The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: a cluster -- randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, the benefits of such a strategy remain uncertain. METHODS AND DESIGN: The ADDITION-Cambridge study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (i) a stepwise screening strategy for type 2 diabetes; and (ii) intensive multifactorial treatment for people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care. 63 practices in the East Anglia region participated. Three undertook the pilot study, 33 were allocated to three groups: no screening (control), screening followed by intensive treatment (IT) and screening plus routine care (RC) in an unbalanced (1:3:3) randomisation. The remaining 27 practices were randomly allocated to IT and RC. A risk score incorporating routine practice data was used to identify people aged 40-69 years at high-risk of undiagnosed diabetes. In the screening practices, high-risk individuals were invited to take part in a stepwise screening programme. In the IT group, diabetes treatment is optimised through guidelines, target-led multifactorial treatment, audit, feedback, and academic detailing for practice teams, alongside provision of educational materials for newly diagnosed participants. Primary endpoints are modelled cardiovascular risk at one year, and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity at five years after diagnosis of diabetes. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, development of renal and visual impairment, peripheral neuropathy, health service costs, self-reported quality of life, functional status and health utility. Impact of the screening programme at the population level is also assessed through measures of mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health status and health service use among high-risk individuals. DISCUSSION: ADDITION-Cambridge is conducted in a defined high-risk group accessible through primary care. It addresses the feasibility of population-based screening for diabetes, as well as the benefits and costs of screening and intensive multifactorial treatment early in the disease trajectory. The intensive treatment algorithm is based on evidence from studies including individuals with clinically diagnosed diabetes and the education materials are informed by psychological theory. ADDITION-Cambridge will provide timely evidence concerning the benefits of early intensive treatment and will inform policy decisions concerning screening for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled trials ISRCTN86769081.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Does self monitoring of blood glucose as opposed to urinalysis provide additional benefit in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes receiving structured education? The DESMOND SMBG randomised controlled trial protocol

BackgroundThe benefit of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with type 2 diabetes on diet or oral agents other than sulphonylureas remains uncertain. Trials of interventions incorporating education about self-monitoring of blood glucose have reported mixed results. A recent systematic review concluded that SMBG was not cost-effective. However, what was unclear was whether a cheaper method of self-monitoring (such as urine glucose monitoring) could produce comparable benefit and patient acceptability for less cost.Methods/DesignThe DESMOND SMBG trial is comparing two monitoring strategies (blood glucose monitoring and urine testing) over 18 months when incorporated into a comprehensive self-management structured education programme. It is a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial, conducted across 8 sites (7 primary care trusts) in England, UK involving individuals with newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes.The trial has 80% power to demonstrate equivalence in mean HbA1c (the primary end-point) at 18 months of within ± 0.5% assuming 20% drop out and 20% non-consent. Secondary end-points include blood pressure, lipids, body weight and psychosocial measures as well as a qualitative sub-study.Practices were randomised to one of two arms: participants attend a DESMOND programme incorporating a module on self-monitoring of either urine or blood glucose. The programme is delivered by accredited educators who received specific training about equipoise. Biomedical data are collected and psychosocial scales completed at baseline, and 6, 12, and 18 months post programme. Qualitative research with participants and educators will explore views and experiences of the trial and preferences for methods of monitoring.DiscussionThe DESMOND SMBG trial is designed to provide evidence to inform the debate about the value of self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Strengths include a setting in primary care, a cluster design, a health economic analysis, a comparison of different methods of monitoring while controlling for other components of training within the context of a quality assured structured education programme and a qualitative sub-study

Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality. METHODS: In a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20,184 individuals aged 40-69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081. FINDINGS: Of 16,047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15,089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001-06, 11,737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184,057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9-9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75-1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90-1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75-2·10) associated with invitation to screening. INTERPRETATION: In this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad

The Effect of Patients’ Met Expectations on Consultation Outcomes. A Study with Family Medicine Residents

OBJECTIVES: To know the patients’ expectations and the fulfillment of these at family medicine consultations by resident doctors and to assess their effect on some consultation outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending family medicine consultations held by 38 resident doctors: 1,301 eligible patients, 702 filled in all questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS: Before each visit, the patients’ expectations about that particular consultation were registered. Right after the visit was over, their perception of several aspects of the communicative interaction with the doctor was measured. Later, patients were interviewed on the phone to know how their expectations had been fulfilled, how satisfied they were about the consultation, how they had followed the doctor’s suggestions, if they were going to seek further care for the same cause later, and the evolution of their clinical problem. Logistic regression was the main analysis used. RESULTS: The most common expectations were the doctor showing interest and listening (30.5%), getting some information about the diagnosis (16.3%), and sharing problems and doubts (11.1%). The rate of main expectations that were met was 76.5%. Satisfaction with the encounter was associated with the clinical evolution [odds ratio (OR) 2.23; confidence interval (CI): 1.32–3.75], and the fulfilling of the patients’ main or two main expectations was significantly related to all the measured outcomes (satisfaction OR 3.51, CI: 1.73–7.8; adherence OR 1.80, CI: 1.11–2.92; clinical evolution OR 1.54, CI: 1.01–2.35; and seeking further care later OR 0.54, CI:0.36–0.81) CONCLUSIONS: Patients prioritize expectations of a more general sort when they attend primary care consultations and residents fulfill these acceptably. The fulfillment of expectations seems to affect the studied outcomes more than other factors

Increasing walking in patients with intermittent claudication: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: People with intermittent claudication are at increased risk of death from heart attack and stroke compared to matched controls. Surgery for intermittent claudication is for symptom management and does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Increasing physical activity can reduce claudication symptoms and may improve cardiovascular health. This paper presents the pilot study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to test whether a brief psychological intervention leads to increased physical activity, improvement in quality of life, and a reduction in the demand for surgery, for patients with intermittent claudication. Methods/Design: We aim to recruit 60 patients newly diagnosed with intermittent claudication, who will be randomised into two groups. The control group will receive usual care, and the treatment group will receive usual care and a brief 2-session psychological intervention to modify illness and walking beliefs and develop a walking action plan. The primary outcome will be walking, measured by pedometer. Secondary outcomes will include quality of life and uptake of surgery for symptom management. Participants will be followed up after (a) 4 months, (b) 1 year and (c) 2 years. Discussion: This study will assess the acceptability and efficacy of a brief psychological intervention to increase walking in patients with intermittent claudication, both in terms of the initiation, and maintenance of behaviour change. This is a pilot study, and the results will inform the design of a larger multi-centre trial. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN2805187

Genetic nurse counsellors can be an acceptable and cost-effective alternative to clinical geneticists for breast cancer risk genetic counselling. Evidence from two parallel randomised controlled equivalence trials

This study compared genetic nurse counsellors with standard services for breast cancer genetic risk counselling services in two regional genetics centres, in Grampian region, North East Scotland and in Cardiff, Wales. Women referred for genetic counselling were randomised to an initial genetic counselling appointment with either a genetic nurse counsellor (intervention) or a clinical geneticist (current service, control). Participants completed postal questionnaires before, immediately after the counselling episode and 6 months later to assess anxiety, general health status, perceived risk and satisfaction. A parallel economic evaluation explored factors influencing cost-effectiveness. The two concurrent randomised controlled equivalence trials were conducted and analysed separately. In the Grampian trial, 289 patients (193 intervention, 96 control) and in the Wales trial 297 patients (197 intervention and 100 control) returned a baseline questionnaire and attended their appointment. Analysis suggested at least likely equivalence in anxiety (the primary outcome) between the two arms of the trials. The cost per counselling episode was £11.54 less for nurse-based care in the Grampian trial and £12.50 more for nurse-based care in Cardiff. The costs were sensitive to the grade of doctor (notionally) replaced and the extent of consultant supervision required by the nurse. In conclusion, care based on genetic nurse counsellors was not significantly different from conventional cancer genetic services in both trial locations

Protein-losing gastroenteropathy: Concepts derived from lymphangiography

Lymphangiograms in 2 patients with protein-losing gastroenteropathy showed abnormalities of both abdominal and lower-extremity lymphatics.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44359/1/10620_2005_Article_BF02237631.pd

Cardiovascular risk assessment scores for people with diabetes: a systematic review

People with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Multivariate cardiovascular risk scores have been used in many countries to identify individuals who are at high risk of CVD. These risk scores include those originally developed in individuals with diabetes and those developed in a general population. This article reviews the published evidence for the performance of CVD risk scores in diabetic patients by: (1) examining the overall rationale for using risk scores; (2) systematically reviewing the literature on available scores; and (3) exploring methodological issues surrounding the development, validation and comparison of risk scores. The predictive performance of cardiovascular risk scores varies substantially between different populations. There is little evidence to suggest that risk scores developed in individuals with diabetes estimate cardiovascular risk more accurately than those developed in the general population. The inconsistency in the methods used in evaluation studies makes it difficult to compare and summarise the predictive ability of risk scores. Overall, CVD risk scores rank individuals reasonably accurately and are therefore useful in the management of diabetes with regard to targeting therapy to patients at highest risk. However, due to the uncertainty in estimation of true risk, care is needed when using scores to communicate absolute CVD risk to individuals

Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: A qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA_1c≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA_1cexceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.</p