Type 1 diabetes incidence in Scotland between 2006 and 2019

Funding Information: We acknowledge with gratitude the contributions of people and organisations involved in providing data, setting up, maintaining and overseeing collation of data for people with diabetes in Scotland. The Scottish Diabetes Research Network is supported by National Health Service (NHS) Research Scotland, a partnership involving Scottish NHS Boards and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. We are grateful to Professor Paul McKeigue for advice on generation and interpretation of age‐period‐cohort models. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed‐ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal‐bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): a short‐term cost‐effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

Aim: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal‐bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Methods: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost‐utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1‐year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat‐to‐target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event‐related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non‐severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: IDegLira is a cost‐effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK

A genome-wide association study provides evidence of sex-specific involvement of Chr1p35.1 (<i>ZSCAN20-TLR12P</i>) and Chr8p23.1 (<i>HMGB1P46</i>) with diabetic neuropathic pain

AbstractNeuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or a disease affecting the somatosensory system and it affects around 1 in 4 diabetic patients in the UK. The purpose of this genome-wide association study (GWAS) was to identify genetic contributors to this disorder. Cases of neuropathic pain were defined as diabetic patients with a multiple prescription history of at least one of five drugs specifically indicated for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Controls were diabetic individuals who were not prescribed any of these drugs, nor amitriptyline, carbamazepine, or nortriptyline. Overall, 961 diabetic neuropathic pain cases and 3260 diabetic controls in the Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research Tayside (GoDARTS) cohort were identified. We found a cluster in the Chr1p35.1 (ZSCAN20-TLR12P) with a lowest P value of 2.74×10−7 at rs71647933 in females and a cluster in the Chr8p23.1, next to HMGB1P46 with a lowest P value of 8.02×10−7 at rs6986153 in males. Sex-specific narrow sense heritability was higher in males (30.0%) than in females (14.7%). This GWAS on diabetic neuropathic pain provides evidence for the sex-specific involvement of Chr1p35.1 (ZSCAN20-TLR12P) and Chr8p23.1 (HMGB1P46) with the disorder, indicating the need for further research

Family physician and endocrinologist coordination as the basis for diabetes care in clinical practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To estimate the proportion of diabetic patients (DPts) with peripheral vascular disease treated at a primary health care site after an endocrinologist-based intervention, who meet ATP III and Steno targets of metabolic control, as well as to compare the outcome with the results of the patients treated by endocrinologists.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A controlled, prospective over 30-months period study was conducted in area 7 of Madrid. One hundred twenty six eligible diabetic patients diagnosed as having peripheral vascular disease between January 2003 and June 2004 were included in the study. After a treatment period of three months by the Diabetes team at St Carlos Hospital, 63 patients were randomly assigned to continue their follow up by diabetes team (Group A) and other 63 to be treated by the family physicians (FP) at primary care level with continuous diabetes team coordination (Group B). 57 DPts from Group A and 59 from Group B, completed the 30 months follow-up period. At baseline both groups were similar in age, weight, time from diagnosis and metabolic control. The main outcomes of this study were the proportion of patients meeting ATP III and Steno goals for HbA1c (%), Cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, albumine-to-creatinine excretion ratio (ACR), body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), anti-aggregation treatment and smoking status.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At the end of the follow up, no differences were found between the groups. More than 37% of diabetic patients assigned to be treated by FP achieved a HbA1c < 6.5%, more than 50% a ACR < 30 mg/g, and more than 80% reached low risk values for cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, diastolic blood pressure and were anti-aggregated, and 12% remained smokers. In contrast, less than 45% achieved a systolic blood pressure < 130 mm Hg, less than 12% had a BMI < 25 Kg.m-2 (versus 23% in group A; p < 0.05) and 49%/30% (men/women) had a waist circumference of low risk.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Improvements in metabolic control among diabetic patients with peripheral vascular disease treated at a primary health care setting is possible, reaching similar results to the patients treated at a specialized level. Despite such an improvement, body weight control remains more than poor in both levels, mainly at primary care level. General practitioner and endocrinologist coordination care may be important to enhance diabetes management in primary care settings.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinical Trial number ISRCTN75037597</p

Flash Glucose-Sensing Technology as a Replacement for Blood Glucose Monitoring for the Management of Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: a Multicenter, Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction Glycemic control in participants with insulin-treated diabetes remains challenging. We assessed safety and efficacy of new flash glucose-sensing technology to replace self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Methods This open-label randomized controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02082184) enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers. Following 2 weeks of blinded sensor wear, 2:1 (intervention/control) randomization (centrally, using biased-coin minimization dependant on study center and insulin administration) was to control (SMBG) or intervention (glucose-sensing technology). Participants and investigators were not masked to group allocation. Primary outcome was difference in HbA1c at 6 months in the full analysis set. Prespecified secondary outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, effect of age, and patient satisfaction. Results Participants (n = 224) were randomized (149 intervention, 75 controls). At 6 months, there was no difference in the change in HbA1c between intervention and controls: −3.1 ± 0.75 mmol/mol, [−0.29 ± 0.07% (mean ± SE)] and −3.4 ± 1.04 mmol/mol (−0.31 ± 0.09%) respectively; p = 0.8222. A difference was detected in participants aged <65 years [−5.7 ± 0.96 mmol/mol (−0.53 ± 0.09%) and −2.2 ± 1.31 mmol/mol (−0.20 ± 0.12%), respectively; p = 0.0301]. Time in hypoglycemia <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) reduced by 0.47 ± 0.13 h/day [mean ± SE (p = 0.0006)], and <3.1 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) reduced by 0.22 ± 0.07 h/day (p = 0.0014) for intervention participants compared with controls; reductions of 43% and 53%, respectively. SMBG frequency, similar at baseline, decreased in intervention participants from 3.8 ± 1.4 tests/day (mean ± SD) to 0.3 ± 0.7, remaining unchanged in controls. Treatment satisfaction was higher in intervention compared with controls (DTSQ 13.1 ± 0.50 (mean ± SE) and 9.0 ± 0.72, respectively; p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemic events were reported related to sensor data use. Forty-two serious events [16 (10.7%) intervention participants, 12 (16.0%) controls] were not device-related. Six intervention participants reported nine adverse events for sensor-wear reactions (two severe, six moderate, one mild). Conclusion Flash glucose-sensing technology use in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy results in no difference in HbA1c change and reduced hypoglycemia, thus offering a safe, effective replacement for SMBG

A comparison of antenatal classifications of ‘overweight’ and ‘obesity’ prevalence between white British, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi pregnant women in England; analysis of retrospective data

Background Maternal obesity increases women’s risk of poor birth outcomes, and statistics show that Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (who are born or settled) in the UK experience higher rates of perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies than white British or white Other women. This study compares the prevalence of maternal obesity in Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and white British women using standard and Asian-specific BMI metrics. Method Retrospective cross-sectional analysis using routinely recorded secondary data in Ciconia Maternity information System (CMiS), between 2008 and 2013. Mothers (n = 15,205) whose ethnicity was recorded as white British, Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian. Adjusted standardised residuals and Pearson Chi-square. Main outcome measures: Percentage of mothers stratified by ethnicity (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and white British) who are classified as overweight or obese using standard and revised World Health Organisation BMI thresholds. Results Compared to standard BMI thresholds, using the revised BMI threshold resulted in a higher prevalence of obesity: 22.8% of Indian and 24.3% of Bangladeshi and 32.3% of Pakistani women. Pearson Chi-square confirmed that significantly more Pakistani women were classified as ‘obese’ compared with white British, Indian or Bangladeshi women (χ 2 = 499,88 df = 9, p Conclusions There are differences in the prevalence of obese and overweight women stratified by maternal ethnicity of white British, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi. Using revised anthropometric measures in Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women has clinical implications for identifying risks associated with obesity and increased complications in pregnancy.</p

Development and psychometric testing of the online Adolescent Diabetes Needs Assessment Tool (ADNAT)

Supplementary information published since the original article was published.This document is the Accepted Manuscript version of a published work that appeared in final form in World Biomedical Frontiers. To access the final edited and published work see http://biomedfrontiers.org/diabetes-obesity-2015-1-21/.World Biomedical Frontiers provides a platform for the exchange of the latest research progress, including strategic and emerging research areas such as diabetes. Their aim is to accelerate understanding of human health and improvetreatment of a variety of human diseases. Our article, published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, was selected for their web based publication. It provides an abstract plus supplementary information on the research work associated with ADNAT

A cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Intermediate Care Clinics for Diabetes (ICCD) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background World-wide healthcare systems are faced with an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, clinical care is primarily provided by general practitioners (GPs) rather than hospital specialists. Intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD) potentially provide a model for supporting GPs in their care of people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and in their management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to (1) compare patients with type 2 diabetes registered with practices that have access to an ICCD service with those that have access only to usual hospital care; (2) assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (3) explore the views and experiences of patients, health professionals and other stakeholders. Methods/Design This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (with integral economic evaluation and qualitative study) is set in general practices in three UK Primary Care Trusts. Practices are randomized to one of two groups with patients referred to either an ICCD (intervention) or to hospital care (control). Intervention group: GP practices in the intervention arm have the opportunity to refer patients to an ICCD - a multidisciplinary team led by a specialist nurse and a diabetologist. Patients are reviewed and managed in the ICCD for a short period with a goal of improving diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control and are then referred back to practice. or Control group: Standard GP care, with referral to secondary care as required, but no access to ICCD. Participants are adults aged 18 years or older who have type 2 diabetes that is difficult for their GPs to control. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants reaching three risk factor targets: HbA1c (≤7.0%); blood pressure (<140/80); and cholesterol (<4 mmol/l), at the end of the 18-month intervention period. The main secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants reaching individual risk factor targets and the overall 10-year risks for coronary heart disease(CHD) and stroke assessed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Other secondary outcomes include body mass index and waist circumference, use of medication, reported smoking, emotional adjustment, patient satisfaction and views on continuity, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomize 50 practices and recruit 2,555 patients