011-December 2021.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 articles from 16 countries met inclusion criteria. Though not always clinically significant, results indicated that nurse-led care had beneficial impacts on glycated haemoglobin values, with reductions from 0.03% to 2.0%. This was evident when nurses received formal training, used treatment algorithms, had limited medical support, utilized technology and offered defined culturally sensitive and appropriate diabetes care.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support nurse-led Type 1 and 2 diabetes care. Although further research is required, changes may necessitate increased recognition of nurse-led care and funding. Nurse-led care models should differ according to health-care settings.

Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist.

RESULTS

Sixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.

What is the role of randomised trials in implementation science?

BACKGROUND

There is a consistent demand for implementation science to inform global efforts to close the gap between evidence and practice. Key evaluation questions for any given implementation strategy concern the assessment and understanding of effects. Randomised trials are generally accepted as offering the most trustworthy design for establishing effectiveness but may be underused in implementation science.

MAIN BODY

There is a continuing debate about the primacy of the place of randomised trials in evaluating implementation strategies, especially given the evolution of more rigorous quasi-experimental designs. Further critiques of trials for implementation science highlight that they cannot provide 'real world' evidence, address urgent and important questions, explain complex interventions nor understand contextual influences. We respond to these critiques of trials and highlight opportunities to enhance their timeliness and relevance through innovative designs, embedding within large-scale improvement programmes and harnessing routine data. Our suggestions for optimising the conditions for randomised trials of implementation strategies include strengthening partnerships with policy-makers and clinical leaders to realise the long-term value of rigorous evaluation and accelerating ethical approvals and decluttering governance procedures for lower risk studies.

CONCLUSION

Policy-makers and researchers should avoid prematurely discarding trial designs when evaluating implementation strategies and work to enhance the conditions for their conduct.

Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of evidence evaluating quality improvement (QI) programmes to improve care for adults living with diabetes. These programmes are often comprised of multiple QI strategies, which may be implemented in various combinations. Decision-makers planning to implement or evaluate a new QI programme, or both, need reliable evidence on the relative effectiveness of different QI strategies (individually and in combination) for different patient populations.

OBJECTIVES

To update existing systematic reviews of diabetes QI programmes and apply novel meta-analytical techniques to estimate the effectiveness of QI strategies (individually and in combination) on diabetes quality of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL) and trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) to 4 June 2019. We conducted a top-up search to 23 September 2021; we screened these search results and 42 studies meeting our eligibility criteria are available in the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that assessed a QI programme to improve care in outpatient settings for people living with diabetes. QI programmes needed to evaluate at least one system- or provider-targeted QI strategy alone or in combination with a patient-targeted strategy. - System-targeted: case management (CM); team changes (TC); electronic patient registry (EPR); facilitated relay of clinical information (FR); continuous quality improvement (CQI). - Provider-targeted: audit and feedback (AF); clinician education (CE); clinician reminders (CR); financial incentives (FI). - Patient-targeted: patient education (PE); promotion of self-management (PSM); patient reminders (PR). Patient-targeted QI strategies needed to occur with a minimum of one provider or system-targeted strategy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We dual-screened search results and abstracted data on study design, study population and QI strategies. We assessed the impact of the programmes on 13 measures of diabetes care, including: glycaemic control (e.g. mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)); cardiovascular risk factor management (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), proportion of people living with diabetes that quit smoking or receiving cardiovascular medications); and screening/prevention of microvascular complications (e.g. proportion of patients receiving retinopathy or foot screening); and harms (e.g. proportion of patients experiencing adverse hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia). We modelled the association of each QI strategy with outcomes using a series of hierarchical multivariable meta-regression models in a Bayesian framework. The previous version of this review identified that different strategies were more or less effective depending on baseline levels of outcomes. To explore this further, we extended the main additive model for continuous outcomes (HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C) to include an interaction term between each strategy and average baseline risk for each study (baseline thresholds were based on a data-driven approach; we used the median of all baseline values reported in the trials). Based on model diagnostics, the baseline interaction models for HbA1c, SBP and LDL-C performed better than the main model and are therefore presented as the primary analyses for these outcomes. Based on the model results, we qualitatively ordered each QI strategy within three tiers (Top, Middle, Bottom) based on its magnitude of effect relative to the other QI strategies, where 'Top' indicates that the QI strategy was likely one of the most effective strategies for that specific outcome. Secondary analyses explored the sensitivity of results to choices in model specification and priors.  Additional information about the methods and results of the review are available as Appendices in an online repository. This review will be maintained as a living systematic review; we will update our syntheses as more data become available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 553 trials (428 patient-randomised and 125 cluster-randomised trials), including a total of 412,161 participants. Of the included studies, 66% involved people living with type 2 diabetes only. Participants were 50% female and the median age of participants was 58.4 years. The mean duration of follow-up was 12.5 months. HbA1c was the commonest reported outcome; screening outcomes and outcomes related to cardiovascular medications, smoking and harms were reported infrequently. The most frequently evaluated QI strategies across all study arms were PE, PSM and CM, while the least frequently evaluated QI strategies included AF, FI and CQI. Our confidence in the evidence is limited due to a lack of information on how studies were conducted.  Four QI strategies (CM, TC, PE, PSM) were consistently identified as 'Top' across the majority of outcomes. All QI strategies were ranked as 'Top' for at least one key outcome. The majority of effects of individual QI strategies were modest, but when used in combination could result in meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. The median number of QI strategies in multicomponent QI programmes was three.  Combinations of the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to the below effects:  - PR + PSM + CE: decrease in HbA1c by 0.41% (credibility interval (CrI) -0.61 to -0.22) when baseline HbA1c < 8.3%; - CM + PE + EPR: decrease in HbA1c by 0.62% (CrI -0.84 to -0.39) when baseline HbA1c > 8.3%;  - PE + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 2.14 mmHg (CrI -3.80 to -0.52) when baseline SBP < 136 mmHg; - CM + TC + PSM: reduction in SBP by 4.39 mmHg (CrI -6.20 to -2.56) when baseline SBP > 136 mmHg;  - TC + PE + CM: LDL-C lowering of 5.73 mg/dL (CrI -7.93 to -3.61) when baseline LDL < 107 mg/dL; - TC + CM + CR: LDL-C lowering by 5.52 mg/dL (CrI -9.24 to -1.89) when baseline LDL > 107 mg/dL. Assuming a baseline screening rate of 50%, the three most effective QI strategies were estimated to lead to an absolute improvement of 33% in retinopathy screening (PE + PR + TC) and 38% absolute increase in foot screening (PE + TC + Other).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant body of evidence about QI programmes to improve the management of diabetes. Multicomponent QI programmes for diabetes care (comprised of effective QI strategies) may achieve meaningful population-level improvements across the majority of outcomes. For health system decision-makers, the evidence summarised in this review can be used to identify strategies to include in QI programmes. For researchers, this synthesis identifies higher-priority QI strategies to examine in further research regarding how to optimise their evaluation and effects. We will maintain this as a living systematic review.

COMBINSI (COMBat to INSufficient Insulin therapy) - A Portuguese project in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Inadequate glycemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) increases the risk of diabetes-related complications. Insulin initiation is often delayed for several years. This study aims to estimate the adequacy of insulin therapy prescription to people living with T2D in a primary care setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study based on adults with T2D in a Portuguese local health unit between January 2019 and January 2020. Subjects under insulin therapy were compared with non-insulin-treated subjects with Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥9% regarding clinical and demographic characteristics. The proportion of insulin-treated subjects in both of these groups was defined as insulin therapy index.

RESULTS

Our study included 13,869 adults living with T2D, among whom 11.5% were treated with insulin therapy and 4.1% had HbA1c ≥ 9% and were not under insulin therapy. Insulin therapy index was 73.9%. When comparing with non-insulin-treated subjects with HbA1c ≥ 9%, insulin-treated subjects were significantly older (75.8 vs 66.2 years p < 0.001), had lower HbA1c (8.3 vs 10.3% p < 0.001), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (66.4 vs 74.0 ml/min/1.73 m²p < 0.001), lower LDL-cholesterol (87.1 vs 105.8 mg/dl), and higher rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (32.7 vs 16.7% p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Insulin therapy is underprescribed in T2D, with over 1-in-4 people living with T2D not being prescribed insulin despite deficient glycemic control. These findings highlight the need for insulin therapy when glycemic control is inadequate under other interventions.

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.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional healthcare team providing diabetes care in the USA and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the healthcare system and physical activity behaviours including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the previous consensus statements on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes in adults, published since 2006 and last updated in 2019. The target audience is the full spectrum of the professional health care team providing diabetes care in the U.S. and Europe. A systematic examination of publications since 2018 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on social determinants of health, the health care system, and physical activity behaviors, including sleep. There is a greater emphasis on weight management as part of the holistic approach to diabetes management. The results of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes trials involving sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, including assessment of subgroups, inform broader recommendations for cardiorenal protection in people with diabetes at high risk of cardiorenal disease. After a summary listing of consensus recommendations, practical tips for implementation are provided.

Leveraging Registered Dietitian Nutritionists and Registered Nurses in Medication Management to Reduce Therapeutic Inertia

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of studies that used registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) or registered nurses (RNs) to deliver pharmacological therapy using protocols for diabetes, dyslipidemia, or hypertension.

Research Design and Methods

A database search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature was conducted of literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019.

Results

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, representing randomized controlled trials (12), retrospective (1) and prospective cohort design studies (6), and time series (1). In all, the studies include 7,280 participants with a median study duration of 12 months (range 6-25 months). Fifteen studies were led by RNs alone, two by RDNs, and three by a combination of RDNs and RNs. All demonstrated improvements in A1C, blood pressure, or lipids. Thirteen studies provided a lifestyle behavior change component in addition to medication protocols.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides evidence that RDN- and RN-led medication management using physician-approved protocols or treatment algorithms can lead to clinically significant improvements in diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension management and is as good or better than usual care.

Enhancing the capacity of the health workforce to deliver best practice diabetes care

Diabetes prevalence is increasing; the technologies and medicines used to manage diabetes have become more complex, and the specialist health workforce with qualifications in diabetes is insufficient. Generalist health professionals have limited diabetes knowledge, despite engaging with people with diabetes in healthcare daily. An innovative framework is needed to align with the Australian National Diabetes Strategy to build a competent, flexible and adaptive workforce to promote excellence in diabetes care. A three-staged modified Delphi technique was used to identify a consensus Capability Framework for Diabetes Care (the 'Framework'). An implementation phase followed, involving representation from people with diabetes and key health professional organisations to co-design and implement the 'Framework'. The 'Framework' can guide curricula at universities and TAFE institutes, and the professional development and practice of Australian nurses, allied health professionals, First Nations Australians health workers and practitioners, pharmacists, midwives and health assistants when delivering care to people living with diabetes. The 'Framework' defines nine core capabilities that healthcare providers require to deliver diabetes care effectively, underpinned by three sets of attributes for seven practice levels to enable the workforce. Information within the practice levels provides a nationally consistent approach to learning and training different healthcare providers in the essential elements of diabetes care. A 'living' evidence-based national 'Framework' for the whole health workforce and associated online resources will help promote a more responsive health workforce delivering better and more equitable diabetes care.

Altered Functional Network Connectivity of Precuneus and Executive Control Networks in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Cognitive Impairment

In epidemiological studies, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been associated with cognitive impairment and dementia, but studies about functional network connectivity in T2DM without cognitive impairment are limited. This study aimed to explore network connectivity alterations that may help enhance our understanding of damage-associated processes in T2DM. MRI data were analyzed from 82 patients with T2DM and 66 normal controls. Clinical, biochemical, and neuropsychological assessments were conducted in parallel with resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging, and the cognitive status of the patients was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-B (MoCA-B) score. Independent component analysis revealed a positive correlation between the salience network and the visual network and a negative connection between the left executive control network and the default mode network in patients with T2DM. The differences in dynamic brain network connectivity were observed in the precuneus, visual, and executive control networks. Internal network connectivity was primarily affected in the thalamus, inferior parietal lobe, and left precuneus. Hemoglobin A1c level, body mass index, MoCA-B score, and grooved pegboard (R) assessments indicated significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.05). Our findings show that key changes in functional connectivity in diabetes occur in the precuneus and executive control networks that evolve before patients develop cognitive deficits. In addition, the current study provides useful information about the role of the thalamus, inferior parietal lobe, and precuneus, which might be potential biomarkers for predicting the clinical progression, assessing the cognitive function, and further understanding the neuropathology of T2DM.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes specialist delivered insulin education for adults with type 2 diabetes in outpatient settings

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of insulin education for people with type 2 diabetes to assess its effectiveness in improving glycaemic levels.

METHODS

We searched the following online databases from the earliest record to 17 February 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of science, Cochrane Library and https://clinicaltrials.gov. Data was extracted on publication status, participants' characteristics at baseline, intervention and control group, study design, and data for primary and secondary outcomes, change in HbA1c(%), change in weight (Kilogram). The review was registered with international prospective register of systematic reviews registration (PROSPERO):CRD42020167769.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers were included in the systematic review. In the meta-analysis there was a small statistically significant improvement in HbA1c (0.39% points/4.4 mmol/mol reduction) in the insulin education group compared to control conditions (N = 10 studies, n = 3307 participants, SMD = -0.22, 95% CI = -0.34, -0.10, I² = 66% p = 0.002). There was a small non-significant increase in weight (0.54 Kg) in the insulin education group compared to control conditions (N = 6 studies, n = 470 participants, SMD = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.10, 0.17, I² = 0.0%, p = 0.82). Quality of evidence was rated low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced insulin education delivered by diabetes specialists is potentially more effective than standard care. Further research is required to reach robust conclusions.

Web-based intervention to reduce psychological barriers to insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a two-armed randomised controlled trial of 'Is insulin right for me?'

INTRODUCTION

Psychological barriers to insulin therapy are associated with the delay of clinically indicated treatment intensification for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), yet few evidence-based interventions exist to address these barriers. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the efficacy of a novel, theoretically grounded, psychoeducational, web-based resource designed to reduce psychological barriers to insulin among adults with non-insulin treated T2D: 'Is insulin right for me?'.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Double-blind, parallel group RCT. A target sample of N=392 participants (n=196/arm) will be randomised (1:1) to 'Is insulin right for me?' (intervention) or widely available online resources (control). Eligible participants include adults (18-75 years), residing in Australia, currently taking oral hypoglycaemic agents to manage T2D. They will be primarily recruited via invitations and reminders from the national diabetes registry (from a purposefully selected sample of N≥12 000).

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

experience of self-administered injectable; previously enrolled in pilot RCT; 'very willing' to start insulin as baseline. Outcomes will be assessed via online survey at 2 weeks and 6 months. Primary outcome between-group: difference in mean negative Insulin Treatment Appraisal Scores (ITAS negative) at 2-week and 6-month follow-up.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

between-group differences in mean positive insulin appraisals (ITAS positive) and percentage difference in intention to commence insulin at follow-up time points. All data analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020-073). Dissemination via peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000191897; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Diabetes Capabilities for the Healthcare Workforce Identified via a 3-Staged Modified Delphi Technique

Consumers access health professionals with varying levels of diabetes-specific knowledge and training, often resulting in conflicting advice. Conflicting health messages lead to consumer disengagement. The study aimed to identify capabilities required by health professionals to deliver diabetes education and care to develop a national consensus capability-based framework to guide their training. A 3-staged modified Delphi technique was used to gain agreement from a purposefully recruited panel of Australian diabetes experts from various disciplines and work settings. The Delphi technique consisted of (Stage I) a semi-structured consultation group and pre-Delphi pilot, (Stage II) a 2-phased online Delphi survey, and (Stage III) a semi-structured focus group and appraisal by health professional regulatory and training organisations. Descriptive statistics and central tendency measures calculated determined quantitative data characteristics and consensus. Content analysis using emergent coding was used for qualitative content. Eighty-four diabetes experts were recruited from nursing and midwifery (n = 60 [71%]), allied health (n = 17 [20%]), and pharmacy (n = 7 [9%]) disciplines. Participant responses identified 7 health professional practice levels requiring differences in diabetes training, 9 capability areas to support care, and 2 to 16 statements attained consensus for each capability-259 in total. Additionally, workforce solutions were identified to expand capacity for diabetes care. The rigorous consultation process led to the design and validation of a Capability Framework for Diabetes Care that addresses workforce enablers identified by the Australian National Diabetes Strategy. It recognises diversity, creating shared understandings of diabetes across health professional disciplines. The findings will inform diabetes policy, practice, education, and research.

'Is Insulin Right for Me?' Development of a theory-informed, web-based resource for reducing psychological barriers to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To develop a theory and evidence-based web intervention to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy among adults with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Salient psychological barriers towards insulin were identified from the literature and classified using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Relevant TDF domains were mapped to evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which informed the content for each barrier. Acceptability was explored using cognitive debriefing interviews (n=6 adults with T2D).

RESULTS

'Is Insulin Right for Me' addresses eight barriers, phrased as common questions: Does insulin mean my diabetes is more serious? Do insulin injections cause complications? Is it my fault I need to inject insulin? Will I gain weight? Will injecting hurt? What about hypos? Will injecting insulin be a burden? What will others think of me? BCTs, including persuasive communication and modelling/demonstration, were delivered using appropriate methods (eg, demonstration of the injection process). Participant suggestions for improvement included clear and direct messages, normalising insulin and avoiding confronting images.

CONCLUSIONS

'Is Insulin Right for Me' is the first theory and evidence-based, web intervention designed to reduce psychological barriers towards insulin therapy for adults with T2D. Evaluation is needed to determine its impact on negative appraisals and receptiveness towards insulin.

The Effectiveness of Behavior Change Techniques Underpinning Psychological Interventions to Improve Glycemic Levels for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis

An existing systematic review and meta-analysis found a significant reduction in glycemic levels for adults with type 2 diabetes who received a psychological intervention over control conditions. To help develop effective interventions in the future, there is a need to understand the active ingredients which underpin these psychological interventions. We conducted a secondary meta-analysis including 67 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English. We reviewed the psychological intervention descriptions of the included studies of the existing review and extracted the behavior change techniques (BCTs) according to the BCT taxonomy (BCTTv1). We also extracted information on primary behavioral target versus primary outcome, and presence of fidelity assessment. The most frequent BCTs across RCTs were ‘social support (unspecified)’ (n=50), ‘problem solving’ (n=38) and ‘goal setting (behavior’) (n=30). These BCTs were independently associated with a significant reduction in glycemic levels (HbA1c) compared to control conditions, but not significantly different from studies that did not include these BCTs. Meta-regressions revealed no significant associations between HbA1c, and psychological intervention category (counselling versus cognitive behavioral therapy interventions) (p=0.84), frequency of BCTs per psychological intervention (p=0.29), primary behavioral target versus primary outcome (p=0.48), or presence of fidelity assessment (p=0.15). Social support (unspecified), problem solving, and goal setting (behavior) could be useful BCTs to develop psychological interventions for people with type 2 diabetes to improve glycemic levels. However, more research is required to understand which combination of individual BCTs are most effective for this population.

Systematic Review Registration

Registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews registration (PROSPERO) CRD42016033619.

Strategies to Overcome Therapeutic Inertia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Scoping Review

The objectives of this review were to: 1) examine recent strategies and component interventions used to overcome therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 2) map strategies to the causes of therapeutic inertia they target and 3) identify causes of therapeutic inertia in T2DM that have not been targeted by recent strategies. A systematic search of the literature published from January 2014 to December 2019 was conducted to identify strategies targeting therapeutic inertia in T2DM, and key strategy characteristics were extracted and summarized. The search identified 46 articles, employing a total of 50 strategies aimed at overcoming therapeutic inertia. Strategies were composed of an average of 3.3 interventions (range, 1 to 10) aimed at an average of 3.6 causes (range, 1 to 9); most (78%) included a type of educational strategy. Most strategies targeted causes of inertia at the patient (38%) or health-care professional (26%) levels only and 8% targeted health-care-system-level causes, whereas 28% targeted causes at multiple levels. No strategies focused on patients' attitudes toward disease or lack of trust in health-care professionals; none addressed health-care professionals' concerns over costs or lack of information on side effects/fear of causing harm, or the lack of a health-care-system-level disease registry. Strategies to overcome therapeutic inertia in T2DM commonly employed multiple interventions, but novel strategies with interventions that simultaneously target multiple levels warrant further study. Although educational interventions are commonly used to address therapeutic inertia, future strategies may benefit from addressing a wider range of determinants of behaviour change to overcome therapeutic inertia.

Comparable efficacy with similarly low risk of hypoglycaemia in patient- vs physician-managed basal insulin initiation and titration in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects: The Italian Titration Approach Study

AIMS

People with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often delay initiating and titrating basal insulin. Patient-managed titration may reduce such deferral. The Italian Titration Approach Study (ITAS) compared the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) initiation and titration using patient- (nurse-supported) or physician-management in insulin-naïve patients with uncontrolled T2DM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ITAS was a multicentre, phase IV, 24-week, open-label, randomized (1:1), parallel-group study. Insulin-naïve adults with T2DM for ≥1 year with poor metabolic control initiated Gla-300 after discontinuation of SU/glinides, and were randomized to self-titrate insulin dose (nurse-assisted) or have it done by the physician. The primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c . Secondary outcomes included hypoglycaemia incidence and rate, change in fasting self-monitored plasma glucose, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and adverse events.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty five participants were included in the intention-to-treat population. At Week 24, HbA_1c reduction from baseline was non-inferior in patient- vs physician-managed arms [least squares mean (LSM) change (SE): -1.60% (0.06) vs -1.49% (0.06), respectively; LSM difference: -0.11% (95% CI: -0.26 to 0.04)]. The incidence and rates of hypoglycaemia were similarly low in both arms: relative risk of confirmed and/or severe nocturnal (00:00-05:59 hours) hypoglycaemia was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.27 to 2.18). No differences were observed for improvement in PROs. No safety concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In the T2DM insulin-naïve, SU/glinides discontinued population, patient-managed (nurse-assisted) titration of Gla-300 may be a suitable option as it provides improved glycaemic control with low risk of hypoglycaemia, similar to physician-managed titration.

Overview of Therapeutic Inertia in Diabetes: Prevalence, Causes, and Consequences

Many people with diabetes do not achieve individualized treatment targets. Therapeutic inertia, the underuse of effective therapies in preventing serious clinical end points, is a frequent, important contributor to this failure. Clinicians, patients, health systems, payors, and producers of medications, devices, and other products for those with diabetes all play a role in the development of therapeutic inertia and can all help to reduce it.

Therapeutic Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care: A Challenge That Just Won't Go Away

Therapeutic inertia is a prevalent problem in people with type 2 diabetes in primary care and affects clinical outcomes. It arises from a complex interplay of patient-, clinician-, and health system-related factors. Ultimately, clinical practice guidelines have not made an impact on improving glycemic targets over the past decade. A more proactive approach, including focusing on optimal combination agents for early glycemic durability, may reduce therapeutic inertia and improve clinical outcomes.

Take Control: A randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of self- versus physician-managed titration of insulin glargine 300 U/mL in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of self- versus physician-managed titration of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Take Control (EudraCT number: 2015-001626-42) was a 24-week, multi-national, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group study in insulin-naïve and pre-treated participants, randomized 1:1 to a self- or physician-managed titration of Gla-300. The fasting self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) target was 4.4 to 7.2 mmol/L. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 24. Secondary outcomes included SMPG target achievement without hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia incidence, adverse events and participant-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

At week 24, the least squares (LS) mean HbA1c reduction was 0.97% (10.6 mmol/mol) and 0.84% (9.2 mmol/mol) in the self- and physician-managed groups, respectively, with an LS mean difference of -0.13% [95% confidence interval -0.2619 to -0.0004] (-1.4 mmol/mol [-2.863 to -0.004]), demonstrating non-inferiority (P < 0.0001) and superiority (P = 0.0247) of self- versus physician-managed titration. Significantly more of the self- than physician-managed group achieved SMPG target without hypoglycaemia (67% vs 58%; P = 0.0187). Overall, hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in each group. No safety concerns were reported. In both groups, similar PRO improvements were observed for distress related to diabetes disease burden and for confidence in diabetes self-management, with even more individuals achieving a clinically relevant reduction in emotional burden and fewer individuals with high emotional burden in the self-managed group.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-managed titration of Gla-300 was superior to physician-managed titration in terms of HbA1c reduction, accompanied by similar total PRO scores, with a clinically relevant reduction in emotional burden, and similar hypoglycaemia frequency.

Reduction in HbA1c using professional flash glucose monitoring in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients managed in primary and secondary care settings: A pilot, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

AIM

Analyse the effects of professional flash glucose monitoring system (FreeStyle Libre Pro™) on glycaemic control in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Primary (n = 17) and secondary care centres (n = 5) randomised 148 type 2 diabetes patients into three groups: (A) self-monitoring of blood glucose (n = 52), (B) self-monitoring of blood glucose and two Libre Pro sensor wears (n = 46) or (C) self-monitoring of blood glucose and four sensor wears (n = 50). Primary endpoint was time in range (glucose 3.9-10 mmol/L) within group C comparing baseline with days 172-187. Predefined secondary endpoints included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and quality of life measures analysed within and between groups (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02434315).

RESULTS

In group C, time in range in the first 14 days (baseline) and days 172-187 was similar at 15.0 ± 5.0 and 14.1 ± 4.7 h/day (mean ± SD), respectively, (p = 0.1589). In contrast, HbA1c reduced from baseline to study end within group C by 4.9 ± 8.8 mmol/mol (0.44% ± 0.81%; p = 0.0003). HbA1c was also lower in group C compared with A at study end by 5.4 ± 1.79 mmol/mol (0.48% ± 0.16%; p = 0.0041, adjusted mean ± SE), without increased time in hypoglycaemia (p = 0.1795). Treatment satisfaction scores improved in group C compared with A (p = 0.0225) and no device-related serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Libre Pro can improve HbA1c and treatment satisfaction without increasing hypoglycaemic exposure in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes individuals managed in primary/secondary care centres.

Clinical inertia, reverse clinical inertia, and medication non-adherence in type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Clinical inertia and medication non-adherence are thought to contribute largely to the suboptimal glycemic control in many patients with type 2 diabetes. The present review explores the relations between A1C targets, clinical inertia and medication non-adherence in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for English-language studies published from 2001 through June 1, 2018. We also manually searched the references of selected articles, reviews, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines. Selected articles were mutually agreed upon by the authors.

RESULTS

Clinical inertia is the failure of clinicians to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated, while medication non-adherence is the failure of patients to start or continue therapy that a clinician has recommended. Although clinical inertia may occur at all stages of diabetes treatment, the longest delays were reported for initiation or intensification of insulin. Medication non-adherence to antidiabetic drugs may range from 53 to 65% at 1 year and may be responsible for uncontrolled A1C in about 23% of cases. Reverse clinical inertia can be acknowledged as the failure to reduce or change therapy when no longer needed or indicated. Clinical inertia and medication non-adherence are difficult to address: clinician-and patient-targeted educational programs, more connected communications between clinicians and patients, the help of other health professional figures (nurse, pharmacist) have been explored with mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Both clinical inertia and medication non-adherence remain significant barriers to optimal glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes. Moreover, part of clinical inertia may be a way through which clinicians face current uncertainty in medicine, including some dissonance among therapeutic guidelines. Scientific associations should find an agreement about how to measure and report clinical inertia in clinical practice and should exhort clinicians to consider reverse clinical inertia as a cause of persisting inappropriate therapy in vulnerable patients.

Italian Titration Approach Study (ITAS) with insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve type 2 diabetes: Design and population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Fostering patient's self-managing of basal insulin therapy could improve glucose control, by removing patient's and physician's barriers to basal insulin initiation, titration and glucose monitoring. The Italian Titration Approaches Study (ITAS) aims at demonstrating non-inferiority (<0.3% margin) in efficacy of glucose control (change in glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] after 24 weeks) by the same titration algorithm of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300), managed by the (nurse assisted) patient versus the physician, in insulin naïve patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), uncontrolled with previous treatments.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ITAS is a phase IV, 24-week, national, multicenter, open label, randomized (1:1) parallel group study. 458 patients were enrolled, 359 randomized, and 339 completed the study, in 46 Italian centers. Baseline characteristics and previous medications of the ITT population (N = 355) are reported. Mean ± SD age, T2DM duration, HbA1c, FPG and BMI were 64.0 ± 9.8 years, 11.6 ± 7.6 years, 8.79 ± 0.65%, 170.9 ± 42.3 mg/dL, and 30.3 ± 5.6 kg/m², respectively. Vascular and metabolic disorders were most frequent (73.8% and 58.3%, respectively). More than 90% of patients were on metformin.

CONCLUSION

ITAS is the first study to compare two different managers (nurse-assisted patient vs physician) of the same titration algorithm of Gla-300 in insulin naïve patients with T2DM in unsatisfactory glucose control. This study might provide novel evidence on the efficacy/effectiveness of patient-managed titration algorithm of Gla-300 in a pragmatic setting and may reduce barriers to basal insulin initiation and its titration.

Update on the General Practice Optimising Structured Monitoring to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (GP-OSMOTIC) trial: statistical analysis plan for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

General Practice Optimising Structured Monitoring to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (GP-OSMOTIC) is a multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial aiming to compare the use of intermittent retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes attending general practice. The study protocol was published in the British Medical Journal Open and described the principal features of the statistical methods that will be used to analyse the trial data. This paper provides greater detail on the statistical analysis plan, including background and justification for the statistical methods chosen, in accordance with SPIRIT guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To describe in detail the data management process and statistical methods that will be used to analyse the trial data.

METHODS

An overview of the trial design and primary and secondary research questions are provided. Sample size assumptions and calculations are explained, and randomisation and data management processes are described in detail. The planned statistical analyses for primary and secondary outcomes and sub-group analyses are specified along with the intended table layouts for presentation of the results.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with best practice, all analyses outlined in the document are based on the aims of the study and have been pre-specified prior to the completion of data collection and outcome analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001372471 . Registered on 3 August 2016.

Mobile-based insulin dose adjustment for type 2 diabetes in community and rural populations: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Insulin initiation and/or titration for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often delayed as it is a resource-intensive process, often requiring frequent exchange of information between a patient and their diabetes healthcare professional, such as a credentialed diabetes educator (CDE) for insulin dose adjustment (IDA). Existing models of IDA are unlikely to meet the increasing service demand unless efficiencies are increased. Mobile health (mHealth), a subset of Ehealth, has been shown to improve glycaemic control through enhanced self-management and feedback leading to improved patient satisfaction and could simultaneously reduce costs. Considering the potential benefits of mHealth, we have developed an innovative mHealth-based care model to support patients and clinicians in diabetes specialist community outreach and telehealth clinics, that is, REthinking Model of Outpatient Diabetes care utilizing EheaLth - Insulin Dose Adjustment (REMODEL-IDA). This model primarily aims to improve the glycaemic management of patients with T2DM on insulin, with the secondary aims of improving healthcare service delivery efficiency and the patients' experience.

METHODS/DESIGN

A two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted for 3 months with 44 participants, randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either the mHealth-based model of care (intervention) or routine care (control), in diabetes specialist community outreach and telehealth clinics. The intervention arm will exchange information related to blood glucose levels via the Mobile Diabetes Management System developed for outpatients with T2DM. They will receive advice on insulin titration from the CDE via the mobile-app and receive automated text-message prompts for better self-management based on their blood glucose levels and frequency of blood glucose testing. The routine care arm will be followed up via telephone calls by the CDE as per usual practice. The primary outcome is change in glycated haemoglobin, a marker of glycaemic management, at 3 months. Patient and healthcare provider satisfaction, and time required to perform IDA by healthcare providers in both arms will be collected. This pilot study will guide the conduct of a large-scale pragmatic RCT in regional Australia.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Interpretation and Impact of Real-World Clinical Data for the Practicing Clinician

Real-world studies have become increasingly important in providing evidence of treatment effectiveness in clinical practice. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the “gold standard” for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic agents, necessarily strict inclusion and exclusion criteria mean that trial populations are often not representative of the patient populations encountered in clinical practice. Real-world studies may use information from electronic health and claims databases, which provide large datasets from diverse patient populations, and/or may be observational, collecting prospective or retrospective data over a long period of time. They can therefore provide information on the long-term safety, particularly pertaining to rare events, and effectiveness of drugs in large heterogeneous populations, as well as information on utilization patterns and health and economic outcomes. This review focuses on how evidence from real-world studies can be utilized to complement data from RCTs to gain a more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of medications as they are used in practice.

Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

Interpretation and Impact of Real-World Clinical Data for the Practicing Clinician

Real-world studies have become increasingly important in providing evidence of treatment effectiveness in clinical practice. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the "gold standard" for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic agents, necessarily strict inclusion and exclusion criteria mean that trial populations are often not representative of the patient populations encountered in clinical practice. Real-world studies may use information from electronic health and claims databases, which provide large datasets from diverse patient populations, and/or may be observational, collecting prospective or retrospective data over a long period of time. They can therefore provide information on the long-term safety, particularly pertaining to rare events, and effectiveness of drugs in large heterogeneous populations, as well as information on utilization patterns and health and economic outcomes. This review focuses on how evidence from real-world studies can be utilized to complement data from RCTs to gain a more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of medications as they are used in practice.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

GP-OSMOTIC trial protocol: an individually randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice

INTRODUCTION

Optimal glycaemia can reduce type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications. Observing retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) patterns may prompt therapeutic changes but evidence for r-CGM use in T2D is limited. We describe the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining intermittent r-CGM use (up to 14 days every three months) in T2D in general practice (GP).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

General Practice Optimising Structured MOnitoring To achieve Improved Clinical Outcomes is a two-arm RCT asking 'does intermittent r-CGM in adults with T2D in primary care improve HbA1c?'

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Absolute difference in mean HbA1c at 12 months follow-up between intervention and control arms.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

(a) r-CGM per cent time in target (4-10 mmol/L) range, at baseline and 12 months; (b) diabetes-specific distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes).

ELIGIBILITY

Aged 18-80 years, T2D for ≥1 year, a (past month) HbA1c>5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) above their individualised target while prescribed at least two non-insulin hypoglycaemic therapies and/or insulin (therapy stable for the last four months). Our general glycaemic target is 53 mmol/mol (7%) (patients with a history of severe hypoglycaemia or a recorded diagnosis of hypoglycaemia unawareness will have a target of 64 mmol/mol (8%)).Our trial compares r-CGM use and usual care. The r-CGM report summarising daily glucose patterns will be reviewed by GP and patient and inform treatment decisions. Participants in both arms are provided with 1 hour education by a specialist diabetes nurse.The sample (n=150/arm) has 80% power to detect a mean HbA1c difference of 5.5 mmol/mol (0.5%) with an SD of 14.2 (1.3%) and alpha of 0.05 (allowing for 10% clinic and 20% patient attrition).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

University of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ID 1647151.1). Dissemination will be in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a plain-language summary for participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

>ACTRN12616001372471; Pre-results.

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Insulin Matters: A Practical Approach to Basal Insulin Management in Type 2 Diabetes

It is currently estimated that 11 million Canadians are living with diabetes or prediabetes. Although hyperglycemia is associated with serious complications, it is well established that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications and can also reduce cardiovascular (CV) complications over the long term. The UKPDS and ADVANCE landmark trials have resulted in diabetes guidelines recommending an A1C target of ≤ 7.0% for most patients or a target of ≤ 6.5% to further reduce the risk of nephropathy and retinopathy in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), if it can be achieved safely. However, half of the people with T2D in Canada are not achieving these glycemic targets, despite advances in diabetes pharmacological management. There are many contributing factors to account for this poor outcome; however, one of the major factors is the delay in treatment advancement, particularly a resistance to insulin initiation and intensification. To simplify the process of initiating and titrating insulin in T2D patients, a group of Canadian experts reviewed the evidence and best clinical practices with the goal of providing guidance and practical recommendations to the diabetes healthcare community at large. This expert panel included general practitioners (GPs), nurses, nurse practitioners, endocrinologists, dieticians, pharmacists, and a psychologist. This article summarizes the panel recommendations.

Identification of barriers to insulin therapy and approaches to overcoming them

Poor glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global problem despite the availability of numerous glucose-lowering therapies and clear guidelines for T2D management. Tackling clinical or therapeutic inertia, where the person with diabetes and/or their healthcare providers do not intensify treatment regimens despite this being appropriate, is key to improving patients' long-term outcomes. This gap between best practice and current level of care is most pronounced when considering insulin regimens, with studies showing that insulin initiation/intensification is frequently and inappropriately delayed for several years. Patient- and physician-related factors both contribute to this resistance at the stages of insulin initiation, titration and intensification, impeding achievement of optimal glycaemic control. The present review evaluates the evidence and reasons for this delay, together with available methods for facilitation of insulin initiation or intensification.

Changes in health services usage associated with insulin initiation in primary care

Insulin initiation is often delayed in primary care partly because of clinician concerns about the additional clinical work. This study describes health services usage (HSU) pre- and post-insulin initiation in people with type 2 diabetes and out-of-target glycaemic levels. Secondary analysis of participant data from the Stepping Up randomised controlled trial of a model of care for insulin initiation in general practice was undertaken. For 142 people who commenced insulin, HSU in the 6 months prior was compared to that in the 12 months following insulin initiation. Overall, HSU events increased in the 6 months following insulin initiation from a median (IQR) of 18 (15, 29) to 23 (16, 36); (P=0.05), mostly because of an increase in general practitioner (GP) consultations (6 (4, 10) to 8 (5, 11); (P=0.01)). HSU and GP consultations subsequently returned to baseline at 12 months. There was no effect on hospitalisations or specialist consultations. Insulin initiation is associated with a small increase in GP consultations that reverts to baseline after 12 months without affecting other health services. This study can inform health services planning and resource allocation at practice and health policy levels to support insulin initiation in general practice.

Overcoming clinical inertia in insulin initiation in primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes: 24-month follow-up of the Stepping Up cluster randomised controlled trial

AIM

To examine the two-year impact of Stepping Up, a general practice based model of care intervention for insulin initiation and titration in Australia.

METHODS

266 participants from 74 general practices participated in the Stepping Up cluster randomised controlled trial between 2012-2014. Control practices received training in the model of care on completion of the 12-month trial. Patients were followed for 24 months. Participant baseline characteristics, insulin and non-insulin medication use were summarised for each study group. Linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts were used to estimate differences in mean outcome (HbA1c and weight) between the study groups using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.

RESULTS

At baseline 61% of patients were male, mean (SD) age 62 (10) years, diabetes duration 9 (5, 13) years and mean (95% CI) HbA1c was 8.9 (8.8-9.1)% (74 (73-76)mmol/mol) for both groups. There was a significant between group difference at 6 months which was sustained at 24 months; Mean (95% CI) HbA1c at 24 months in the intervention group was 7.6 (7.5-7.8)% (60 (58-62)mmol/mol) and 8.0 (7.7-8.4)% (64 (61-68)mmol/mol) in the control group. At 24 months 97 (71.3%) of the intervention group and 26 (31.0%) of the control group were prescribed insulin; there was no significant difference in weight. Use of non-insulin anti-hyperglycaemic agents was similar in both groups with the exception of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors which were prescribed more frequently in the control group (30(36%) vs 21(16%)).

CONCLUSION

Stepping Up was associated with improved glycaemic control compared to usual care for 24 months, suggesting that the model facilitated more timely treatment intensification. Ongoing RN-CDE support may be needed to facilitate ongoing treatment intensification.

What determines treatment satisfaction of patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy? An observational study in eight European countries

OBJECTIVE

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on insulin therapy are less satisfied with their diabetes treatment than those on oral hypoglycaemic therapies or lifestyle advice only. Determinants of satisfaction in patients with T2DM on insulin therapy are not clearly known. The aim of this study was to determine the association of treatment satisfaction with demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with T2DM.

DESIGN

For this study we used data from the GUIDANCE (Guideline Adherence to Enhance Care) study, a cross-sectional study among 7597 patients with T2DM patients from Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. The majority of patients were recruited from primary care. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ, score 0-36; higher scores reflecting higher satisfaction). To determine which patient characteristics and laboratory values were independently associated with treatment satisfaction, a linear mixed model analysis was used.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 1984 patients on insulin were analysed; the number of included patients per country ranged from 166 (the Netherlands) to 384 (Italy).

RESULTS

The mean DTSQ score was 28.50±7.52 and ranged from 25.93±6.57 (France) to 30.11±5.09 (the Netherlands). Higher DTSQ scores were associated with having received diabetes education (β 1.64, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.32), presence of macrovascular complications (β 0.76, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.31) and better health status (β 0.08 for every one unit increase on a 0-100 scale, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.10). Lower DTSQ scores were associated with more frequently perceived hyperglycaemia (β -0.32 for every 1 unit increase on a seven-point Likert scale, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.13), and higher glycated haemoglobin (β -0.52 for every percentage increase, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

A number of factors including diabetes education, perceived and actual hyperglycaemia and macrovascular complications are associated with treatment satisfaction. Self-management education programmes should incorporate these factors for ongoing support in patients with T2DM.