What is the relationship between age and deprivation in influencing emergency hospital admissions? A model using data from a defined, comprehensive, all-age cohort in East Devon, UK

This is the final version of the article. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.There is another ORE record for this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36448OBJECTIVES: To clarify the relationship between social deprivation and age as two factors associated with emergency admissions to hospital. DESIGN: Emergency admissions for 12 months were analysed for patients in the NHS NEW Devon CCG. Social deprivation was measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Logistic regression models estimated the separate and combined effects of social deprivation and age on the risk of emergency admissions for people aged under and over 65. SETTING: East Devon, UK-area of the NEW Devon CCG. POPULATION: 765 861 patients in the CCG database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Emergency admission to any English hospital. RESULTS: Age (p<0.001) and social deprivation (p<0.001) were significantly associated with emergency admission to hospital, but there was a significant interaction between age and social deprivation (p<0.001). From the third quintile of age upwards, age progressively overtakes deprivation and age has a dominant effect on emergency admissions over the age of 65. The effect of age was J-shaped in all deprivation groups, increasing exponentially after age 40. For patients under 65, age and social deprivation had similar risks for emergency admissions, the differences in risk between the top and bottom quintiles of IMD and age being ∼1.5 and 0.9 percentage points. In patients over 65, age had a much greater effect on the risk of admissions than social deprivation, the differences in risk between the top and bottom quintiles of IMD and age being ∼2.8 and 18.7 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Risk curves for all social groups have similar shapes, implying a common biological pattern for ageing in any social group. Over age 65, the biological effects of ageing outweigh the social effects of deprivation. Our model enables CCGs to anticipate and plan for emergency admissions to hospital. These findings provide a new logic for allocating resources to different populations

What is the relationship between age and deprivation in influencing emergency hospital admissions? A model using data from a defined, comprehensive, all-age cohort in East Devon, UK

This is the final version of the article. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.There is another ORE record for this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/26338OBJECTIVES: To clarify the relationship between social deprivation and age as two factors associated with emergency admissions to hospital. DESIGN: Emergency admissions for 12 months were analysed for patients in the NHS NEW Devon CCG. Social deprivation was measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Logistic regression models estimated the separate and combined effects of social deprivation and age on the risk of emergency admissions for people aged under and over 65. SETTING: East Devon, UK-area of the NEW Devon CCG. POPULATION: 765 861 patients in the CCG database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Emergency admission to any English hospital. RESULTS: Age (p<0.001) and social deprivation (p<0.001) were significantly associated with emergency admission to hospital, but there was a significant interaction between age and social deprivation (p<0.001). From the third quintile of age upwards, age progressively overtakes deprivation and age has a dominant effect on emergency admissions over the age of 65. The effect of age was J-shaped in all deprivation groups, increasing exponentially after age 40. For patients under 65, age and social deprivation had similar risks for emergency admissions, the differences in risk between the top and bottom quintiles of IMD and age being ∼1.5 and 0.9 percentage points. In patients over 65, age had a much greater effect on the risk of admissions than social deprivation, the differences in risk between the top and bottom quintiles of IMD and age being ∼2.8 and 18.7 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Risk curves for all social groups have similar shapes, implying a common biological pattern for ageing in any social group. Over age 65, the biological effects of ageing outweigh the social effects of deprivation. Our model enables CCGs to anticipate and plan for emergency admissions to hospital. These findings provide a new logic for allocating resources to different populations

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1·8 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0·3%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8·3% [0·9], and BMI 31·2 kg/m(2) [4·8]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·9% (SD 1·1) to 6·4% (1·0) with IDegLira, by 1·4% (1·0) to 6·9% (1·1) with insulin degludec, and by 1·3% (1·1) to 7·0% (1·2) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0·47%, 95% CI -0·58 to -0·36, p<0·0001) and superior to liraglutide (-0·64%, -0·75 to -0·53, p<0·0001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8·8 vs 19·7%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3·6%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1·8 for IDegLira, 0·2 for liraglutide, and 2·6 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: Results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1\ub78 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0\ub73%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8\ub73% [0\ub79], and BMI 31\ub72 kg/m(2) [4\ub78]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1\ub79% (SD 1\ub71) to 6\ub74% (1\ub70) with IDegLira, by 1\ub74% (1\ub70) to 6\ub79% (1\ub71) with insulin degludec, and by 1\ub73% (1\ub71) to 7\ub70% (1\ub72) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0\ub747%, 95% CI -0\ub758 to -0\ub736, p<0\ub70001) and superior to liraglutide (-0\ub764%, -0\ub775 to -0\ub753, p<0\ub70001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8\ub78 vs 19\ub77%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3\ub76%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1\ub78 for IDegLira, 0\ub72 for liraglutide, and 2\ub76 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone