Randomised controlled trial of intensive multifactorial treatment for cardiovascular risk in patients with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: 1-year data from the ADDITION Netherlands study

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.

Intensified Multifactorial Intervention in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

In the management of diabetes mellitus, one of the most important goals is to prevent its micro- and macrovascular complications, and to that end, multifactorial intervention is widely recommended. Intensified multifactorial intervention with pharmacotherapy for associated risk factors, alongside lifestyle modification, was first shown to be efficacious in patients with microalbuminuria (Steno-2 study), then in those with less advanced microvascular complications (the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care [ADDITION]-Europe and the Japan Diabetes Optimal Treatment study for 3 major risk factors of cardiovascular diseases [J-DOIT3]), and in those with advanced microvascular complications (the Nephropathy In Diabetes-Type 2 [NID-2] study and Diabetic Nephropathy Remission and Regression Team Trial in Japan [DNETT-Japan]). Thus far, multifactorial intervention led to a reduction in cardiovascular and renal events, albeit not necessarily significant. It should be noted that not only baseline characteristics but also the control status of the risk factors and event rates during intervention among the patients widely varied from one trial to the next. Further evidence is needed for the efficacy of multifactorial intervention in a longer duration and in younger or elderly patients. Moreover, now that new classes of antidiabetic drugs are available, it should be addressed whether strict and safe glycemic control, alongside control of other risk factors, could lead to further risk reductions in micro- and macrovascular complications, thereby decreasing all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Effectiveness of the chronic care model for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mixed evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) with patient outcomes. The aim of this review is to examine the effectiveness of CCM interventions on hemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c), systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), LDL cholesterol and body mass index (BMI) among primary care adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from January 1990 to June 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCM interventions against usual care among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care with HbA_1c, SBP, DBP, LDL cholesterol and BMI as outcomes. An abbreviated search was performed from 2021 to April 2022. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software. Heterogeneity was evaluated using χ² and I² test statistics. Overall effects were evaluated using Z statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies involving 16485 patients were identified. Most studies had low risks of bias. Meta-analysis of all 17 studies revealed that CCM interventions significantly decreased HbA_1c levels compared to usual care, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.21%, 95% CI -0.30, -0.13; Z = 5.07, p<0.00001. Larger effects were experienced among adults with baseline HbA_1c ≥8% (MD -0.36%, 95% CI -0.51, -0.21; Z = 5.05, p<0.00001) and when four or more CCM elements were present in the interventions (MD -0.25%, 95% CI -0.35, -0.15; Z = 4.85, p<0.00001). Interventions with CCM decreased SBP (MD -2.93 mmHg, 95% CI -4.46, -1.40, Z = 3.75, p=0.0002) and DBP (MD -1.35 mmHg, 95% CI -2.05, -0.65, Z = 3.79, p=0.0002) compared to usual care but there was no impact on LDL cholesterol levels or BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

CCM interventions, compared to usual care, improve glycaemic control among adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care, with greater reductions when the mean baseline HbA_1c is ≥8% and with interventions containing four or more CCM elements.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO  CRD42021273959.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Type 2 diabetes is common and is a leading cause of morbidity and disability.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for prediabetes and diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through September 2019; references; and experts; literature surveillance through May 21, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when at least 3 similar studies were available.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms.

RESULTS

The review included 89 publications (N = 68 882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25 120 participants) found no significant difference between screening and control groups for all-cause or cause-specific mortality at 10 years. For harms (eg, anxiety or worry), the trials reported no significant differences between screening and control groups. For recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, 5 RCTs (5138 participants) were included. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, health outcomes were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin. For example, for all-cause mortality the relative risk (RR) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96) over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment). For overweight persons, intensive glucose control with metformin improved health outcomes at the 10-year follow-up (eg, all-cause mortality: RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.91]), and benefits were maintained longer term. Lifestyle interventions (most involving >360 minutes) for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes were associated with reductions in the incidence of diabetes (23 RCTs; pooled RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]). Lifestyle interventions were also associated with improved intermediate outcomes, such as reduced weight, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (pooled weighted mean difference, -1.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.8] and -1.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4], respectively). Metformin was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes incidence (pooled RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]) and reduction in weight and body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Trials of screening for diabetes found no significant mortality benefit but had insufficient data to assess other health outcomes; evidence on harms of screening was limited. For persons with recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, interventions improved health outcomes; for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes, interventions were associated with reduced incidence of diabetes and improvement in other intermediate outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes after 10-year follow-up of intensive, multifactorial treatment in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: the ADDITION-Europe trial

AIMS

To present the longer-term impact of multifactorial treatment of type 2 diabetes on self-reported health status, diabetes-specific quality of life, and diabetes treatment satisfaction at 10-year follow up of the ADDITION-Europe trial.

METHODS

The ADDITION-Europe trial enrolled 3057 individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes from four centres [Denmark, the UK (Cambridge and Leicester) and the Netherlands], between 2001 and 2006. Participants were randomized at general practice level to intensive treatment or to routine care . The trial ended in 2009 and a 10-year follow-up was performed at the end of 2014. We measured self-reported health status (36-item Short-Form Health Survey and EQ-5D), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire), and diabetes treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at different time points during the study period. A mixed-effects model was applied to estimate the effect of intensive treatment (intention-to-treat analyses) on patient-reported outcome measures for each centre. Centre-specific estimates were pooled using a fixed effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between the routine care and intensive treatment arms in this 10-year follow-up study [EQ-5D: -0.01 (95% CI -0.03, 0.01); Physical Composite Score (36-item Short-Form Health Survey): -0.27 (95% CI -1.11, 0.57), Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire: -0.01 (95% CI -0.11, 0.10); and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire: -0.20 (95% CI -0.70, 0.29)].

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive, multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes did not affect self-reported health status, diabetes-specific quality of life, or diabetes treatment satisfaction at 10-year follow-up compared to routine care.

Yoga-based lifestyle treatment and composite treatment goals in Type 2 Diabetes in a rural South Indian setup- a retrospective study

This multicentre retrospective study examined the effects of adjunct yoga-treatment in achieving composite cardiovascular goals for type 2 diabetes (T2D), set forth by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in rural Indian settings. Records were extracted for 146 T2D patients, aged ≥20–70 years, and treated under the “Apollo Total Health Programme” for rural diabetes management, for the period April 2016 to November 2016. The study cohort comprised of two treatment groups (n = 73 each); non-yoga group (standard of care) and yoga group (adjunct yoga-treatment). Propensity score matching was applied between the study groups to define the cohort. Composite cardiovascular scores were based on the combination of individual ADA goals; A1c < 7%, blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg, stringent BP (<130/80 mmHg) and lipid, LDL-C < 100 mg/dl [risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease]. Logistic regression was used to compare between the two treatment groups. Compared to standard of care, adjunct yoga-treatment was found to significantly facilitate the attainment of ADA composite score by 8-fold; A1c, ~2-fold; LDL-C, ~2-fold; BP < 140/90 mmHg and <130/80 mmHg by ~8-and ~6-fold respectively. This study provides the first evidence for significant efficacy of adjunct yoga-treatment for the attainment of favourable treatment goals for T2D in rural Indian settings. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2020/02/0232790

Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with less need for insulin therapy after 10 years

INTRODUCTION

With increased duration of type 2 diabetes, most people have a growing need of glucose-lowering medication and eventually might require insulin. Presumptive evidence is reported that early detection (eg, by population-based screening) and treatment of hyperglycemia will postpone the indication for insulin treatment. A treatment legacy effect of population-based screening for type 2 diabetes of about 3 years is estimated. Therefore, we aim to compare insulin prescription and glycemic control in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes after 10 years with data from people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes seven (treatment legacy effect) and 10 years before during care-as-usual.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Three cohorts were compared: one screen-detected cohort with 10 years diabetes duration (Anglo-Danish-Dutch study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary care (ADDITION-NL): n=391) and two care-as-usual cohorts, one with 7-year diabetes duration (Groningen Initiative to Analyze Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) and Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes project Integrating Available Care (ZODIAC): n=4473) and one with 10-year diabetes duration (GIANTT and ZODIAC: n=2660). Insulin prescription (primary outcome) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of people with a known diabetes duration of 7 years or 10 years at the index year 2014 were compared using regression analyses.

RESULTS

Insulin was prescribed in 10.5% (10-year screen detection), 14.7% (7-year care-as-usual) and 19.0% (10-year care-as-usual). People in the 7-year and 10-year care-as-usual groups had a 1.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) higher adjusted odds for getting insulin prescribed than those after screen detection. Lower HbA1c values were found 10 years after screen detection (mean 50.1 mmol/mol (6.7%) vs 51.8 mmol/mol (6.9%) and 52.8 mmol/mol (7.0%)), compared with 7 years and 10 years after care-as-usual (MD_adjusted: 1.6 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.6 to 2.6); 0.1% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.2) and 1.8 mmol/mol (95% CI 0.7 to 2.9); and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3)).

CONCLUSION

Population-based screen-detected type 2 diabetes is associated with less need for insulin after 10 years compared with people diagnosed during care-as-usual. Glycemic control was better after screen detection but on average good in all groups.

Long-term effects of intensive multifactorial therapy in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes in primary care: 10-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes over 5 years. Here we report the results of a post-hoc 10-year follow-up analysis of ADDITION-Europe to establish whether differences in treatment and cardiovascular risk factors have been maintained and to assess effects on cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

As previously described, general practices from four centres (Denmark, Cambridge [UK], Leicester [UK], and the Netherlands) were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to provide screening followed by routine care of diabetes, or screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment. Population-based stepwise screening programmes among people aged 40-69 years (50-69 years in the Netherlands), between April, 2001, and December, 2006, identified patients with type 2 diabetes. Allocation was concealed from patients. Following the 5-year follow-up, no attempts were made to maintain differences in treatment between study groups. In this report, we did a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention follow-up. As in the original trial, the primary endpoint was a composite of first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity (non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to Dec 31, 2014. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. ADDITION-Europe is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00237549.

FINDINGS

343 general practices were randomly assigned to routine diabetes care (n=176) or intensive multifactorial treatment (n=167). 317 of these general practices (157 in the routine care group, 161 in the intensive treatment group) included eligible patients between April, 2001, and December, 2006. Of the 3233 individuals with screen-detected diabetes, 3057 agreed to participate (1379 in the routine care group, 1678 in the intensive treatment group), but at the 10-year follow-up 14 were lost to follow-up and 12 withdrew, leaving 3031 to enter 10-year follow-up analysis. Mean duration of follow-up was 9·61 years (SD 2·99). Sustained reductions over 10 years following diagnosis were apparent for bodyweight, HbA_1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in both study groups, but between-group differences identified at 1 and 5 years were attenuated at the 10-year follow-up. By 10 years, 443 participants had a first cardiovascular event and 465 died. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of the primary composite outcome (16·1 per 1000 person-years in the routine care group vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·04; p=0·14) or all-cause mortality (15·6 vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years; HR 0·90, 0·76-1·07).

INTERPRETATION

Sustained reductions in glycaemia and related cardiovascular risk factors over 10 years among people with screen-detected diabetes managed in primary care are achievable. The differences in prescribed treatment and cardiovascular risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis were not maintained at 10 years, and the difference in cardiovascular events and mortality remained non-significant.

FUNDING

National Health Service Denmark, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, Danish National Board of Health, Danish Medical Research Council, Aarhus University Research Foundation, Astra, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, HemoCue, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK National Health Service, Merck, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UK Department of Health, and Nuts-OHRA.

Effectiveness of chronic care models for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness of European chronic care programmes for type 2 diabetes mellitus (characterised by integrative care and a multicomponent framework for enhancing healthcare delivery), compared with usual diabetes care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL from January 2000 to July 2015.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials focussing on (1) adults with type 2 diabetes, (2) multifaceted diabetes care interventions specifically designed for type 2 diabetes and delivered in primary or secondary care, targeting patient, physician and healthcare organisation and (3) usual diabetes care as the control intervention.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics, characteristics of the intervention, data on baseline demographics and changes in patient outcomes.

DATA ANALYSIS

Weighted mean differences in change in HbA1c and total cholesterol levels between intervention and control patients (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight cluster randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion (9529 patients). One year of multifaceted care improved HbA1c levels in patients with screen-detected and newly diagnosed diabetes, but not in patients with prevalent diabetes, compared to usual diabetes care. Across all seven included trials, the weighted mean difference in HbA1c change was -0.07% (95% CI -0.10 to -0.04) (-0.8 mmol/mol (95% CI -1.1 to -0.4)); I²=21%. The findings for total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and blood pressure were similar to HbA1c, albeit statistical heterogeneity between studies was considerably larger. Compared to usual care, multifaceted care did not significantly change quality of life of the diabetes patient. Finally, measured for screen-detected diabetes only, the risk of macrovascular and mircovascular complications at follow-up was not significantly different between intervention and control patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Effects of European multifaceted diabetes care patient outcomes are only small. Improvements are somewhat larger for screen-detected and newly diagnosed diabetes patients than for patients with prevalent diabetes.

A randomised trial of the effect and cost-effectiveness of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION-Europe) study

BACKGROUND

Intensive treatment (IT) of cardiovascular risk factors can halve mortality among people with established type 2 diabetes but the effects of treatment earlier in the disease trajectory are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment of screen-detected diabetes.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial.

SETTING

Three hundred and forty-three general practices in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Cambridge and Leicester, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 40-69 years with screen-detected diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

Screening plus routine care (RC) according to national guidelines or IT comprising screening and promotion of target-driven intensive management (medication and promotion of healthy lifestyles) of hyperglycaemia, blood pressure and cholesterol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was a composite of first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality/morbidity, revascularisation and non-traumatic amputation) during a mean [standard deviation (SD)] follow-up of 5.3 (1.6) years. Secondary end points were (1) all-cause mortality; (2) microvascular outcomes (kidney function, retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy); and (3) patient-reported outcomes (health status, well-being, quality of life, treatment satisfaction). Economic analyses estimated mean costs (UK 2009/10 prices) and quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS perspective. We extrapolated data to 30 years using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model [version 1.3; (©) Isis Innovation Ltd 2010; see www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel (accessed 27 January 2016)].

RESULTS

We included 3055 (RC, n = 1377; IT, n = 1678) of the 3057 recruited patients [mean (SD) age 60.3 (6.9) years] in intention-to-treat analyses. Prescription of glucose-lowering, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication increased in both groups, more so in the IT group than in the RC group. There were clinically important improvements in cardiovascular risk factors in both study groups. Modest but statistically significant differences between groups in reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure and cholesterol favoured the IT group. The incidence of first cardiovascular event [IT 7.2%, 13.5 per 1000 person-years; RC 8.5%, 15.9 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05] and all-cause mortality (IT 6.2%, 11.6 per 1000 person-years; RC 6.7%, 12.5 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21) did not differ between groups. At 5 years, albuminuria was present in 22.7% and 24.4% of participants in the IT and RC groups, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07), retinopathy in 10.2% and 12.1%, respectively (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10), and neuropathy in 4.9% and 5.9% (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34), respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate increased between baseline and follow-up in both groups (IT 4.31 ml/minute; RC 6.44 ml/minute). Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the groups. The intervention cost £981 per patient and was not cost-effective at costs ≥ £631 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with RC, IT was associated with modest increases in prescribed treatment, reduced levels of risk factors and non-significant reductions in cardiovascular events, microvascular complications and death over 5 years. IT did not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes. IT was not cost-effective but might be if delivered at a reduced cost. The lower than expected event rate, heterogeneity of intervention delivery between centres and improvements in general practice diabetes care limited the achievable differences in treatment between groups. Further follow-up to assess the legacy effects of early IT is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549.

FUNDING DETAILS

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Metabolomic biomarkers for personalised glucose lowering drugs treatment in type 2 diabetes

We aimed to identify metabolites to predict patients' response to glucose lowering treatment during the first 5 years after detection of type 2 diabetes. Metabolites were measured by GC-MS in baseline samples from 346 screen-detected type 2 diabetes patients in the ADDITION-NL study. The response to treatment with metformin and/or sulphonylurea (SU) was analysed to identify metabolites predictive of 5 year HbA1c change by multiple regression analysis. Baseline glucose and 1,5 anhydro-glucitol were associated with HbA_1c decrease in all medication groups. In patients on SU no other metabolite was associated with HbA1c decrease. A larger set of metabolites was associated with HbA1c change in the metformin and the combination therapy (metformin + SU) groups. These metabolites included metabolites related to liver metabolism, such as 2-hydroxybutanoic acid, 3-hydroxybutanoic acid, 2-hydroxypiperidine and 4-oxoproline). Metabolites involved in oxidative stress and insulin resistance were higher when the HbA1c decrease was larger in the metformin/sulphonylurea group. The associations between baseline metabolites and responsiveness to medication are in line with its mode of action. If these results could be replicated in other populations, the most promising predictive candidates might be tested to assess whether they could enhance personalised treatment.

Change in cardiovascular risk factors following early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes: a cohort analysis of a cluster-randomised trial

Background

There is little evidence to inform the targeted treatment of individuals found early in the diabetes disease trajectory.

Aim

To describe cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profiles and treatment of individual CVD risk factors by modelled CVD risk at diagnosis; changes in treatment, modelled CVD risk, and CVD risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis; and how these are patterned by socioeconomic status.

Design and setting

Cohort analysis of a cluster-randomised trial (ADDITION-Europe) in general practices in Denmark, England, and the Netherlands.

Method

A total of 2418 individuals with screen-detected diabetes were divided into quartiles of modelled 10-year CVD risk at diagnosis. Changes in treatment, modelled CVD risk, and CVD risk factors were assessed at 5 years.

Results

The largest reductions in risk factors and modelled CVD risk were seen in participants who were in the highest quartile of modelled risk at baseline, suggesting that treatment was offered appropriately. Participants in the lowest quartile of risk at baseline had very similar levels of modelled CVD risk at 5 years and showed the least variation in change in modelled risk. No association was found between socioeconomic status and changes in CVD risk factors, suggesting that treatment was equitable.

Conclusion

Diabetes management requires setting of individualised attainable targets. This analysis provides a reference point for patients, clinicians, and policymakers when considering goals for changes in risk factors early in the course of the disease that account for the diverse cardiometabolic profile present in individuals who are newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Guiding diabetes screening and prevention: rationale, recommendations and remaining challenges

Advances made in diabetes management are not sufficient to reduce morbidity, mortality and cost without making prevention efforts at various levels imperative for substantial impact. Research has demonstrated the efficacy of lifestyle intervention and medications in preventing type 2 diabetes among diverse high-risk groups commonly identified with oral glucose tolerance testing. Efficacy, sustainability and safety data are most comprehensive for lifestyle and metformin, with other medications also demonstrating efficacy and potential in the pharmacoprevention of diabetes. Subsequent implementation studies have demonstrated feasibility of lifestyle intervention programs at health centers, communities, and at local and national government levels. Challenges remain in widespread translation and reaching and engaging at-risk individuals and populations.

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus could lead to earlier identification and treatment of asymptomatic diabetes, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), potentially resulting in improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

To update the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on diabetes screening in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane databases and MEDLINE (2007 through October 2014) and relevant studies from previous Task Force reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials; controlled, observational studies; and systematic reviews.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and checked by a second; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2 trials, screening for diabetes was associated with no 10-year mortality benefit versus no screening (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.25]). Sixteen trials consistently found that treatment of IFG or IGT was associated with delayed progression to diabetes. Most trials of treatment of IFG or IGT found no effects on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, although lifestyle modification was associated with decreased risk for both outcomes after 23 years in 1 trial. For screen-detected diabetes, 1 trial found no effect of an intensive multifactorial intervention on risk for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality versus standard control. In diabetes that was not specifically screen-detected, 9 systematic reviews found that intensive glucose control did not reduce risk for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results for intensive blood pressure control were inconsistent.

LIMITATION

The review was restricted to English-language articles, and few studies were conducted in screen-detected populations.

CONCLUSION

Screening for diabetes did not improve mortality rates after 10 years of follow-up. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of treatments for screen-detected diabetes. Treatment of IFG or IGT was associated with delayed progression to diabetes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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.

Shared decision making in type 2 diabetes with a support decision tool that takes into account clinical factors, the intensity of treatment and patient preferences: design of a cluster randomised (OPTIMAL) trial

BACKGROUND

No more than 10-15% of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients achieve all treatment goals regarding glycaemic control, lipids and blood pressure. Shared decision making (SDM) should increase that percentage; however, not all support decision tools are appropriate. Because the ADDITION-Europe study demonstrated two (almost) equally effective treatments but with slightly different intensities, it may be a good starting point to discuss with the patients their diabetes treatment, taking into account both the intensity of treatment, clinical factors and patients' preferences. We aim to evaluate whether such an approach increases the proportion of patients that achieve all three treatment goals.

METHODS

In a cluster-randomised trial including 40 general practices, that participated until 2009 in the ADDITION Study, 150 T2DM patients 60-80 years, known with T2DM for 8-15 years, will be included. Practices are randomised a second time, i.e. intervention practices in the ADDITION study could be control practices in the current study and vice versa. For the GPs from the intervention group a 2-hour training in SDM was developed as well as a decision support tool to be used during the consultation. GPs plan the first visit with the patients to decide on the intensity of the treatment, personalised targets and the priorities of treatment. The control group will continue with the treatment they were allocated to in the ADDITION study.

FOLLOW-UP

24 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve all three treatment goals. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who achieve five treatment goals (HbA1c, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body weight, not smoking), evaluation of the SDM process (SDM-Q9 and CPS), satisfaction with the treatment (DTSQ), wellbeing and quality of life (W-BQ12, ADD QoL-19), health status (SF-36, EQ-5D) and coping (DCMQ). The proportions of achieved treatment goals will be compared between both groups. For the secondary outcomes mixed models will be used. The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht has approved the study protocol (Protocol number: 11-153).

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide evidence whether an intervention with a multi-faceted decision support tool increases the proportion of achieved personalised goals in type 2 diabetes patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02285881, November 4, 2014.

Contemporary treatment strategies for Type 2 diabetes-related macrovascular disease

Type 2 diabetes mellitus poses a major challenge to healthcare providers in the coming years as its prevalence increases across the globe. The disease doubles the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with 70% of sufferers dying from a cardiac cause. Large clinical trials of current glucose-lowering therapies for Type 2 diabetes have shown no benefit in reducing the risk of macrovascular events. Blood pressure control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy and improvement of dyslipidemia with statins have proven benefit in reducing cardiovascular risk in Type 2 diabetes. A growing understanding of the importance of pathological processes including endothelial dysfunction, abnormal growth factor biology, oxidative stress, dysregulation of adipokines and deficient vascular repair and regeneration in insulin-resistant states promises new treatments to combat the problem.

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.

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.

Diabetes self-management education: miles to go

This meta-analysis assessed how successfully Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) interventions help people with type 2 diabetes achieve and maintain healthy blood glucose levels. We included 52 DSME programs with 9,631 participants that reported post-intervention A1c levels in randomized controlled trials. The training conditions resulted in significant reductions in A1c levels compared to control conditions. However, the impact of intervention was modest shifting of only 7.23% more participants from diabetic to pre-diabetic or normal status, relative to the control condition. Most intervention participants did not achieve healthy A1c levels. Further, few DSME studies assessed long-term maintenance of A1c gains. Past trends suggest that gains are difficult to sustain over time. Our results suggested that interventions delivered by nurses were more successful than those delivered by non-nursing personnel. We suggest that DSME programs might do better by going beyond procedural interventions. Most DSME programs relied heavily on rules and procedures to guide decisions about diet, exercise, and weight loss. Future DSME may need to include cognitive self-monitoring, diagnosis, and planning skills to help patients detect anomalies, identify possible causes, generate corrective action, and avoid future barriers to maintaining healthy A1c levels. Finally, comprehensive descriptions of DSME programs would advance future efforts.

Does early intensive multifactorial treatment reduce total cardiovascular burden in individuals with screen-detected diabetes? Findings from the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomized trial

AIMS

To describe the total cardiovascular burden (cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, revascularization or non-traumatic amputation) in individuals with screen-detected diabetes in the ADDITION-Europe trial and to quantify the impact of the intervention on multiple cardiovascular events over 5 years.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial in four centres (Denmark; Cambridge, UK; the Netherlands; and Leicester, UK), 343 general practices were randomized to screening plus routine care (n = 1379 patients), or screening and promotion of target-driven, intensive treatment of multiple risk factors (n = 1678). We estimated the effect of the intervention on multiple cardiovascular events after diagnosis of diabetes using the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld method.

RESULTS

Over 5.3 years, 167 individuals had exactly one cardiovascular event, 53 exactly two events, and 18 three or more events. The incidence rates (95% CI) of first events and any event per 1000 person-years were 14.6 (12.8-16.6) and 20.4 (18.2-22.6), respectively. There were non-significant reductions in the risk of a first (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.65-1.05) and second primary endpoint (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.43-1.12). The overall average hazard ratio for any event was 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Early intensive multifactorial treatment was not associated with a significant reduction in total cardiovascular burden at 5 years. Focusing on first events in cardiovascular disease prevention trials underestimates the total cardiovascular burden to patients and the health service.

A primary care register for impaired glucose handling (IGH): impact on cardiometabolic profile

OBJECTIVE

Diet and exercise reduce the incidence of diabetes in high-risk individuals as does metformin, although less dramatically. Here we evaluated if lifestyle and pharmacological intervention, for people at risk of diabetes, resulted in an improvement in their cardiometabolic risk profile.

RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS

In a primary care based study, 92 individuals screened opportunistically and identified to have impaired glucose handling were offered detailed lifestyle advice, at 6 monthly intervals, with targeting of cardiovascular risk factors. Duration of follow-up was 4 years. The relation between fasting and 2h glucose with different cardio-metabolic risk factors over time was assessed using multi-level modeling.

RESULTS

There was no significant weight reduction. At 24 months, mean fasting glucose level (6.4 mmol/L (95% CI 6.0-6.8)) was slightly lower than at baseline (6.6 mM (95% CI: 6.4-6.9), F=3.67; p<0.001). For men and women combined, systolic blood pressure (mean difference=-6 mmHg, p=0.013), total cholesterol (-0.66 mmol/L, p<0.0001) and triglycerides (-0.13 mmol/L, p=0.133) fell, whilst HDL-cholesterol (0.12 mmol/L, p=0.047) rose. Diabetes developed in 18/92 participants during follow-up (up to 4 years). Five per cent of participants were started on metformin, 88.5% on lipid lowering agents and 85.4% on anti-hypertensive agents. After adjusting for age, sex and BMI, 2 h glucose was independently and negatively associated with HDL-cholesterol (β=-2.17, p=0.041), and positively with systolic BP (β=0.24, p=0.004, per 5 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted intervention had an effective role in improving lipid and BP profile in individuals with impaired glucose handling, with limited impact on glycaemia and no impact on weight. More work needs be done to evaluate the potential benefit of insulin sensitizing agents in this setting.

Glycaemia and correlates of patient-reported outcomes in ACCORD trial participants

AIMS

Post-hoc evaluation of relationships between first-year change in glycaemic control (HbA(1c) ) and change in patient-reported outcomes among ACCORD health-related quality of life (HRQoL) substudy participants.

METHODS

Data from 2053 glycaemia-trial subjects were analysed. We assessed physical and mental health status (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Version-2), symptom count and severity (Diabetes Symptoms Distress Checklist) and treatment satisfaction (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire). Linear mixed models were used to test relationships between 1-year changes in HbA(1c) and patient reported outcomes sequentially adjusting for correlates (baseline characteristics, baseline patient reported outcomes, treatment assignment, frequency of clinical contact and post-randomization weight change plus new complications).

RESULTS

Poorer baseline control of HbA(1c) and cardiovascular disease risk factors predicted greater one-year improvements in treatment satisfaction. Similarly, poorer baseline patient reported outcome scores all individually predicted greater 1-year improvement in that same outcome. Accounting for baseline and post-randomization characteristics and treatment arm, 1-year change in HbA(1c) was unrelated to changes in overall physical or mental health; however, every one percentage-point (10.9 mmol/mol) reduction in HbA(1c) was associated with lower symptom count (β = 0.599; P = 0.012), lower symptom distress (β = 0.051; P = 0.001), and higher treatment satisfaction (β = -2.514; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Independent of all relevant covariates, better glycaemic control over 1 year was associated with reduced patient-reported diabetes symptoms and symptom distress, and increased treatment satisfaction, but not overall physical and mental health. Further investigation is required to understand the specific psychosocial mechanisms that affect how patients value health and treatments.

Multifactorial intervention with nurse practitioners does not change cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease

Strict implementation of guidelines directed at multiple targets reduces vascular risk in diabetic patients. Whether this also applies to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain. To evaluate this, the MASTERPLAN Study randomized 788 patients with CKD (estimated GFR 20-70 ml/min) to receive additional intensive nurse practitioner support (the intervention group) or nephrologist care (the control group). The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. During a mean follow-up of 4.62 years, modest but significant decreases were found for blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, anemia, proteinuria along with the increased use of active vitamin D or analogs, aspirin and statins in the intervention group compared to the controls. No differences were found in the rate of smoking cessation, weight reduction, sodium excretion, physical activity, or glycemic control. Intensive control did not reduce the rate of the composite end point (21.3/1000 person-years in the intervention group compared to 23.8/1000 person-years in the controls (hazard ratio 0.90)). No differences were found in the secondary outcomes of vascular interventions, all-cause mortality or end-stage renal disease. Thus, the addition of intensive support by nurse practitioner care in patients with CKD improved some risk factor levels, but did not significantly reduce the rate of the primary or secondary end points.

Cardiovascular risk reduction following diagnosis of diabetes by screening: 1-year results from the ADDITION-Cambridge trial cohort

BACKGROUND

Uncertainties persist concerning the effects of early intensive management of type 2 diabetes and which patients benefit most from such an approach.

AIM

To describe change in modelled cardiovascular risk in the 14 months following diagnosis, and to examine which baseline patient characteristics and treatment components are associated with risk reduction.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cohort of individuals from a pragmatic, single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial of 236 females and 361 males with screen-detected type 2 diabetes and without prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), from 49 GP surgeries in eastern England, examined at baseline (2002-2006) and after 14-months' follow-up.

METHOD

Multiple linear regression was used to quantify the association between baseline patient characteristics, treatment components, and change in modelled 10-year cardiovascular risk (UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] [version 3] risk engine).

RESULTS

There was a downward shift in the distribution of modelled CVD risk over 14 months mean 31% (standard deviation [SD] = 14%) to 26% [SD = 13%]). Older individuals, males, and those with a larger waist circumference at baseline exhibited smaller risk reductions. Individuals prescribed higher numbers of drugs over the follow-up period, and those who decreased their energy intake or reduced their weight, demonstrated larger reductions in modelled risk.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to achieve significant reductions in modelled CVD risk over 14 months following diagnosis of diabetes by screening. Risk reduction appeared to be driven mainly by prescription of higher numbers of drugs, decreased energy intake, and weight reduction. There was room for further risk reduction, as many patients were not prescribed recommended treatments.

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

AIMS

To compare the effects of intensive multifactorial cardiovascular risk intervention with standard care in screen-detected Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Twenty general practices randomly invited 30 950 adults without diagnosed diabetes for screening (World Health Organization, 1999). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, screen-detected cases were assigned by practice allocation to receive intensive protocol-driven cardiovascular risk management (n = 146) or standard care (n = 199) according to local guidelines. Intensive intervention was designed to achieve an HbA(1c) of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg and total cholesterol < 3.5 mmol/l. Primary outcome was modelled 5-year coronary heart disease risk (UKPDS-CHD). Analysis was via intention to treat.

RESULTS

After 1.1 years 339 (98%) individuals were still participating. There were significant reductions in HbA(1c) , blood pressure and total cholesterol from baseline in both groups [mean change for total study population -27.7 mmol/mol (-0.62%), -11.64/10.01 mmHg, -1.11 mmol/l]. After adjustment for baseline and clustering, significant inter-group differences were observed in mean changes from baseline for HbA(1c) {-28.5 mmol/mol [-0.7% (1.4)] vs. -27.5 mmol/mol [-0.6% (1.6)], P = 0.001}, blood pressure [systolic -16.2 (19.6) vs. -8.4 (18.6) mmHg, P < 0.001], total cholesterol [-1.3 (1.3) vs. -1.0 (1.2) mmol/l, P < 0.001] and weight [-3.8 (5.5) vs. -2.2 (5.5) kg, P = 0.01] in favour of intensive treatment. UKPDS 5-year coronary heart disease risk was reduced by 3.2% and 2.3%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Intensive intervention was associated with more lipid-lowering and anti-hypertensive but not hypoglycaemic medication use [odds ratios 2.5 (1.4-4.4), 5.5 (2.4-11.5), 1.6 (0.8-2.3); compared with standard care, P < 0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.65]. Treatment satisfaction responses were superior with intensive intervention, with no increase in self-reported hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Intensive intervention in patients with diabetes identified through systematic non-risk-factor-based screening significantly reduces modelled coronary heart disease risk. This is achieved predominantly with lipid-lowering and anti-hypertensive treatments with no adverse effect on quality of life or hypoglycaemia.

Diabetes screening among immigrants: a population-based urban cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine diabetes screening, predictors of screening, and the burden of undiagnosed diabetes in the immigrant population and whether these estimates differ by ethnicity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A population-based retrospective cohort linking administrative health data to immigration files was used to follow the entire diabetes-free population aged 40 years and up in Ontario, Canada (N = 3,484,222) for 3 years (2004-2007) to determine whether individuals were screened for diabetes. Multivariate regression was used to determine predictors of having a diabetes test.

RESULTS

Screening rates were slightly higher in the immigrant versus the general population (76.0 and 74.4%, respectively; P < 0.001), with the highest rates in people born in South Asia, Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Immigrant seniors (age ≥65 years) were screened less than nonimmigrant seniors. Percent yield of new diabetes subjects among those screened was high for certain countries of birth (South Asia, 13.0%; Mexico and Latin America, 12.1%; Caribbean, 9.5%) and low among others (Europe, Central Asia, U.S., 5.1-5.2%). The number of physician visits was the single most important predictor of screening, and many high-risk ethnic groups required numerous visits before a test was administered. The proportion of diabetes that remained undiagnosed was estimated to be 9.7% in the general population and 9.0% in immigrants.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall diabetes-screening rates are high in Canada's universal health care setting, including among high-risk ethnic groups. Despite this finding, disparities in screening rates between immigrant subgroups persist and multiple physician visits are often required to achieve recommended screening levels.

Discontinuation of statins among patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Statins play an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Several studies have reported low adherence with statins among patients with type 2 diabetes. Studies comparing discontinuation of statins compared with discontinuation of oral anti-diabetics within the same individuals before and after initiation of oral anti-diabetic drugs are not available. The aim of this study was to describe discontinuation among patients with type 2 diabetes prescribed statins prior to and after initiation of oral anti-diabetics and to compare statin discontinuation with discontinuation of oral anti-diabetics.

METHODS

We report an observational cohort study among patients initiating treatment with statins prior to or after initiation of oral anti-diabetics between 1999 and 2007. Patients were classified as starting statins prior to initiation (Prior users) or after initiation (After users) of anti-diabetics. Discontinuation was defined as an interval of 180 days or more between the theoretical end date of a statin/anti-diabetic prescription and the dispensing date of the next statin/anti-diabetic prescription.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We included 3323 starters with oral anti-diabetic drugs in our study; 2072 patients initiated statins in the period of observation. Discontinuation rates for statins were higher compared with oral anti-diabetics (52.1 vs 15.0%). After users discontinued statin therapy more frequently compared to prior users (62.8 vs 48.2%). Discontinuation of statins is higher compared with anti-diabetic discontinuation. Patients starting statins after the initiation of oral anti-diabetic treatment are more likely to discontinue treatment than patients who initiate statins before the start of oral anti-diabetics.

Wellness in community living adults: the Weigh to Life program

OBJECTIVE

To examine physiological and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in community living adults attending a 12-week combined lifestyle wellness program.

METHODS

A sample of overweight and obese adults (n=319) and a subgroup who also had diabetes (n=46 of 319) were studied. The program focuses on dietary, physical activity, and behavioral strategies to promote cardiovascular health. Baseline and 12-week measures were obtained.

RESULTS

In the total sample, all physiological and HRQOL outcomes improved (p<.05), except HDL. High attendance was associated with the highest weight loss. In the diabetic subgroup, weight, steps/day, low density lipoprotein, and most aspects of HRQOL improved significantly.

CONCLUSION

Physiological and HRQOL benefits can be gained from a 12-week combined lifestyle program; greater benefits were obtained with higher attendance. Although the diabetic subgroup was not large, positive outcomes were realized.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The 12-week combined lifestyle program shows promise for improving outcomes in community living overweight and obese adults who may also be diabetic. By attending class, participants are reminded about strategies they are to apply during the 12-week program and, by program end, they are equipped with a tool kit of strategies for use in everyday life.

Intensive multifactorial treatment and cognitive functioning in screen-detected type 2 diabetes--the ADDITION-Netherlands study: a cluster-randomized trial

AIM

To assess whether an intensive multifactorial treatment can reduce cognitive decrements and cognitive decline in screen-detected type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The multinational ADDITION-study, a cluster-randomized parallel group trial in patients with screen-detected type 2 diabetes, compared the effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment (IT; lifestyle advice and strict regulation of metabolic parameters) with routine care (RC) on cardiovascular outcome. In The Netherlands randomization was stratified according to practice organization. Allocation was concealed from patients. The present study assessed the effect of IT on cognition through two neuropsychological assessments (NPA) on two occasions. The assessments took place three and six years after the start of the intervention. Non-diabetic controls served as reference group. The first NPA was performed in 183 patients (IT: 97; RC: 86) and 69 controls. The second NPA was performed in 135 patients (IT: 71; RC: 64) and 55 controls. Primary outcome was a composite score, including the domains memory, information-processing speed and attention and executive function. Comparisons between the treatment groups were performed with multi-level analyses.

RESULTS

The first NPA showed no differences between the treatment groups (mean difference composite z-score: 0.00; 95%-CI -0.16 to 0.16; IT vs RC). Over the next three years cognitive decline in the diabetic groups was within the range of the reference group and did not differ between the treatment arms (difference decline between diabetic groups -0.12; -0.24 to 0.01; IT vs RC).

CONCLUSIONS

Six years of IT in screen-detected type 2 diabetes had no benefit on cognitive functioning over RC.

Evaluating treatment algorithms for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a perspective on the definition of treatment success

BACKGROUND

Traditional treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has focused on correcting hyperglycemia. However, T2DM is often accompanied by other conditions and risk factors, including hypertension, overweight/obesity, and dyslipidemia, that affect morbidity and mortality. A broader view toward treating the array of physiologic derangements may provide significant long-term outcomes benefits.

OBJECTIVE

This perspective paper reviews recent data regarding the pathophysiology of T2DM, evaluates current treatment recommendations/algorithms, and discusses potential risks and benefits associated with the various therapeutic options and their combinations.

METHODS

Information was obtained by a search of the PubMed and Embase databases using the key words type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycosylated hemoglobin, pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, antidiabetes therapy, multifactorial therapy, and treatment algorithms for the period of 1985 to 2010. A representative number of relevant articles dealing with these topics was then selected for review.

RESULTS

Three recently proposed treatment algorithms, the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes less well-validated algorithm, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology algorithm, and the DeFronzo algorithm, were compared and contrasted. Metformin is usually the first oral agent to be used when not contraindicated because of its ability to suppress hepatic glucose production. Some recommended agents, such as sulfonylureas, drive β-cell failure even as they improve glycosylated hemoglobin. Others, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and thiazolidinediones, support and enhance β-cell function. Also, some agents predispose to weight gain (eg, sulfonylureas and insulin), whereas others are weight neutral (eg, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors) or result in weight loss (eg, GLP-1 receptor agonists, pramlintide). Finally, the impact of these agents on associated cardiovascular risk factors is varied. Agents that improve glycemic control while favorably affecting blood lipid levels and/or systemic blood pressure may lead to improvements in morbidity and mortality. Attention to the mechanisms of action and associated consequences of the numerous pharmacologic treatment choices may provide clinicians a better selection of agents in treating patients with T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians should evaluate the array of treatment options available for patients with T2DM. An aggressive regimen including metformin, a thiazolidinedione, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist may improve insulin sensitivity and enhance β-cell function. Addressing the pathophysiologic defects associated with T2DM, as well as the various associated cardiovascular risk factors, with combination therapy may slow the natural progression of the disease and development of its associated complications.

Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Intensive treatment of multiple cardiovascular risk factors can halve mortality among people with established type 2 diabetes. We investigated the effect of early multifactorial treatment after diagnosis by screening.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial done in Denmark, the Netherlands, and the UK, 343 general practices were randomly assigned screening of registered patients aged 40-69 years without known diabetes followed by routine care of diabetes or screening followed by intensive treatment of multiple risk factors. The primary endpoint was first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation within 5 years. Patients and staff assessing outcomes were unaware of the practice's study group assignment. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00237549.

FINDINGS

Primary endpoint data were available for 3055 (99·9%) of 3057 screen-detected patients. The mean age was 60·3 (SD 6·9) years and the mean duration of follow-up was 5·3 (SD 1·6) years. Improvements in cardiovascular risk factors (HbA(1c) and cholesterol concentrations and blood pressure) were slightly but significantly better in the intensive treatment group. The incidence of first cardiovascular event was 7·2% (13·5 per 1000 person-years) in the intensive treatment group and 8·5% (15·9 per 1000 person-years) in the routine care group (hazard ratio 0·83, 95% CI 0·65-1·05), and of all-cause mortality 6·2% (11·6 per 1000 person-years) and 6·7% (12·5 per 1000 person-years; 0·91, 0·69-1·21), respectively.

INTERPRETATION

An intervention to promote early intensive management of patients with type 2 diabetes was associated with a small, non-significant reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events and death.

FUNDING

National Health Service Denmark, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, Danish National Board of Health, Danish Medical Research Council, Aarhus University Research Foundation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, UK National Health Service R&D, UK National Institute for Health Research, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, Novo Nordisk, Astra, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, HemoCue, Merck.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) exhibit an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality compared to the background population. Observational studies report a relationship between reduced blood glucose and reduced risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with T2D.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in T2D patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were obtained from searches of CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL (until December 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control 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).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials randomised 16,106 T2D participants to intensive control and 13,880 T2D participants to conventional glycaemic control. The mean age of the participants was 62.1 years. 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 was no significant difference between targeting intensive and conventional glycaemic control for all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 29,731 participants, 18 trials) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.26; 29,731 participants, 18 trials). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) showed that a 10% RR reduction could be refuted for all-cause mortality. Targeting intensive glycaemic control did not show a significant effect on the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction in the random-effects model but decreased the risk in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96; P = 0.006; 29,174 participants, 12 trials). Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the risk of amputation (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.95; P = 0.03; 6960 participants, 8 trials), the composite risk of microvascular disease (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; P = 0.0006; 25,760 participants, 4 trials), retinopathy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; P = 0.002; 10,986 participants, 8 trials), retinal photocoagulation (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.97; P = 0.03; 11,142 participants, 7 trials), and nephropathy (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 27,929 participants, 9 trials). The risks of both mild and severe hypoglycaemia were increased with targeting intensive glycaemic control but substantial heterogeneity was present. The definition of severe hypoglycaemia varied among the included trials; severe hypoglycaemia was reported in 12 trials that included 28,127 participants. TSA showed that firm evidence was reached for a 30% RR increase in severe hypoglycaemic when targeting intensive glycaemic control. Subgroup analysis of trials exclusively dealing with glycaemic control in usual care settings showed a significant effect in favour of targeting intensive glycaemic control for non-fatal myocardial infarction. However, TSA showed more trials are needed before firm evidence is established.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included trials did not show significant differences for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality when targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control. Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the risk of microvascular complications while increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Furthermore, intensive glycaemic control might reduce the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction in trials exclusively dealing with glycaemic control in usual care settings.

Screening for type 2 diabetes and dysglycemia

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dysglycemia (impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose) are increasingly contributing to the global burden of diseases. The authors reviewed the published literature to critically evaluate the evidence on screening for both conditions and to identify the gaps in current understanding. Acceptable, relatively simple, and accurate tools can be used to screen for both T2DM and dysglycemia. Lifestyle modification and/or medication (e.g., metformin) are cost-effective in reducing the incidence of T2DM. However, their application is not yet routine practice. It is unclear whether diabetes-prevention strategies, which influence cardiovascular risk favorably, will also prevent diabetic vascular complications. Cardioprotective therapies, which are cost-effective in preventing complications in conventionally diagnosed T2DM, can be used in screen-detected diabetes, but the magnitude of their effects is unknown. Economic modeling suggests that screening for both T2DM and dysglycemia may be cost-effective, although empirical data on tangible benefits in preventing complications or death are lacking. Screening for T2DM is psychologically unharmful, but the specific impact of attributing the label of dysglycemia remains uncertain. Addressing these gaps will inform the development of a screening policy for T2DM and dysglycemia within a holistic diabetes prevention and control framework combining secondary and high-risk primary prevention strategies.

Addressing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: focus on primary care

Type 2 diabetes is a disorder of glucose and lipid metabolism associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. The primary focus of treating type 2 diabetes is glycemic control; simultaneous management of cardiometabolic risk factors, including blood pressure, lipid profile and overweight/obesity, has been shown to improve outcomes. All patients with diabetes require individualized combination therapy including diet and exercise intervention to help prevent microvascular and macrovascular complications. Because primary care physicians in the United States provide the majority of care for patients with type 2 diabetes, this article discusses the management of cardiovascular risk with a specific focus on primary care. In addition, mechanisms by which existing and novel antidiabetes therapies may modulate the metabolic pathways and a review of the benefits of cardiovascular risk reduction using multifactorial, primary care-focused intervention strategies will be discussed. Finally, early- and late-stage disease management strategies are discussed.

Prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and quality of care in diabetic patients followed at primary and tertiary clinics in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

AIMS

To investigate the prevalence of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) at primary health care (PHC) clinics, and to assess the quality of care of diabetic patients followed at a tertiary hospital diabetes center in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

METHODS

Between May 2009 and October 2010, adult patients attending two PHC clinics, and adult diabetic patients attending the diabetes center, were invited to participate in the study. After overnight fast, participants returned for interview and laboratory tests. Undiagnosed T2D was defined by FPG ≥ 7.0 mmol/l or HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Quality of care was assessed by reported care practices and achievement of internationally recognized targets.

RESULTS

Out of 239 patients at PHC clinics without history of T2D, 14.6% had undiagnosed T2D, and 31% had increased risk of diabetes (FPG 5.6-7.0 mmol/l or HbA1c 5.7-6.5%). The independent predictors of undiagnosed T2D were age (adjusted OR per year 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.11, p < 0.001) and BMI ≥ 25 (adjusted OR 4.2, 95% CI 0.91-19.7, p = 0.033). Amongst all 275 diagnosed T2D patients, including those attending PHC clinics and those followed at the diabetes center, it was found that 40.1% followed dietary recommendations, 12% reported visiting a diabetes educator, 28.2% walked for exercise, and 13.5% attained recognized targets of HbA1c < 7%, blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg, and LDL cholesterol < 2.6 mmol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of the adult patients attending PHC clinics had undiagnosed T2D, or increased diabetes risk. Care practices, and achievement of treatment targets, were suboptimal.

How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials

BACKGROUND

Because pragmatic trials are performed to determine if an intervention can improve current practice, they often have a control group receiving 'usual care'. The behaviour of caregivers and patients in this control group should be influenced by the actions of researchers as little as possible. Guidelines for describing the composition and management of a usual care control group are lacking.

AIM

To explore the variety of approaches to the usual care concept in pragmatic trials, and evaluate the influence of the study design on the behaviour of caregivers and patients in a usual care control group.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Review of 73 pragmatic trials in primary care with a usual care control group published between January 2005 and December 2009 in the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of General Practice, and Family Practice. Outcome measures were: description of the factors influencing caregiver and patients in a usual care control group related to an individual randomised design versus cluster randomisation.

RESULTS

In total, 38 individually randomised trials and 35 cluster randomised trials were included. In most trials, caregivers had the freedom to treat control patients according to their own insight; in two studies, treatment options were restricted. Although possible influences on the behaviour of control caregivers and control patients were more often identified in individually randomised trials, these influences were also present in cluster randomised trials. The description of instructions and information provided to the control group was often insufficient, which made evaluation of the trials difficult.

CONCLUSION

Researchers in primary care medicine should carefully consider the design of a usual care control group, especially with regard to minimising the risk of study-induced behavioural change. It is recommended that an adequate description of the information is provided to control caregivers and control patients. A proposal is made for an extension to the CONSORT statement that requires authors to specify details of the usual care control group.

Screening for type 2 diabetes: an update of the evidence

A growing body of evidence on diabetes screening has been published during the last 10 years. Type 2 diabetes meets many but not all of the criteria for screening. Concerns about potential harms of screening have largely been resolved. Screening identifies a high-risk population with the potential to gain from widely available interventions. However, in spite of the findings of modelling studies, the size of the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment and the overall cost-effectiveness remains uncertain, in contrast to other screening programmes (such as for abdominal aortic aneurysms) that are yet to be fully implemented. There is also uncertainty about optimal specifications and implementation of a screening programme, and further work to complete concerning development and delivery of individual- and population-level preventive strategies. While there is growing evidence of the net benefit of earlier detection of individuals with prevalent but undiagnosed diabetes, there remains limited justification for a policy of universal population-based screening for type 2 diabetes at the present time. Data from ongoing studies should inform the key assumptions in existing modelling studies and further reduce uncertainty.

Treat early, treat appropriately

The treatment of type 2 diabetes is shifting from secondary specialist centres to the primary care setting. However, for this shift to be sustainable and successful, primary care physicians (PCPs) must effectively provide aspects of diabetes care traditionally supplied by specialists. In particular, the early and appropriate use of insulin in type 2 diabetes will increasingly become the responsibility of PCPs. This review examines how patients with type 2 diabetes are currently managed across several European countries, and explores the evidence around insulin use in type 2 diabetes and the implications for primary care.