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

Evaluation of the Diabetes Screening Component of a National Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Programme in England: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is increasing but the effectiveness of large-scale diabetes screening programmes is debated. We assessed associations between coverage of a national cardiovascular and diabetes risk assessment programme in England (NHS Health Check) and detection and management of incident cases of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH) and T2D. Retrospective analysis employing propensity score covariate adjustment method of prospectively collected data of 348,987 individuals aged 40-74 years and registered with 455 general practices in England (January 2009-May 2016). We examined differences in diagnosis of NDH and T2D, and changes in blood glucose levels and cardiovascular risk score between individuals registered with general practices with different levels (tertiles) of programme coverage. Over the study period 7,126 cases of NDH and 12,171 cases of T2D were detected. Compared with low coverage practices, incidence rate of detection in medium and high coverage practices were 15% and 19% higher for NDH and 10% and 9% higher for T2D, respectively. Individuals with NDH in high coverage practices had 0.2 mmol/L lower mean fasting plasma glucose and 0.9% lower cardiovascular risk score at follow-up. General practices actively participating in the programme had higher detection of NDH and T2D and improved management of blood glucose and cardiovascular risk factors.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I² = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I² = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I² = 53%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PARTICIPANTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sensitivity of FRAMINGHAM, PROCAM and SCORE models in Turkish people with Type 2 diabetes: comparison of three cardiovascular risk calculations

PURPOSE

To determine the cardiovascular risk factors according to the Framingham, PROCAM and SCORE models, to evaluate the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, and to compare the suitability of different models in Turkish Type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

Risk factors and the 10-year CVD risk in 265 patients were evaluated using three risk models. Measurements included blood pressure, weight, height, waist and hip circumferences. Cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and HbA1c were measured. Low-, moderate- and high-risk groups were determined according to the three risk calculations.

RESULTS

Hypertension, obesity and no exercise, dyslipidemia and high HbA1c in women, and excessive cigarette/alcohol consumption, increased weight, dyslipidemia and high HbA1c in men were crucial. Men were in the moderate-risk group according to three risk models. Women were in the medium-risk group according to the Framingham and PROCAM risks and in the low-risk group according to the SCORE.

CONCLUSION

Results estimating the 10-year CVD according to the three risk models were inconsistent. More sensitive CVD risk calculators are needed. Discussion and practice implications: Our results could guide diabetes specialists in identifying gender-specific risks and designing preventive interventions.

Medical screening in dental settings: a qualitative study of the views of authorities and organizations

Background

The practice of identifying individuals with undiagnosed diabetes mellitus type II or undiagnosed hypertension by medical screening in dental settings has been received positively by both patients and dentistry professionals. This identification has also shown to be cost-effective by achieving savings and health benefits, but no investigation has been made of the attitudes of authorities and organizations. The aim of this study was to describe the views of authorities and organizations.

Results

Thirteen authorities and organizations were interviewed of the sample of 20 requested. Seven approached authorities and organizations did not believe it was relevant to participate in the study. The manifest analysis resulted in four categories: medical screening ought to be established in the society; dentistry must have relevant competence to perform medical screening; medical screening requires cooperation between dentistry and health care; and dentistry is not the only context where medical screening could be performed. The latent analysis resulted in an emerging theme: positive to, but uncertain about, the concept of medical screening in dental settings. The spokespersons for the approached authorities and organizations had a positive view of medical screening but the respondents experienced a lack of facts concerning the scientific communities’ position, guidelines and procedures in the topic.

Conclusions and implications

Approached authorities and organizations generally had a positive view of medical screening in dental settings but were uncertain about the concept. Further scientific knowledge and guidelines concerning the topic are needed before it can be commonly introduced and additional research on implementation strategies and long-term follow-up of medical screening are needed.

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.