Identification of urgent gaps in public and policymaker knowledge of heart failure: results of a global survey

Background: Despite advances in the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, people with HF continue to have a high risk of mortality and hospitalisation. Patients also suffer from poor quality of life, with reduced societal and economic participation. The burden of HF on patients and healthcare systems is extraordinary, yet awareness remains low. This survey was conducted to identify gaps in general public and policymaker knowledge around HF. Methods: A closed-question web-based survey of the general public and policymakers was conducted between February and October 2020. Study outcomes assessed the participants’ awareness and understanding of HF symptoms, risk factors and mortality, and views around hospital admissions in their country. Responses were collected using multiple-choice questions. Results: The survey was completed by 26,272 general public respondents in 13 countries and 281 government and public sector policymakers in nine countries. While 99% of general public respondents had heard of HF, their understanding of the condition and its symptoms was poor, and only 6% identified that shortness of breath, fatigue, and leg swelling were the main symptoms of HF. Of policymaker respondents, 14% identified HF as the leading cause of avoidable hospitalisations, and only 4% recognised that ~ 87% of government spending on HF is related to hospitalisations. Conclusions: Major gaps were identified in the understanding of HF and the burden it places on patients and their caregivers, healthcare systems and society. This study confirms an ongoing need for national policy strategies and investment to raise awareness of the importance of HF prevention, early diagnosis, and implementation of effective treatments to reduce hospitalisations and death

Prescribing in type 2 diabetes patients with and without cardiovascular disease history: A descriptive analysis in the UK CPRD

PURPOSE: Some classes of glucose-lowering medications, including sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) have cardio-protective benefit, but it is unclear whether this influences prescribing in the United Kingdom (UK). This study aims to describe class-level prescribing in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by cardiovascular disease (CVD) history using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). METHODS: Four cross-sections of people with T2DM aged 18-90 and registered with their general practice for >1 year on 1st January 2017 (n = 166,012), 1st January 2018 (n = 155,290), 1st January 2019 (n = 152,602) and 31st December 2019 (n = 143,373) were identified. Age-standardised proportions for class use through time were calculated separately in those with and without CVD history and by total number of medications prescribed (one, two, three, four+). An analysis by UK country was also performed. FINDINGS: Around 31% of patients had CVD history at each cross-section. Metformin was the most common treatment (>70% of those with and without CVD had prescriptions across all treatment lines). Overall use of SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs was low, with slightly less use in patients with CVD (SGLT2i: 9.8% and 13.8% in those with and without CVD respectively; GLP1-RA: 4.3% and 4.9%, December 2019). Use of SGLT2is as part of dual therapy was low but rose throughout the study. In January 2017, estimated use was 8.0% (95% CI 6.9-9.1%) and 8.9% (8.6-9.3%) in those with and without CVD. By December 2019 this reached 18.3% (17.0-19.5%) and 21.2% (20.6-21.7%) for those with and without CVD respectively. SGLT2i use as triple therapy increased: 22.7% (21.0-24.4%) and 25.9% (25.2-26.6%) in January 2017 to 41.3% (39.5-43.0%) and 45.5% (44.7-46.3%) in December 2019. GLP1-RA use also increased, but observed usage remained lower than SGLT2 inhibitors. Insulin use remained stable throughout, with higher use observed in those with CVD (16% vs 9.7% Dec 2019). Time trends in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were similar, although class prevalence varied. IMPLICATIONS: Although use of SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs has increased, overall usage remains low with slightly lower use in those with CVD history, suggesting there is opportunity to optimise use of these medicines in T2DM patients to manage CVD risk. Insulin use was substantially more prevalent in those with CVD despite no evidence of CVD benefit. Further investigation of factors influencing this finding may highlight strategies to improve patient access to the most appropriate treatments, including those with evidence of cardiovascular benefit

Digital Interventions Supporting Self-care in People With Type 2 Diabetes Across Greater Manchester (Greater Manchester Diabetes My Way):Protocol for a Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND: Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is common, with a prevalence of approximately 7% of the population in the United Kingdom. The quality of T2D care is inconsistent across the United Kingdom, and Greater Manchester (GM) does not currently achieve the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence treatment targets. Barriers to delivery of care include low attendance and poor engagement with local T2D interventions, which tend to consist of programs of education delivered in traditional, face-to-face clinical settings. Thus, a flexible approach to T2D management that is accessible to people from different backgrounds and communities is needed. Diabetes My Way (DMW) is a digital platform that offers a comprehensive self-management and educational program that should be accessible to a wide range of people through mobile apps and websites. Building on evidence generated by a Scotland-wide pilot study, DMW is being rolled out and tested across GM. OBJECTIVE: The overarching objectives are to assess whether DMW improves outcomes for patients with T2D in the GM area, to explore the acceptability of the DMW intervention to stakeholders, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: A mixed methods approach will be used. We will take a census approach to recruitment in that all eligible participants in GM will be invited to participate. The primary outcomes will be intervention-related changes compared with changes observed in a matched group of controls, and the secondary outcomes will be within-person intervention-related changes. The cost-effectiveness analysis will focus on obtaining reliable estimates of how each intervention affects risk factors such as HbA1c and costs across population groups. Qualitative data will be collected via semistructured interviews and focus groups and organized using template analysis. RESULTS: As of May 10, 2021, a total of 316 participants have been recruited for the quantitative study and have successfully enrolled. A total of 278 participants attempted to register but did not have appropriate permissions set by the general practitioners to gain access to their data. In total, 10 participants have been recruited for the qualitative study (7 practitioners and 3 patients). An extension to recruitment has been granted for the quantitative element of the research, and analysis should be complete by December 2022. Recruitment and analysis for the qualitative study should be complete by December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study can be used both to develop the DMW system and improve accessibility and usability in more deprived populations generally, thus improving equity in access to support for T2D self-management. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/2623

Therapeutic inertia amongst general practitioners with interest in diabetes

Introduction As the therapeutic options in the management of type 2 diabetes increase, there is an increase confusion among health care professionals, thus leading to the phenomenon of therapeutic inertia. This is the failure to escalate or de-escalate treatment when the clinical need for this is required. It has been studied extensively in various settings, however, it has never been reported in any studies focusing solely on primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes. This group is increasingly becoming the focus of managing complex diabetes care in the community, albeit with the support from specialists. Methods In this retrospective audit, we assessed the prevalence of the phenomenon of therapeutic inertia amongst primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes in UK. We also assessed the predictive abilities of various patient level characteristics on therapeutic inertia amongst this group of clinicians. Results Out of the 240 patients reported on, therapeutic inertia was judged to have occurred in 53 (22.1%) of patients. The full model containing all the selected variables was not statistically significant, p = 0.59. So the model was not able to distinguish between situations in which therapeutic inertia occurred and when it did not occur. None of the patient level characteristics on its own was predictive of therapeutic inertia. Conclusion Therapeutic inertia was present only in about a fifth of patient patients with diabetes being managed by primary care physicians with an interest in diabetes

Impact of COVID-19 on diagnoses, monitoring, and mortality in people with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-03-08, revised 2021-04-05, accepted 2021-04-19Publication status: aheadofprin

Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on diabetes health checks and prescribing for people with type 2 diabetes: a UK-wide cohort study involving 618 161 people in primary care.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-04-29, accepted 2021-08-25Publication status: aheadofprintTo compare rates of performing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended health checks and prescribing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), before and after the first COVID-19 peak in March 2020, and to assess whether trends varied by age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation. We studied 618 161 people with T2D followed between March and December 2020 from 1744 UK general practices registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We focused on six health checks: haemoglobin A1c, serum creatinine, cholesterol, urinary albumin excretion, blood pressure and body mass index assessment. Regression models compared observed rates in April 2020 and between March and December 2020 with trend-adjusted expected rates derived from 10-year historical data. In April 2020, in English practices, rates of performing health checks were reduced by 76%-88% when compared with 10-year historical trends, with older people from deprived areas experiencing the greatest reductions. Between May and December 2020, the reduced rates recovered gradually but overall remained 28%-47% lower, with similar findings in other UK nations. Extrapolated to the UK population, there were ~7.4 million fewer care processes undertaken March-December 2020. In England, rates for new medication fell during April with reductions varying from 10% (95% CI: 4% to 16%) for antiplatelet agents to 60% (95% CI: 58% to 62%) for antidiabetic medications. Overall, between March and December 2020, the rate of prescribing new diabetes medications fell by 19% (95% CI: 15% to 22%) and new antihypertensive medication prescribing fell by 22% (95% CI: 18% to 26%), but prescribing of new lipid-lowering or antiplatelet therapy was unchanged. Similar trends were observed across the UK, except for a reduction in new lipid-lowering therapy prescribing in the other UK nations (reduction: 16% (95% CI: 10% to 21%)). Extrapolated to the UK population, between March and December 2020, there were ~31 800 fewer people with T2D prescribed a new type of diabetes medication and ~14 600 fewer prescribed a new type of antihypertensive medication. Over the coming months, healthcare services will need to manage this backlog of testing and prescribing. We recommend effective communications to ensure patient engagement with diabetes services, monitoring and opportunities for prescribing, and when appropriate use of home monitoring, remote consultations and other innovations in care. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Two-centre real-world pilot of a biopsychosocial digital health tool to deliver personalised visits and enhance value of rtCGM

<br/