Risk of diabetic retinopathy at first screen in children at 12 and 13 years of age

AIMS: \ud \ud To investigate the relationships between age at diagnosis of diabetes, age at diabetic eye screening and severity of diabetic retinopathy at first and subsequent screenings in children aged 12 or 13 years.\ud \ud METHODS: \ud \ud Data were extracted from four English screening programmes and from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish programmes on all children with diabetes invited for their first and subsequent screening episodes from the age of 12 years. Retinopathy levels at first and subsequent screens, time from diagnosis of diabetes to first screening and age at diagnosis in years were calculated.\ud \ud RESULTS: \ud \ud Data were available for 2125 children with diabetes screened for the first time at age 12 or 13 years. In those diagnosed with diabetes at 2 years of age or less, the proportion with retinopathy in one or both eyes was 20% and 11%, respectively, decreasing to 8% and 2% in those diagnosed between 2 and 12 years (P < 0.0001). Only three children (aged 8, 10 and 11 years at diagnosis of diabetes) had images graded with referable retinopathy and, of these, two had non-referable diabetic retinopathy at all subsequent screenings. Of 1703 children with subsequent images, 25 were graded with referable diabetic retinopathy over a mean follow-up of 3.1 years, an incidence rate of 4.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.1-7.0) per 1000 per year.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS: \ud \ud In this large cohort of children, the low prevalence and incidence rates of referable diabetic retinopathy suggest that screening earlier than age 12 is not necessary

Factors associated with initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To assess the factors associated with antihyperglycaemic medication initiation in UK patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a retrospective cohort study, patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were identified during the index period of 2003-2005. Eligible patients were ≥ 30 years old at the date of the first observed diabetes diagnosis (referred to as index date) and had at least 2 years of follow-up medical history (N = 9,158). Initiation of antihyperglycaemic medication (i.e., treatment) was assessed in the 2-year period following the index date. Adjusted Cox regression models were used to examine the association between time to medication initiation and patient age and other factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean (SD) HbA_1cat diagnosis was 8.1% (2.3). Overall, 51% of patients initiated antihyperglycaemic medication within 2 years (65%, 55%, 46% and 40% for patients in the 30- < 45, 45- < 65, 65- < 75, 75+ age groups, respectively). Among the treated patients, median (25^th, 75^thpercentile) time to treatment initiation was 63 (8, 257) days. Of the patients with HbA_1c≥ 7.5% at diagnosis, 87% initiated treatment within 2 years. These patients with a higher HbA_1calso had shorter time to treatment initiation (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.44 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.61, 3.70]; p < 0.0001). Increasing age (in years) was negatively associated with time to treatment initiation (HR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.99]; p < 0.001). Factors significantly associated with shorter time to treatment initiation included female gender and use of cardiovascular medications at baseline or initiated during follow up.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this UK cohort of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, only 51% had antihyperglycaemic medication initiated over a 2-year period following diagnosis. Older patients were significantly less likely to have been prescribed antihyperglycaemic medications. Elevated HbA_1cwas the strongest factor associated with initiating antihyperglycaemic medication in these patients.</p

Barriers and enablers to self-titration of insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study

Aims The aim of this study was to identify the barriers and enablers to effective insulin selftitration in type 2 diabetes. Methods A qualitative semi-structured interview approach was employed. Questions were structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, which outlines 14 domains that can act as barriers and enablers to changing behaviour. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were coded according to the 14 domains, belief statements were created within each domain and a frequency count of the most reported barriers and enablers were then calculated. Analyses were conducted by two researchers, and discrepancies agreed with a third researcher. Results Eighteen adults with type 2 diabetes took part in an interview. A majority were South Asian (n=8), men (n=12), on average age 61 years old. Average duration of diabetes was 16 years and time on insulin 9 years. Inter-rater reliability for each of the domains varied (29%-100%). The most frequently reported domains were Social Influence and Beliefs about Consequences; the least frequently reported were Optimism and Reinforcement. Participants reported receiving support to self-titrate from a range of sources. Self-titrating was perceived to have a range of both positive and negative consequences, as was not titrating. Conclusions The findings highlight that participants experienced a range of barriers and enablers when attempting to self-titrate. Improved education and training when initiating insulin treatment among adults with type 2 diabetes, and throughout their journey on insulin therapy could help people identify and address these barriers in order to optimise self-titration. Novelty statement • This study is the first to comprehensively explore the reasons people with insulintreated type 2 diabetes struggle to self-titrate their insulin, using an established theoretical framework. • Important factors in facilitating self-titration were support from healthcare professionals and family members, having a target blood glucose reading and strategies to achieve this. • Barriers to self-titrating included difficulties experienced when at work or on holiday and concerns about the consequences of an increasing insulin dose. Holding strong but erroneous intentions to self-titrate, suggested a lack of knowledge about self-titration algorithms. • Providing educational resources and training when initiating insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes and throughout treatment, in order to address these barriers and enhance these facilitators is vital

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs. METHODS: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX. CONCLUSIONS: bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission). STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme