The low carb program for people with type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes - a mixed methods feasibility study of signposting from general practice

Background: Evidence shows type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be effectively treated with a reduced-carbohydrate diet to support weight loss. Digital apps are increasingly used to support weight loss, yet little is known about their use as part of general practice diabetes care. Aim: Determine the feasibility of signposting from routine NHS general practice to a digital weight management tool (Low Carb Program) for patients with T2DM and pre-diabetes. Design & setting: Mixed-methods feasibility study implemented within routine general practice consultations at four practices in the Midlands, England. Method: General practices offered signposting to eligible patients attending consultations of any type during a 4-week recruitment period. Rates of offering and accepting signposting were recorded, with program registration, program completion, and self-reported health outcomes (weight, haemoglobin A1C [HbA1c]). Results: Signposting was offered to 351 patients; 160 (45.6%) accepted, 103 (29.3%) registered with the intervention and 43 (26.9% of patients accepting signposting) completed the programme. GPs reported that signposting added between 1–4 minutes to the consultation length. Patients completing the programme reported greater weight loss (7.2kg versus 1.6kg, P<0.001) and HbA1c improvements (-9.1mmol/mol versus 1.7mmol/mol, P<0.001) compared to those who did not, and were more likely to reduce the number of prescribed diabetes medications in general practice. Conclusions: Signposting from real-world general practice to the Low Carb Program is feasible and can potentially improve diabetes outcomes. Further research should explore whether the process of signposting can be enhanced to increase registration, identify whether additional practice-led support leads to increased programme completion, and confirm the intervention’s clinical and cost-effectiveness

Potential excess spend in primary care due to NHS drug tariff variability in vitamin D preparations

Objectives Vitamin D is commonly prescribed in primary care for the prevention and treatment of deficiency and for maintenance after treatment (although supplementation for maintenance and prevention can be bought over-the-counter). There is wide variation in the costs to the NHS in England of oral preparations of vitamin D, even for a single-specific dose and route.1 It is possible that the availability of multiple options for the same intended medicine, the costs of which are unlikely to be known by the prescriber, could result in an inadvertent excess spend. We aimed to estimate the annual cost-saving if only the cheapest vitamin D preparations were prescribed. Design Primary care prescribing data for 2018 were downloaded from NHS Digital (https://digital.nhs.uk).2 Monthly datasets include the number of items, quantity and cost of each drug prescribed and dispensed. Private prescriptions are not recorded. All prescription items relating to the vitamin D preparations colecalciferol and ergocalciferol, regardless of dose, route or manufacturer, were extracted. Data for each specific preparation were aggregated across all practices and all months to give the annual number of items and their cost across England. All liquid and injectable preparations were assumed to be appropriately prescribed and therefore excluded from the analysis. Combined preparations – such as calcium/vitamin D, calcium/alendronate and multivitamins – were also excluded. For each defined dose range of vitamin D, the lowest cost preparation was identified, and the potential cost-savings if only these preparations were prescribed was calculated. Setting Primary care in England. Participants All patients registered with a general practitioner in England in 2018. Main Outcome Measure The difference between actual and potential spend on vitamin D prescriptions, if only the lowest priced preparation were available. Results In 2018, over 4 million vitamin D items were prescribed in primary care, at a cost of over £21 million. If only the cheapest options were prescribed for non-liquid preparations across all dose ranges, and assuming all prescriptions were appropriate, it would have resulted in an approximate £15 million (>70%) cost-saving to the NHS. Maintenance doses of vitamin D (designated as 800 to 2000 international units per day as per NICE guidelines3) accounted for more than half of the spend (∼£12 million). It was noted that all the cheapest options available are suitable for vegetarians. Conclusion The prescribing of more expensive vitamin D preparations in primary care may have significant financial consequences, although our results relate to a single year of prescribing within NHS primary care. Since choice of preparation may intentionally be based on factors other than cost (e.g. dietary requirements, bioavailability, what was initially prescribed by a hospital), work is needed nationally to rationalise available prescribing options. If national guidance were produced, the difficulties of implementation within individual Clinical Commissioning Groups might limit economic benefit. National efficient procurement strategies are an alternative approach, but require careful consideration of legislative frameworks (such as the Public Contract Regulations 20154) with safeguards to prevent horizontal cooperation between suppliers