Associations between attainment of incentivized primary care indicators and incident lower limb amputation among those with type 2 diabetes: a population-based historical cohort study

Indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosing, monitoring, and prescribing in people with diabetes and strategies for diabetes service recovery internationally

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in clinical services for people with chronic long-term conditions. In this narrative review, we assess the indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes services globally and the resulting adverse effects on rates of diagnosing, monitoring, and prescribing in people with type 2 diabetes. We summarise potential practical approaches that could address these issues and improve clinical services and outcomes for people living with diabetes during the recovery phase of the pandemic.

Analysis of Lower Limb Amputations in Brazil's Public Health System over 13 Years

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the causes of amputation is crucial for defining health policies that seek to avoid such an outcome, but only a few studies have investigated the epidemiology of patients submitted to amputations in developing countries. The objective of this study was to analyse all lower limb amputations performed in the public health system in Brazil over a 13 year period, evaluating trends in the number of cases, patient demographics, associated aetiologies, hospital length of stay, and in hospital mortality rate.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, population based analysis of all lower limb amputations performed in the Brazilian public health system between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2020. Using a public database, all types of amputations were selected, defining the number of procedures, their main aetiologies, anatomical level of limb loss, demographic data, regional distribution, and other variables of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 633 455 amputations were performed between 2008 and 2020, mostly (55.6%) minor amputations, predominantly in males (67%). There was an upward trend in the number of amputations, determined mainly by the increase in major amputations (50.4% increase in the period). Elderly individuals have the highest rates of amputation. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is becoming the main primary diagnosis associated with amputations over the years. The highest in hospital mortality rate occurred after major amputations and was associated with peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

CONCLUSION

Amputation rates in Brazil show an upward trend. DM is becoming the most frequent associated primary diagnosis, although PAD is the diagnosis most associated with major amputations and in hospital death.

Routine care for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic - results from the German Disease Analyzer database

AIM

To investigate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected care for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Germany.

METHODS

The Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA, Germany) contains routine data on diagnoses and treatments (ICD-10 and ATC codes) from patients followed in selected physician practices across Germany. We compared 21,747 individuals with a first diagnosis of type 2 diabetes between January 2018 and September 2019 with 20,513 individuals with a first diabetes diagnosis between March 2020 and November 2021.

RESULTS

In March and April 2020, the number of new diagnoses of diabetes decreased by 18.3% and 35.7%, respectively, compared to March and April of the previous two years. The previous diabetes incidence level was reached again in June 2020. Mean pre-treatment glucose levels were higher during the pandemic than before (fasting plasma glucose: +6.3 mg/dl (95% confidence interval: 4.6-8.0)). In the first six months after diabetes diagnosis, the mean number of GP visits, specialist referrals and HbA1c measurements decreased.

CONCLUSION

We observed a decrease in diabetes incidence in the early phase of the pandemic and slightly higher pretreatment blood glucose levels during the pandemic than before. Care for newly diagnosed diabetes was slightly worse during the pandemic than before.

Diabetes and the COVID-19 pandemic

Almost immediately after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus emerged, it was evident that people with chronic diseases, including diabetes, were disproportionately affected, with an increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality. Over the ensuing 2 years, the indirect effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery in the short term have become prominent, along with the lingering effects of the virus in those directly infected. In the wake of the pandemic and without any evidence from high quality studies, a number of national and international consensus recommendations were published, which were subsequently rapidly updated based on observational studies. There have been unprecedented disruptions from both direct and indirect impacts of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in people with diabetes. In this review, we summarise the impact of acute COVID-19 in people with diabetes, discuss how the presentation and epidemiology during the pandemic, including presentation of diabetic ketoacidosis and new-onset diabetes, has changed, and we consider the wider impact of the pandemic on patients and healthcare service delivery, including some of the areas of uncertainty. Finally, we make recommendations on prioritising patients as we move into the recovery phase and also how we protect people with diabetes for the future, as COVID-19 is likely to become endemic.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diabetes services: planning for a global recovery

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected certain groups, such as older people (ie, >65 years), minority ethnic populations, and people with specific chronic conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and some respiratory diseases. There is now evidence of not only direct but also indirect adverse effects of COVID-19 in people with diabetes. Recurrent lockdowns and public health measures throughout the pandemic have restricted access to routine diabetes care, limiting new diagnoses, and affecting self-management, routine follow-ups, and access to medications, as well as affecting lifestyle behaviours and emotional wellbeing globally. Pre-pandemic studies have shown that short-term delays in delivery of routine care, even by 12 months, are associated with adverse effects on risk factor control and worse microvascular, macrovascular, and mortality outcomes in people with diabetes. Disruptions within the short-to-medium term due to natural disasters also result in worse diabetes outcomes. However, the true magnitude of the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term outcomes and mortality in people with diabetes is still unclear. Disasters tend to exacerbate existing health disparities; as we recover ambulatory diabetes services in the aftermath of the pandemic, there is an opportunity to prioritise those with the greatest need, and to target resources and interventions aimed at improving outcomes and reducing inequality.

Are major lower extremity amputations well recorded in primary care electronic health records?: Insights from primary care electronic health records in England

Aims:

Major lower extremity amputations (MLEAs) are understood to be well recorded in secondary care in England in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. It is unclear how well MLEAs are recorded in primary care databases.

Background:

This study compared MLEA event case ascertainment in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to that in HES.

Methods:

MLEA events were ascertained in CPRD and in HES linkage between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. The number of MLEA events and the number of patients with at least one MLEA in each database were recorded and compared. Individual events were matched between the databases using varying date-matching windows. Reasons for differences in case ascertainment were explored.

Findings:

In total 23 262 patients had at least one MLEA record, 8716 (37.5%) had an MLEA record in HES only, 5393 (23.2%) in CPRD only and 9153 (39.4%) in both. Out of a total of 75 221 events, 13 071 (62.4%) were recorded in HES only and 44 151 (81.3%) in CPRD only. 7874 (37.6%) of HES events were recorded in CPRD and 10 125 (18.6%) of CPRD events were recorded in HES when using the maximum date matching window of 28 days plus the time between admission and procedure. The main reasons for differences in case ascertainment included, re-recordings and miscoding in CPRD.

Compared to HES, MLEAs are poorly recorded in CPRD predominantly due to re-recordings of events and miscoding procedures. CPRD data cannot solely be relied upon to ascertain cases of MLEA; however, HES linkage to CPRD may be useful to obtain medical history of diagnoses, medication and diagnostic tests.

Adherence to General Diabetes and Foot Care Processes, with Prompt Referral, Are Associated with Amputation-Free Survival in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Foot Ulcers: A Scottish National Registry Analysis

AIMS

To compare different packages of care across care providers in Scotland on foot-related outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study with primary and secondary care electronic health records from the Scottish Diabetes Registry, including 6,845 people with type 2 diabetes and a first foot ulcer occurring between 2013 and 2017. We assessed the association between exposure to care processes and major lower extremity amputation and death. Proportional hazards were used for time-to-event univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for case-mix characteristics and care processes. Results were expressed in terms of hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

2,243 (32.7%) subjects had a major amputation or death. Exposure to all nine care processes at all ages (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.58-0.69; p < .001) and higher foot care attendance in people aged >70 years (HR = 0.88; 0.78-0.99; p = .03) were associated with longer major amputation-free survival. Waiting time ≥ 12 weeks between ulceration and clinic attendance was associated with worse outcomes (HR = 1.59; 1.37-1.84; p < .001). In people > 70 years, minor amputations were associated with improved major amputation-free survival (HR = 0.69; 0.52-0.92; p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Strict adherence to a standardised package of general diabetes care before foot ulceration, timely foot care after ulceration, and specific treatment pathways were associated with longer major amputation-free survival among a large cohort of people with type 2 diabetes in Scotland, with a larger impact on older age groups.

Understanding variations in reported epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation in the UK: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the prevalence/incidence/number of major lower extremity amputations (MLEAs) in the UK; identify sources of routinely collected electronic health data used; assess time trends and regional variation; and identify reasons for variation in reported incidence/prevalence of MLEA.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, EMcare, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, AMED, Scopus and grey literature sources searched from 1 January 2009 to 1 August 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Reports that provided population-based statistics, used routinely collected electronic health data, gave a measure of MLEA in adults in the general population or those with diabetes in the UK or constituent countries were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments were performed by two reviewers independently. Due to considerable differences in study populations and methodology, data pooling was not possible; data were tabulated and narratively synthesised, and study differences were discussed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven reports were included. Incidence proportion for the general population ranged from 8.2 to 51.1 per 100 000 and from 70 to 291 per 100 000 for the population with diabetes. Evidence for trends over time was mixed, but there was no evidence of increasing incidence. Reports consistently found regional variation in England with incidence higher in the north. No studies reported prevalence. Differences in database use, MLEA definition, calculation methods and multiple procedure inclusion which, together with identified inaccuracies, may account for the variation in incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

UK incidence and trends in MLEA remain unclear; estimates vary widely due to differences in methodology and inaccuracies. Reasons for regional variation also remain unexplained and prevalence uninvestigated. International consensus on the definition of MLEA and medical code list is needed. Future research should recommend standards for the reporting of such outcomes and investigate further the potential to use primary care data in MLEA epidemiology.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020165592.