Post-trial monitoring of a randomised controlled trial of intensive glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes extended from 10 years to 24 years (UKPDS 91)

BACKGROUND: The 20-year UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed major clinical benefits for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes randomly allocated to intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy or metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control. 10-year post-trial follow-up identified enduring and emerging glycaemic and metformin legacy treatment effects. We aimed to determine whether these effects would wane by extending follow-up for another 14 years.METHODS: 5102 patients enrolled between 1977 and 1991, of whom 4209 (82·5%) participants were originally randomly allocated to receive either intensive glycaemic control (sulfonylurea or insulin, or if overweight, metformin) or conventional glycaemic control (primarily diet). At the end of the 20-year interventional trial, 3277 surviving participants entered a 10-year post-trial monitoring period, which ran until Sept 30, 2007. Eligible participants for this study were all surviving participants at the end of the 10-year post-trial monitoring period. An extended follow-up of these participants was done by linking them to their routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) data for another 14 years. Clinical outcomes were derived from records of deaths, hospital admissions, outpatient visits, and accident and emergency unit attendances. We examined seven prespecified aggregate clinical outcomes (ie, any diabetes-related endpoint, diabetes-related death, death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and microvascular disease) by the randomised glycaemic control strategy on an intention-to-treat basis using Kaplan-Meier time-to-event and log-rank analyses. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN75451837.FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2007, and Sept 30, 2021, 1489 (97·6%) of 1525 participants could be linked to routinely collected NHS administrative data. Their mean age at baseline was 50·2 years (SD 8·0), and 41·3% were female. The mean age of those still alive as of Sept 30, 2021, was 79·9 years (SD 8·0). Individual follow-up from baseline ranged from 0 to 42 years, median 17·5 years (IQR 12·3-26·8). Overall follow-up increased by 21%, from 66 972 to 80 724 person-years. For up to 24 years after trial end, the glycaemic and metformin legacy effects showed no sign of waning. Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 10% (95% CI 2-17; p=0·015) for death from any cause, 17% (6-26; p=0·002) for myocardial infarction, and 26% (14-36; p&lt;0·0001) for microvascular disease. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 2·7%, 3·3%, and 3·5%, respectively. Early intensive glycaemic control with metformin therapy, compared with conventional glycaemic control, showed overall relative risk reductions of 20% (95% CI 5-32; p=0·010) for death from any cause and 31% (12-46; p=0·003) for myocardial infarction. Corresponding absolute risk reductions were 4·9% and 6·2%, respectively. No significant risk reductions during or after the trial for stroke or peripheral vascular disease were observed for both intensive glycaemic control groups, and no significant risk reduction for microvascular disease was observed for metformin therapy.INTERPRETATION: Early intensive glycaemic control with sulfonylurea or insulin, or with metformin, compared with conventional glycaemic control, appears to confer a near-lifelong reduced risk of death and myocardial infarction. Achieving near normoglycaemia immediately following diagnosis might be essential to minimise the lifetime risk of diabetes-related complications to the greatest extent possible.FUNDING: University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Population Health Pump Priming.</p

How do people with diabetes describe their experiences in primary care? Evidence from 85,760 patients with self-reported diabetes from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Developing primary care is an important current health policy goal in the U.S. and England. Information on patients' experience can help to improve the care of people with diabetes. We describe the experiences of people with diabetes in primary care and examine how these experiences vary with increasing comorbidity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using data from 906,578 responders to the 2012 General Practice Patient Survey (England), including 85,760 with self-reported diabetes, we used logistic regressions controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to analyze patient experience using seven items covering three domains of primary care: access, continuity, and communication. RESULTS: People with diabetes were significantly more likely to report better experience on six out of seven primary care items than people without diabetes after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (adjusted differences 0.88-3.20%; odds ratios [ORs] 1.07-1.18; P < 0.001). Those with diabetes and additional comorbid long-term conditions were more likely to report worse experiences, particularly for access to primary care appointments (patients with diabetes alone compared with patients without diabetes: OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17-1.28] and patients with diabetes plus three or more conditions compared with patients without diabetes: OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.83-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes in England report primary care experiences that are at least as good as those without diabetes for most domains of care. However, improvements in primary care are needed for diabetes patients with comorbid long-term conditions, including better access to appointments and improved communication.Diabetes UKThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the American Diabetes Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc14-109

Protocol for a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of oral semaglutide in amyloid positivity (ISAP) in community dwelling UK adults

Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), currently marketed for type 2 diabetes and obesity, may offer novel mechanisms to delay or prevent neurotoxicity associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The impact of semaglutide in amyloid positivity (ISAP) trial is investigating whether the GLP-1 RA semaglutide reduces accumulation in the brain of cortical tau protein and neuroinflammation in individuals with preclinical/prodromal AD. Methods and analysis: ISAP is an investigator-led, randomised, double-blind, superiority trial of oral semaglutide compared with placebo. Up to 88 individuals aged ≥55 years with brain amyloid positivity as assessed by positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid, and no or mild cognitive impairment, will be randomised. People with the low-affinity binding variant of the rs6971 allele of the Translocator Protein 18 kDa (TSPO) gene, which can interfere with interpreting TSPO PET scans (a measure of neuroinflammation), will be excluded. At baseline, participants undergo tau, TSPO PET and MRI scanning, and provide data on physical activity and cognition. Eligible individuals are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to once-daily oral semaglutide or placebo, starting at 3 mg and up-titrating to 14 mg over 8 weeks. They will attend safety visits and provide blood samples to measure AD biomarkers at weeks 4, 8, 26 and 39. All cognitive assessments are repeated at week 26. The last study visit will be at week 52, when all baseline measurements will be repeated. The primary end point is the 1-year change in tau PET signal. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the West Midlands—Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0013). The results of the study will be disseminated through scientific presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration number: ISRCTN71283871

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. Design: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). Setting: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. Participants: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. Results: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were −2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) −3.7 to −1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and −3.2 mmol/mol (−4.6 to −1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking—the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). Conclusions: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating personalised medicine for intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the PERMIT study.

INTRODUCTION: For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals' risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers

Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatment in people with type 2 diabetes in England: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: To assess any disparities in the initiation of second-line antidiabetic treatments prescribed among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England according to ethnicity and social deprivation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used linked primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics), and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). We included people aged 18 years or older with T2DM who intensified to second-line oral antidiabetic medication between 2014-2020 to investigate disparities in second-line antidiabetic treatment prescribing (one of sulfonylureas (SU), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), or sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), in combination with metformin) by ethnicity (white, South Asian, black, mixed/other) and deprivation (IMD quintiles). We reported prescriptions of the alternative treatments by ethnicity and deprivation according to predicted percentages derived from multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36,023 people, 85% were white, 10% South Asian, 4% black, and 1% mixed/other. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2i prescribing by ethnicity were 21% [95% CI 19-23%], 20% [95% CI 18-22%], 19% [95% CI 16-22%], and 17% [95% CI 14-21%) among people with white, South Asian, black, and mixed/other ethnicity, respectively. After adjustment, the predicted percentages for SGLT2i prescribing by deprivation were 22% [95% CI 20-25%] and 19% [95% CI 17-21%] for the least deprived and the most deprived quintiles, respectively. When stratifying by prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) status, we found lower predicted percentages of people with prevalent CVD prescribed SGLT2i compared with people without prevalent CVD across all ethnicity groups and all levels of social deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with T2DM, there were no substantial differences by ethnicity or deprivation in the percentage prescribed either SGLT2i, DPP4i, or SU as second-line antidiabetic treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice. DESIGN: Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial). SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21. PARTICIPANTS: 75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures. RESULTS: 75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints

A Guide for Social Science Journal Editors on Easing into Open Science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://osf.io/hstcx).<br/

Calibrating a network meta-analysis of diabetes trials of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to a representative routine population : a systematic review protocol

Introduction: Participants in randomised controlled trials (trials) are generally younger and healthier than many individuals encountered in clinical practice. Consequently, the applicability of trial findings is often uncertain. To address this, results from trials can be calibrated to more representative data sources. In a network meta-analysis, using a novel approach which allows the inclusion of trials whether or not individual-level participant data (IPD) is available, we will calibrate trials for three drug classes (sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor analogues and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors) to the Scottish diabetes register. Methods and analysis: Medline and EMBASE databases, the US clinical trials registry (clinicaltrials.gov) and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn) will be searched from 1 January 2002. Two independent reviewers will apply eligibility criteria to identify trials for inclusion. Included trials will be phase 3 or 4 trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP1 receptor analogues or DPP4 inhibitors, with placebo or active comparators, in participants with type 2 diabetes, with at least one of glycaemic control, change in body weight or major adverse cardiovascular event as outcomes. Unregistered trials will be excluded. We have identified a target population from the population-based Scottish diabetes register. The chosen cohort comprises people in Scotland with type 2 diabetes who either (1) require further treatment due to poor glycaemic control where any of the three drug classes may be suitable, or (2) who have adequate glycaemic control but are already on one of the three drug classes of interest or insulin. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for IPD use was obtained from the University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (Project: 200160070). The Scottish diabetes register has approval from the Scottish A Research Ethics Committee (11/AL/0225) and operates with Public Benefit and Privacy Panel for Health and Social Care approval (1617-0147). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020184174

May Measurement Month 2018: a pragmatic global screening campaign to raise awareness of blood pressure by the International Society of Hypertension

Aims Raised blood pressure (BP) is the biggest contributor to mortality and disease burden worldwide and fewer than half of those with hypertension are aware of it. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global campaign set up in 2017, to raise awareness of high BP and as a pragmatic solution to a lack of formal screening worldwide. The 2018 campaign was expanded, aiming to include more participants and countries. Methods and results Eighty-nine countries participated in MMM 2018. Volunteers (≥18 years) were recruited through opportunistic sampling at a variety of screening sites. Each participant had three BP measurements and completed a questionnaire on demographic, lifestyle, and environmental factors. Hypertension was defined as a systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg, or taking antihypertensive medication. In total, 74.9% of screenees provided three BP readings. Multiple imputation using chained equations was used to impute missing readings. 1 504 963 individuals (mean age 45.3 years; 52.4% female) were screened. After multiple imputation, 502 079 (33.4%) individuals had hypertension, of whom 59.5% were aware of their diagnosis and 55.3% were taking antihypertensive medication. Of those on medication, 60.0% were controlled and of all hypertensives, 33.2% were controlled. We detected 224 285 individuals with untreated hypertension and 111 214 individuals with inadequately treated (systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) hypertension. Conclusion May Measurement Month expanded significantly compared with 2017, including more participants in more countries. The campaign identified over 335 000 adults with untreated or inadequately treated hypertension. In the absence of systematic screening programmes, MMM was effective at raising awareness at least among these individuals at risk