Differences in level of confidence in diabetes care between different groups of trainees: the TOPDOC diabetes study

Background There is an increasing prevalence of diabetes. Doctors in training, irrespective of specialty, will have patients with diabetes under their care. The aim of this further evaluation of the TOPDOC Diabetes Study data was to identify if there was any variation in confidence in managing diabetes depending on the geographical location of trainees and career aspirations. Methods An online national survey using a pre-validated questionnaire was administered to trainee doctors. A 4-point confidence rating scale was used to rate confidence in managing aspects of diabetes care and a 6-point scale used to quantify how often trainees would contribute to the management of patients with diabetes. Responses were grouped depending on which UK country trainees were based and their intended career choice. Results Trainees in Northern Ireland reported being less confident in IGT diagnosis, use of IV insulin and peri-operative management and were less likely to adjust oral treatment, contact specialist, educate lifestyle, and optimise treatment. Trainees in Scotland were less likely to contact a specialist, but more likely to educate on lifestyle, change insulin, and offer follow-up advice. In Northern Ireland, Undergraduate (UG) and Postgraduate (PG) training in diagnosis was felt less adequate, PG training in emergencies less adequate, and reporting of need for further training higher. Trainees in Wales felt UG training to be inadequate. In Scotland more trainees felt UG training in diagnosis and optimising treatment was inadequate. Physicians were more likely to report confidence in managing patients with diabetes and to engage in different aspects of diabetes care. Aspiring physicians were less likely to feel the need for more training in diabetes care; however a clear majority still felt they needed more training in all aspects of care. Conclusions Doctors in training have poor confidence levels dealing with diabetes related care issues. Although there is variability between different groups of trainees according to geographical location and career aspirations, this is a UK wide issue. There should be a UK wide standardised approach to improving training for junior doctors in diabetes care with local training guided by specific needs.</p

Testing the performance of risk prediction models to determine progression to referable diabetic retinopathy in an Irish type 2 diabetes cohort

Background /aims: To evaluate the performance of existing prediction models to determine risk of progression to referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) using data from a prospective Irish cohort of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: A cohort of 939 people with T2D followed prospectively was used to test the performance of risk prediction models developed in Gloucester, UK, and Iceland. Observed risk of progression to RDR in the Irish cohort was compared with that derived from each of the prediction models evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curves assessed models' performance. Results: The cohort was followed for a total of 2929 person years during which 2906 screening episodes occurred. Among 939 individuals followed, there were 40 referrals (4%) for diabetic maculopathy, pre-proliferative DR and proliferative DR. The original Gloucester model, which includes results of two consecutive retinal screenings; a model incorporating, in addition, systemic biomarkers (HbA1c and serum cholesterol); and a model including results of one retinopathy screening, HbA1c, total cholesterol and duration of diabetes, had acceptable discriminatory power (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69, 0.76 and 0.77, respectively). The Icelandic model, which combined retinopathy grading, duration and type of diabetes, HbA1c and systolic blood pressure, performed very similarly (AUC of 0.74). Conclusion: In an Irish cohort of people with T2D, the prediction models tested had an acceptable performance identifying those at risk of progression to RDR. These risk models would be useful in establishing more personalised screening intervals for people with T2D

Prevalence of admission plasma glucose in 'diabetes' or 'at risk' ranges in hospital emergencies with no prior diagnosis of diabetes by gender, age and ethnicity

Aims To establish the prevalence of admission plasma glucose in 'diabetes' and 'at risk' ranges in emergency hospital admissions with no prior diagnosis of diabetes; characteristics of people with hyperglycaemia; and factors influencing glucose measurement. Methods Electronic patient records for 113 097 hospital admissions over 1 year from 2014 to 2015 included 43 201 emergencies with glucose available for 31 927 (74%) admissions, comprising 22 045 people. Data are presented for 18 965 people with no prior diagnosis of diabetes and glucose available on first attendance. Results Three quarters (14 214) were White Europeans aged 62 (43-78) years, median (IQ range); 12% (2241) South Asians 46 (32-64) years; 9% (1726) Unknown/Other ethnicities 43 (29-61) years; and 4% (784) Afro-Caribbeans 49 (33-63) years,  24 hours. Conclusions Hyperglycaemia was evident in 21% of adults admitted as an emergency; various aspects related to follow-up and initial testing, age and ethnicity need to be considered by professional bodies addressing undiagnosed diabetes in hospital admissions

The influence of background diabetic retinopathy in the second eye on rates of progression of diabetic retinopathy between 2005 and 2010

Abstract PURPOSE: The Gloucestershire Diabetic Eye Screening Programme offers annual digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy to a countywide population of people with diabetes. This study was designed to investigate progression of diabetic retinopathy in this programme of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. METHODS: Mydriatic digital retinal photographs of people with diabetes screened on at least 2 occasions between 2005 and 2010 were graded and included in this study if the classification at first screening was no DR (R0), background DR in one (R1a) or both eyes (R1b). Times to detection of referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) comprising maculopathy (M1), preproliferative (R2) or proliferative retinopathy (R3) were analysed using survival models. RESULTS: Data were available on 19 044 patients, 56% men, age at screening 66 (57-74) years (median, 25th, 75th centile). A total of 8.3% of those with R1a and 28.2% of those with R1b progressed to any RDR, hazard ratios 2.9 [2.5-3.3] and 11.3 [10.0-12.8]. Similarly 7.1% and 0.11% of those with R1a progressed to M1 and R3, hazard ratios 2.7 [2.3-3.2] and 1.6 [0.5-5.0], compared to 21.8% and 1.07% of those with R1b, hazard ratio 9.1 [7.8-10.4] and 15.0 [7.1-31.5]. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of progression is significantly higher for those with background DR in both eyes than those with background retinopathy in only one or in neither eye

Can HbA1c detect undiagnosed diabetes in acute medical hospital admissions?

Objective: to study hyperglycaemia in acute medical admissions to Irish regional hospital.Research design and methods: from 2005 to 2007, 2061 white Caucasians, aged &gt;18 years, were admitted by 1/7 physicians. Those with diabetes symptoms/complications but no previous record of hyperglycaemia (n = 390), underwent OGTT with concurrent HbA1c in representative subgroup (n = 148). Comparable data were obtained for 108 primary care patients at risk of diabetes.Results: diabetes was diagnosed immediately by routine practice in 1% (22/2061) [aged 36 (26–61) years (median IQ range)/55% (12/22) male] with pre-existing diabetes/dysglycaemia present in 19% (390/2061) [69 (58–80) years/60% (235/390) male].Possible diabetes symptoms/complications were identified in 19% [70 (59–79) years/57% (223/390) male] with their HbA1c similar to primary care patients [54 (46–61) years], 5.7 (5.3–6.0)%/39 (34–42) mmol/mol (n = 148) vs 5.7 (5.4–6.1)%/39 (36–43) mmol/mol, p = 0.35, but lower than those diagnosed on admission, 10.2 (7.4–13.3)%/88 (57–122) mmol/mol, p &lt; 0.001. Their fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was similar to primary care patients, 5.2 (4.8–5.7) vs 5.2 (4.8–5.9) mmol/L, p = 0.65, but 2hPG higher, 9.0 (7.3–11.4) vs 5.5 (4.4–7.5), p &lt; 0.001.HbA1c identified diabetes in 10% (15/148) with 14 confirmed on OGTT but overall 32% (48/148) were in diabetic range on OGTT. The specificity of HbA1c in 2061 admissions was similar to primary care, 99% vs 96%, p = 0.20, but sensitivity lower, 38% vs 93%, p &lt; 0.001 (63% on FPG/23% on 2hPG, p = 0.037, in those with possible symptoms/complications).Conclusion: HbA1c can play a diagnostic role in acute medicine as it diagnosed another 2% of admissions with diabetes but the discrepancy in sensitivity shows that it does not reflect transient/acute hyperglycaemia resulting from the acute medical event.</p

Safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR open-label, equivalence RCT

Aims/hypothesis Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide ranging input from individuals with diabetes. Methods This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives. Results A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference −1.0 [95% CI −3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference −0.3 [95% CI −1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero

Safety, Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Individualised Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: The ISDR Randomised Controlled Trial

Background: varying diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening intervals, informed by personal risk-levels, empowers people with diabetes (PWD), and offers reallocation of resources to high risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. Safety data on extending intervals is minimal. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and cost effectiveness of individualised risk-based variable-interval population screening compared to usual care, with design input from PWD.Methods: two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial (minimum 2 year follow-up) in PWD aged ≥12 years registered with one English screening programme. Randomisation was 1:1 to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months for high, medium and low risk) determined by a risk calculation engine, using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control). Primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight threatening DR (STDR). Cost effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from NHS and societal perspectives.Findings: 4534 participants were randomised, 2265 to the individualised and 2269 to the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between individualised (1754/2097, 83·6%) and control (1883/2224, 84·7%) arms (difference -1·0, 95% CI -3·2 to 1·2). STDR detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1·4%, control 1·7% (- 0·3, -1·1 to 0·5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings. Incremental QALYs/person were non-significant: EQ-5D-5L 0·035 (CI -0·04, 0·13), HUI3 0·009 (CI -0·09, 0·10). Incremental cost savings were £21·31 (CI 15·24, 26·79)/person for the NHS and £28·87 (CI 21·08, 35·78) including societal costs. 43·2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm.Interpretation: stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this largest ophthalmic RCT in DR screening to date that extended and individualised risk-based intervals can be safely and cost effectively introduced in established screening programmes

Associations with photoreceptor thickness measures in the UK Biobank.

Spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) provides high resolution images enabling identification of individual retinal layers. We included 32,923 participants aged 40-69 years old from UK Biobank. Questionnaires, physical examination, and eye examination including SD-OCT imaging were performed. SD OCT measured photoreceptor layer thickness includes photoreceptor layer thickness: inner nuclear layer-retinal pigment epithelium (INL-RPE) and the specific sublayers of the photoreceptor: inner nuclear layer-external limiting membrane (INL-ELM); external limiting membrane-inner segment outer segment (ELM-ISOS); and inner segment outer segment-retinal pigment epithelium (ISOS-RPE). In multivariate regression models, the total average INL-RPE was observed to be thinner in older aged, females, Black ethnicity, smokers, participants with higher systolic blood pressure, more negative refractive error, lower IOPcc and lower corneal hysteresis. The overall INL-ELM, ELM-ISOS and ISOS-RPE thickness was significantly associated with sex and race. Total average of INL-ELM thickness was additionally associated with age and refractive error, while ELM-ISOS was additionally associated with age, smoking status, SBP and refractive error; and ISOS-RPE was additionally associated with smoking status, IOPcc and corneal hysteresis. Hence, we found novel associations of ethnicity, smoking, systolic blood pressure, refraction, IOPcc and corneal hysteresis with photoreceptor thickness

Progression of diabetes retinal status within community screening programmes and potential implications for screening intervals

Objective This study aimed to follow the natural progression of retinal changes in patients with diabetes. Such information should inform decisions with regard to the screening intervals for such patients Research Design and Methods An observational study was undertaken linking the data from seven diabetes retinal screening programmes across the UK for retinal grading results between 2005 and 2012. Patients with absent or background retinopathy were followed up for progression to the endpoints referable retinopathy, and treatable retinopathy (proliferative retinopathy). Results In total 354,549 patients were observed for up to four years during which 16,196 progressed to referable retinopathy. Of patients with no retinopathy in either eye for two successive screening episodes at least 12 months apart between 0.3 (95% confidence interval 0.3-0.8)% and 1.3 (1.0-1.6)% progressed to referable retinopathy and rates of treatable eye disease were less than 0.3% at two years. The corresponding progression rates for patients with bilateral background retinopathy in successive screening episodes was 13-29% and up to 4% respectively in the different programmes. Conclusions It may be possible to risk stratify patients according to baseline retinal criteria into low and high risk of progressing to proliferative retinopathy. Screening intervals for such diverse groups of patients could safely be modified according to their risk