Within-trial cost and 1-year cost-effectiveness of the DiRECT/Counterweight-Plus weight-management programme to achieve remission of type 2 diabetes

No abstract available

The Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT): protocol for a cluster randomised trial

Background: Despite improving evidence-based practice following clinical guidelines to optimise drug therapy, Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) still exerts a devastating toll from vascular complications and premature death. Biochemical remission of T2DM has been demonstrated with weight loss around 15kg following bariatric surgery and in several small studies of non-surgical energy-restriction treatments. The non-surgical Counterweight-Plus programme, running in Primary Care where obesity and T2DM are routinely managed, produces >15 kg weight loss in 33 % of all enrolled patients. The Diabetes UK-funded Counterpoint study suggested that this should be sufficient to reverse T2DM by removing ectopic fat in liver and pancreas, restoring first-phase insulin secretion. The Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) was designed to determine whether a structured, intensive, weight management programme, delivered in a routine Primary Care setting, is a viable treatment for achieving durable normoglycaemia. Other aims are to understand the mechanistic basis of remission and to identify psychological predictors of response. Methods/Design: Cluster-randomised design with GP practice as the unit of randomisation: 280 participants from around 30 practices in Scotland and England will be allocated either to continue usual guideline-based care or to add the Counterweight-Plus weight management programme, which includes primary care nurse or dietitian delivery of 12-20weeks low calorie diet replacement, food reintroduction, and long-term weight loss maintenance. Main inclusion criteria: men and women aged 20-65years, all ethnicities, T2DM 0-6years duration, BMI 27-45 kg/m2. Tyneside participants will undergo Magnetic Resonance (MR) studies of pancreatic and hepatic fat, and metabolic studies to determine mechanisms underlying T2DM remission. Co-primary endpoints: weight reduction ≥ 15 kg and HbA1c <48 mmol/mol at one year. Further follow-up at 2 years. Discussion: This study will establish whether a structured weight management programme, delivered in Primary Care by practice nurses or dietitians, is a viable treatment to achieve T2DM remission. Results, available from 2018 onwards, will inform future service strategy

Clinicians’ perspectives on supporting individuals with severe anorexia nervosa in specialist eating disorder intensive treatment settings during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected intensive treatment settings (i.e., inpatient [IP] and day patient [DP]) in specialist eating disorder services. However, the impact on clinicians working in these services is largely unknown. We therefore explored the perspectives of those supporting individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) in intensive treatment settings during the pandemic. Methods: Between May 2020 and June 2021, we interviewed clinicians (n = 21) who delivered IP and/or DP treatment to patients with severe AN in four specialist eating disorder services in the United Kingdom. Data relating to experiences during COVID-19 were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: We identified six themes: Disruptions to Routine Treatment; Introduction of Virtual Treatment; Separation from Treatment, Others and the World; Impact on Recovery; Impact on Staff; and Pressure on Referral Pathways. COVID-19 posed significant challenges to IP and DP services: forcing closures, operating with restrictions and virtual treatment, and impacting delivery of essential treatment components, referral pathways, clinician wellbeing, risk management, and patient isolation and recovery trajectories. Opportunities arose, in particular in DP services offering virtual support. Conclusions: COVID-19 challenged the continuation of multidisciplinary treatment. The findings underline the necessity for medical, psychological, practical, and nutritional support, as well as carer involvement and fostering social connections to remain at the forefront of intensive treatment for severe AN. They also emphasise the uncertainty surrounding which intensive treatment may be best suited to which patient when, particularly within the context of virtual DP support

Clinicians' perspectives on supporting individuals with severe anorexia nervosa in specialist eating disorder intensive treatment settings

BACKGROUND: Admissions to intensive treatment (i.e., inpatient [IP] and/or day patient [DP]) for individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) are common. Growing literature indicates potential risks and benefits of each intensive treatment approach; however, existing research has focused on patient and carer perspectives of these treatments. Also, there is scant empirical evidence available for guiding the parameters of intensive treatments for AN. We therefore explored clinicians' perspectives and experience of supporting adults with severe AN in intensive settings. METHODS: We conducted twenty one semi-structured interviews with clinicians who deliver intensive treatments (i.e., IP and/or DP) for individuals with severe AN across four specialist Eating Disorder Services in the United Kingdom between May 2020 and June 2021. We asked clinicians about their views and experiences of supporting individuals with severe AN in intensive treatment settings and the challenges and opportunities associated with IP and DP treatment. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. RESULTS: Five broad and interrelated themes were identified: (1) Intensive Support; (2) The Severity of Patients' Illnesses; (3) Hope and Recovery; (4) Which Treatment When; (5) Limited Resources; and (6) Carer Burden. We identified various similarities between the two intensive treatment approaches, including the value of intensive and multidisciplinary support and carer involvement, and the challenge of managing complex and unique needs in resource-limited intensive settings. We also found differences in the relationship of treatment to patients' home environments, the necessity of patient motivation, and the management of risk. CONCLUSIONS: Both intensive treatment settings are valued by clinicians; however, there are unique challenges and opportunities for supporting individuals with severe AN within each. Our findings suggest DP treatment may be used as an alternative to IP treatment for individuals with severe AN. However, clear questions remain over which intensive treatment setting is best suited to which patient when and should be the focus of future research

A total diet replacement weight management programme for difficult-to-treat asthma associated with obesity: a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background: Obesity is often associated with uncontrolled, difficult-to-treat asthma and increased morbidity and mortality. Previous studies suggest that weight loss may improve asthma outcomes but with heterogenous asthma populations studied and unclear consensus on optimal method of weight management. The Counterweight-Plus weight management programme (CWP) is an evidence-based, dietitian-led, total diet replacement (TDR) programme. Research question: Can use of the CWP compared to usual care (UC) improve asthma control and quality of life in patients with difficult-to-treat asthma and obesity? Study design and methods: We conducted a 1:1 (CWP:UC) randomised, controlled single centre trial in adults with difficult-to-treat asthma and body mass index ≥30kg/m2. CWP: 12-week TDR phase (800kcal/day low-energy formula); stepwise food reintroduction and weight loss maintenance up to 1 year. Primary outcome: change in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ6) score over 16 weeks. Secondary outcome: change in asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) score. Results: 35 participants were randomised (36 screened) and 33 attended 16-week follow-up (17 CWP, 16 UC). Overall, mean (95%CI) ACQ6 at baseline was 2.8 (2.4, 3.1). Weight loss was greater in CWP than UC (mean difference -12.1kg; 95%CI -16.9, -7.4; p<0.001). ACQ6 improved more in CWP than UC (mean difference -0.69; 95%CI -1.37, -0.01; p=0.048). A larger proportion of participants achieved minimal clinically important difference in ACQ6 with CWP than UC (53% vs 19%; p=0.041; NNT 3 (95%CI 1.5, 26.9)). AQLQ improvement was greater in CWP than UC (mean difference 0.76; 95%CI 0.18, 1.34; p=0.013). Interpretation: Utilising a structured weight management programme results in clinically important improvements in asthma control and quality of life over 16 weeks compared to usual care, in adults with difficult-to-treat asthma and obesity. This generalisable programme is easy to deliver for this challenging phenotype. Longer-term outcomes continue to be studied

Type 2 diabetes remission: 2 year within-trial and lifetime-horizon cost-effectiveness of the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT)/Counterweight-Plus weight management programme.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Approximately 10% of total healthcare budgets worldwide are spent on treating diabetes and its complications, and budgets are increasing globally because of ageing populations and more expensive second-line medications. The aims of the study were to estimate the within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness of the weight management programme, which achieved 46% remissions of type 2 diabetes at year 1 and 36% at year 2 in the Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT). METHODS: Within-trial analysis assessed costs of the Counterweight-Plus intervention in DiRECT (including training, programme materials, practitioner appointments and low-energy diet), along with glucose-lowering and antihypertensive medications, and all routine healthcare contacts. Lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated according to projected durations of remissions, assuming continued relapse rates as seen in year 2 of DiRECT and consequent life expectancy, quality of life and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Mean total 2 year healthcare costs for the intervention and control groups were £3036 and £2420, respectively: an incremental cost of £616 (95% CI -£45, £1269). Intervention costs (£1411; 95% CI £1308, £1511) were partially offset by lower other healthcare costs (£796; 95% CI £150, £1465), including reduced oral glucose-lowering medications by £231 (95% CI £148, £314). Net remission at 2 years was 32.3% (95% CI 23.5%, 40.3%), and cost per remission achieved was £1907 (lower 95% CI: intervention dominates; upper 95% CI: £4212). Over a lifetime horizon, the intervention was modelled to achieve a mean 0.06 (95% CI 0.04, 0.09) QALY gain for the DiRECT population and mean total lifetime cost savings per participant of £1337 (95% CI £674, £2081), with the intervention becoming cost-saving within 6 years. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Incorporating the lifetime healthcare cost savings due to periods of remission from diabetes and its complications, the DiRECT intervention is predicted to be both more effective (QALY gain) and cost-saving in adults with type 2 diabetes compared with standard care. This conclusion appears robust to various less favourable model scenarios, providing strong evidence that resources could be shifted cost-effectively to support achieving remissions with the DiRECT intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN03267836 Graphical abstract

Dietary weight-management for type 2 diabetes remissions in South Asians: the South Asian diabetes remission randomised trial for proof-of-concept and feasibility (STANDby)

Background: We aimed to assess whether a structured weight management programme incorporating a total diet replacement (TDR) (3–5 months ∼850 kcal/day formula diet) weight loss phase is acceptable to people of South Asian ethnicity and can achieve type 2 diabetes (T2D) remissions similarly to other populations. Methods: Adults of South Asian ethnicity, aged 18–65 years, with T2D for ≤4 years, and BMI 25–45 kg/m2 were recruited from primary care and social media, and randomised to commence TDR either immediately (iTDR), or delayed (dTDR) for 3–5 months as a usual care control arm during this period. Intervention effects were tested in randomised comparisons powered to detect significant weight loss, and in an expanded observational analysis to determine remission effect size, including both iTDR and dTDR groups. Acceptability in those recruited was explored by questionnaire and weight change. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN10720065. Date of Registration 27/09/2017. Findings: Twenty-five eligible individuals were recruited. Mean baseline (SD) age was 45.8 (11.1) years, weight 88.2 (13.7) kg, BMI 32.1 (3.8) kg/m2, HbA1c 60.4 (11.3) mmol/mol, liver fat by MRI 15.6 (9.4)%. In the RCT, mean(SD) weight change after TDR was −7.7 (7.2)% in the intervention group (n = 13), and −1.2 (1.4)% in the usual-care control group (n = 12) (p = 0.005), with T2D remission achieved by 5/13, compared to 0/12 respectively (p = 0.039). In the observational study, 23/25 started TDR and 19/23 participants completed the TDR phase. Median time spent in TDR was 105 days (IQR 77–134 days). T2D remission was achieved in 10/23 (43%), and weight changes were concordant with the RCT. Overall, 8/23 (35%) lost over 10% bodyweight. Absolute liver fat proportion near halved from 15.3% at the start of TDR to 8.6% (p < 0.001). Interpretation: In UK-based South Asians, TDR-led weight loss and T2D remission rates are comparable to those observed in white cohorts, and the intervention was acceptable in most of those recruited. There is potential to further improve outcomes, but one-third lost >10% body weight, and the mechanism underpinning T2D remission appears similar, driven by weight change with loss of excess ectopic body-fat. Funding: We gratefully acknowledge funding for the MRI scans from the, Miss MJM Smith Trust (registered charity: SC040586). No other external funds were provided for this trial. NS is supported by the British Heart Foundation Research Excellence Award (RE/18/6/34217)

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a ‘stepping into day treatment’ approach versus inpatient treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa in adult specialist eating disorder services (DAISIES trial): a study protocol of a randomised controlled multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a 'step-down' treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation. METHODS: 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m2 and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision

Durability of a primary care-led weight-management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2-year results of the DiRECT open-label, cluster-randomised trial

Background: The DiRECT trial assessed remission of type 2 diabetes during a primary care-led weight-management programme. At 1 year, 68 (46%) of 149 intervention participants were in remission and 36 (24%) had achieved at least 15 kg weight loss. The aim of this 2-year analysis is to assess the durability of the intervention effect. Methods: DiRECT is an open-label, cluster-randomised, controlled trial done at primary care practices in the UK. Practices were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated list to provide an integrated structured weight-management programme (intervention) or best-practice care in accordance with guidelines (control), with stratification for study site (Tyneside or Scotland) and practice list size (>5700 or ≤5700 people). Allocation was concealed from the study statisticians; participants, carers, and study research assistants were aware of allocation. We recruited individuals aged 20–65 years, with less than 6 years' duration of type 2 diabetes, BMI 27–45 kg/m2, and not receiving insulin between July 25, 2014, and Aug 5, 2016. The intervention consisted of withdrawal of antidiabetes and antihypertensive drugs, total diet replacement (825–853 kcal per day formula diet for 12–20 weeks), stepped food reintroduction (2–8 weeks), and then structured support for weight-loss maintenance. The coprimary outcomes, analysed hierarchically in the intention-to-treat population at 24 months, were weight loss of at least 15 kg, and remission of diabetes, defined as HbA1c less than 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) after withdrawal of antidiabetes drugs at baseline (remission was determined independently at 12 and 24 months). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 03267836, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 149 participants per group. At 24 months, 17 (11%) intervention participants and three (2%) control participants had weight loss of at least 15 kg (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 7·49, 95% CI 2·05 to 27·32; p=0·0023) and 53 (36%) intervention participants and five (3%) control participants had remission of diabetes (aOR 25·82, 8·25 to 80·84; p<0·0001). The adjusted mean difference between the control and intervention groups in change in bodyweight was −5·4 kg (95% CI −6·9 to −4·0; p<0·0001) and in HbA1c was −4·8 mmol/mol (–8·3 to −1·4 [–0·44% (–0·76 to −0·13)]; p=0·0063), despite only 51 (40%) of 129 patients in the intervention group using anti-diabetes medication compared with 120 (84%) of 143 in the control group. In a post-hoc analysis of the whole study population, of those participants who maintained at least 10 kg weight loss (45 of 272 with data), 29 (64%) achieved remission; 36 (24%) of 149 participants in the intervention group maintained at least 10 kg weight loss. Serious adverse events were similar to those reported at 12 months, but were fewer in the intervention group than in the control group in the second year of the study (nine vs 22). Interpretation: The DiRECT programme sustained remissions at 24 months for more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes. Sustained remission was linked to the extent of sustained weight loss