Observational study of the association of first insulin type in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with macrovascular and microvascular disease

<p>Aims: To compare the risk of vascular disease, HbA1c and weight change, between first prescribed insulins in people with type 2 diabetes.</p> <p>Methods: People included in THIN United Kingdom primary care record database who began insulin (2000–2007) after poor control on oral glucose-lowering agents (OGLD) were grouped by the number of OGLDs in their treatment regimen immediately before starting insulin (n = 3,485). Within OGLD group, Cox regression compared macrovascular (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome and stroke) and microvascular disease (peripheral neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy) between insulin type (basal, pre-mix or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, NPH) while ANCOVAs compared haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and weight change.</p> <p>Results: Mean follow-up was 3.6 years. Rates of incident macrovascular events were similar when basal insulin was compared to pre-mix or NPH, adjusted hazard ratio versus basal: pre-mix 1.08 (95% CI 0.73, 1.59); NPH 1.00 (0.63, 1.58) after two OGLDs, and pre-mix 0.97 (0.46, 2.02); NPH 0.77 (0.32, 1.86) after three OGLDs. An increased risk of microvascular disease in NPH versus basal after 3 OGLDs, adjusted hazard ratio1.87 (1.04, 3.36), was not seen after two agents or in comparisons of basal and pre-mix. At one year, after two OGLDs, weight increase was less with basal compared with pre-mix. After three OGLDs, mean HbA1c had reduced less in basal versus pre-mix or NPH at 6–8 and at 9–11 months, and versus pre-mix at 12–14 months.</p> <p>Conclusion: We found no difference in the risk of macrovascular events between first insulins in the medium term when started during poor glycaemia control. The increased risk of microvascular events with NPH warrants further study. In certain groups, first use of basal insulin was associated with less gain in weight and decrease in HbA1c compared to other insulins.</p&gt

Adherence to oral glucose-lowering therapies and associations with 1-year HbA_1c:A retrospective cohort analysis in a large primary care database

JOURNAL ARTICLEOBJECTIVE: The impact of taking oral glucose-lowering medicines intermittently, rather than as recommended, is unclear. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using community-acquired U.K. clinical data (Clinical Practice Research Database [CPRD] and GoDARTS database) to examine the prevalence of nonadherence to treatment for type 2 diabetes and investigate its potential impact on HbA1c reduction stratified by type of glucose-lowering medication. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were extracted for patients treated between 2004 and 2014 who were newly-prescribed metformin, sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and who continued to obtain prescriptions over 1 year. Cohorts were defined by prescribed medication type, and good adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio ≥0.8. Linear regression was used to determine potential associations between adherence and 1-year baseline-adjusted HbA1c reduction. RESULTS: In CPRD and GoDARTS, 13% and 15% of patients, respectively, were nonadherent. Proportions of nonadherent patients varied by the oral glucose-lowering treatment prescribed (range 8.6% [thiazolidinedione] to 18.8% [metformin]). Nonadherent, compared with adherent, patients had a smaller HbA1c reduction (0.4% [4.4mmmol/mol] and 0.46% [5.0 mmol/mol] for CPRD and GoDARTs, respectively). Difference in HbA1c response for adherent compared with nonadherent patients varied by drug (range 0.38% [4.1 mmol/mol] to 0.75% [8.2 mmol/mol] lower in adherent group). Decreasing levels of adherence were consistently associated with a smaller reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced medication adherence for commonly used glucose-lowering therapies among patients persisting with treatment is associated with smaller HbA1c reductions compared with those taking treatment as recommended. Differences observed in HbA1c responses to glucose-lowering treatments may be explained in part by their intermittent use.A.J.F. and R.R.H. are National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigators and receive additional support from the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. M.N.W. was supported by a Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Award (WT097835MF). E.R.P. holds a Wellcome Trust New Investigator award. The MASTERMIND consortium is funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council MR-K005707-1. The funder of the trial had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report

Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: A qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA_1c≤6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA_1cexceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.</p

Management and efficacy of intensified insulin therapy starting in outpatients

Diabetic patients under multiple injection insulin therapy (i.e., intensified insulin therapy, IIT) usually start this treatment during hospitalization. We report here on the logistics, efficacy, and safety of IIT, started in outpatients. Over 8 months, 52 type I and type II diabetics were followed up whose insulin regimens consecutively had been changed from conventional therapy to IIT. Two different IIT strategies were compared: free mixtures of regular and intermediate (12 hrs)-acting insulin versus the basal and prandial insulin treatment with preprandial injections of regular insulin, and ultralente (24 hrs-acting) or intermediate insulin for the basal demand. After 8 months HbA1 levels had decreased from 10.6%±2.4% to 8.0%±1.3% (means±SD). There was no difference between the two regimens with respect to metabolic control; but type II patients maintained the lowered HbA1 levels better than type I patients. Only two patients were hospitalized during the follow-up time because of severe hypoglycemia. An increase of body weight due to the diet liberalization during IIT became a problem in one-third of the patients. Our results suggest that outpatient initiation of IIT is safe and efficacious with respect to near-normoglycemic control. Weight control may become a problem in IIT patients

Investigating the Evidence of the Real-Life Impact of Acute Hyperglycaemia

Poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with the development of long-term micro- and macro-vascular complications. The predominant focus of anti-diabetic therapy has been on lowering glycosylated haemoglobin levels, with a strong emphasis on fasting plasma glucose (particularly in Type 2 DM). There is considerable evidence indicating that post-meal hyperglycaemic levels are independently associated with higher risks of macro-vascular disease. Although some have identified mechanisms which may account for these observations, interventions which have specifically targeted postprandial glucose rises showed little or no effect in reducing cardiovascular risk. Clinical experience and some recent studies suggest acute hyperglycaemia affects cognition and other indicators of performance, equivalent to impairment seen during hypoglycaemia. In this brief report, we evaluated the published studies and argue that acute hyperglycaemia is worth investigating in relation to the real-life implications. In summary, evidence exists suggesting that acute hyperglycaemia may lead to impaired cognitive performance and productivity, but the relationship between these effects and daily activities remains poorly understood. Further research is required to enhance our understanding of acute hyperglycaemia in daily life. A better appreciation of clinically relevant effects of acute hyperglycaemia will allow us to determine whether it needs to be addressed by specific treatment

A cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Intermediate Care Clinics for Diabetes (ICCD) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background World-wide healthcare systems are faced with an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. In the United Kingdom, clinical care is primarily provided by general practitioners (GPs) rather than hospital specialists. Intermediate care clinics for diabetes (ICCD) potentially provide a model for supporting GPs in their care of people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes and in their management of cardiovascular risk factors. This study aims to (1) compare patients with type 2 diabetes registered with practices that have access to an ICCD service with those that have access only to usual hospital care; (2) assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention; and (3) explore the views and experiences of patients, health professionals and other stakeholders. Methods/Design This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (with integral economic evaluation and qualitative study) is set in general practices in three UK Primary Care Trusts. Practices are randomized to one of two groups with patients referred to either an ICCD (intervention) or to hospital care (control). Intervention group: GP practices in the intervention arm have the opportunity to refer patients to an ICCD - a multidisciplinary team led by a specialist nurse and a diabetologist. Patients are reviewed and managed in the ICCD for a short period with a goal of improving diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control and are then referred back to practice. or Control group: Standard GP care, with referral to secondary care as required, but no access to ICCD. Participants are adults aged 18 years or older who have type 2 diabetes that is difficult for their GPs to control. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants reaching three risk factor targets: HbA1c (≤7.0%); blood pressure (<140/80); and cholesterol (<4 mmol/l), at the end of the 18-month intervention period. The main secondary outcomes are the proportion of participants reaching individual risk factor targets and the overall 10-year risks for coronary heart disease(CHD) and stroke assessed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine. Other secondary outcomes include body mass index and waist circumference, use of medication, reported smoking, emotional adjustment, patient satisfaction and views on continuity, costs and health related quality of life. We aimed to randomize 50 practices and recruit 2,555 patients

Follow-up of phase I trial of adalimumab and rosiglitazone in FSGS: III. Report of the FONT study group

Abstract Background Patients with resistant primary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) are at high risk of progression to chronic kidney disease stage V. Antifibrotic agents may slow or halt this process. We present outcomes of follow-up after a Phase I trial of adalimumab and rosiglitazone, antifibrotic drugs tested in the Novel Therapies in Resistant FSGS (FONT) study. Methods 21 patients -- 12 males and 9 females, age 16.0 ± 7.5 yr, and estimated GFR (GFRe) 121 ± 56 mL/min/1.73 m2 -- received adalimumab (n = 10), 24 mg/m2 every 14 days or rosiglitazone (n = 11), 3 mg/m2 per day for 16 weeks. The change in GFRe per month prior to entry and after completion of the Phase I trial was compared. Results 19 patients completed the 16-week FONT treatment phase. The observation period pre-FONT was 18.3 ± 10.2 months and 16.1 ± 5.7 months after the study. A similar percentage of patients, 71% and 56%, in the rosiglitazone and adalimumab cohorts, respectively, had stabilization in GFRe, defined as a reduced negative slope of the line plotting GFRe versus time without requiring renal replacement therapy after completion of the FONT treatment period (P = 0.63). Conclusion Nearly 50% of patients with resistant FSGS who receive novel antifibrotic agents may have a legacy effect with delayed deterioration in kidney function after completion of therapy. Based on this proof-of-concept preliminary study, we recommend long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in clinical trials to ascertain a more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of experimental treatments

The effect of a brief action planning intervention on adherence to double-blind study medication, compared to a standard trial protocol, in the Atorvastatin in Factorial with Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD) clinical trial: A cluster randomised sub-study

AIMS: Clinical trial patients are highly motivated but may encounter difficulty in taking study medication regularly when treatment burden is substantial. We assessed a brief behavioural intervention, given in addition to a standard trial protocol. METHODS: We performed a two-arm adherence sub-study within a twelve-month randomised controlled drug trial evaluating the impact of statin and/or omega-3 EE90 treatment in 800 patients with type 2 diabetes. Fifty-nine United Kingdom general practices were cluster-randomised to action-planning or control groups. The former delivered an initial written exercise prompting participants to formulate action-plans to take study medication regularly, with brief nurse encouragement to use action-plans at later visits, whilst the latter followed the standard trial protocol. The primary outcome was proportion of days on which study medication were taken as intended measured by electronic medication containers. RESULTS: Adjusted mean (95% CI) proportion of days with medication taken as intended was 79.3% (76.3-82.3%)for the 30 action-planning practices (321 participants), compared with 78.5% (75.8-81.1%) for 27 control group practices (426 participants, with a mean intervention effect of 0.9%, 95% CI -3.1% to +4.9%, p=0.67). Adjusted odds ratios for ⩾80% trial medication adherence for action-planning compared with control practices were 1.29 (0.90-1.84) and 1.38 (0.96-1.99) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity action-planning interventions used alone are unlikely to have a clinically important impact on medication adherence, particularly in a clinical trial setting. These findings, do not exclude their contribution, as part of a multifactorial intervention, to improving treatment adherence. ISRCTN number 76737502.Pfizer Ltd