Transferability of the NHS low-calorie diet programme: A qualitative exploration of factors influencing the programme's transfer ahead of wide-scale adoption.

INTRODUCTION: Although behavioural interventions have been found to help control type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to understand how the delivery context can influence implementation and outcomes. The NHS committed to testing a low-calorie diet (LCD) programme designed to support people living with excess weight and T2D to lose weight and improve diabetes outcomes. Understanding what influenced implementation during the programme pilot is important in optimising rollout. This study explored the transferability of the NHS LCD Programme prior to wider adoption. METHODS: Twenty-five interviews were undertaken with stakeholders involved in implementing the LCD programme in pilot sites (health service leads, referring health professionals and programme deliverers). Interviews with programme participants (people living with T2D) were undertaken within a larger programme of work, exploring what worked, for whom and why, which is reported separately. The conceptual Population-Intervention-Environment-Transfer Model of Transferability (PIET-T) guided study design and data collection. Constructs of the model were also used as a deductive coding frame during data analysis. Key themes were identified which informed recommendations to optimise programme transfer. RESULTS: Population: Referral strategies in some areas lacked consideration of population characteristics. Many believed that offering a choice of delivery model would promote acceptability and accessibility of the eligible population. INTERVENTION: Overall, stakeholders had confidence in the LCD programme due to the robust evidence base along with anecdotal evidence, but some felt the complex referral process hindered engagement from GP practices. ENVIRONMENT: Stakeholders described barriers to accessing the programme, including language and learning difficulties. Transferability: Multidisciplinary working and effective communication supported successful implementation. CONCLUSION: Referral strategies to reach underrepresented groups should be considered during programme transfer, along with timely data from service providers on access and programme benefits. A choice of delivery models may optimise uptake. Knowledge sharing between sites on good working practices is encouraged, including increasing engagement with key stakeholders.

Normalisation and equity of referral to the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme pilot; a qualitative evaluation of the experiences of health care staff.

BACKGROUND: Health and wellbeing can be profoundly impacted by both obesity and type 2 diabetes, while the normalisation and equity of care for people living with these non-communicable diseases remain as challenges for local health systems. The National Health Service Low Calorie Diet programme in England, aims to support people to achieve type 2 diabetes remission, while also reducing health inequalities. We have explored the experiences of health care staff who have made a referral to the LCD programme, while identifying effective and equitable delivery of programme referrals, and their normalisation into routine care. METHODS: Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews were completed health care staff in the first year of the Low Calorie Diet programme. Interviewees were purposively sampled from the ten localities who undertook the Low Calorie Diet programme pilot. Each interview explored a number of topics of interest including communication and training, referrals, equity, and demands on primary care, before being subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: From the data, five core themes were identified: Covid-19 and the demands on primary care, the expertise and knowledge of referrers, patient identification and the referral process, barriers to referrals and who gets referred to the NHS LCD programme. Our findings demonstrate the variation in the real world settings of a national diabetes programme. It highlights the challenge of COVID-19 for health care staff, whereby the increased workload of referrals occurred at a time when capacity was curtailed. We have also identified several barriers to referral and have shown that referrals had not yet been normalised into routine care at the point of data collection. We also raise issues of equity in the referral process, as not all eligible people are informed about the programme. CONCLUSIONS: Referral generation had not yet been consistently normalised into routine care, yet our findings suggest that the LCD programme runs the risk of normalising an inequitable referral process. Inequalities remain a significant challenge, and the adoption of an equitable referral process, normalised at a service delivery level, has the capacity to contribute to the improvement of health inequalities.

Commercial provider staff experiences of the NHS low calorie diet programme pilot: a qualitative exploration of key barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission programme in England (known as the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme when piloted) was established to support people living with excess weight and Type 2 Diabetes to lose weight and improve their glycaemic control. A mixed method evaluation was commissioned to provide an enhanced understanding of the long-term cost effectiveness of the pilot programme, its implementation, equity and transferability across broad and diverse populations. This study provided key insights on implementation and equity from the service providers' perspective. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups were conducted with commercial providers of the programme, during the initial pilot rollout. Participants were purposively sampled across all provider organisations and staff roles involved in implementing and delivering the programme. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to design the topic schedule, with the addition of topics on equity and person-centredness. Data were thematically analysed using NPT constructs with additional inductively created codes. Codes were summarised, and analytical themes generated. RESULTS: The programme was found to fulfil the requirements for normalisation from the providers' perspective. However, barriers were identified in engaging GP practices and receiving sufficient referrals, as well as supporting service users through challenges to remain compliant. There was variation in communication and training between provider sites. Areas for learning and improvement included adapting systems and processes and closing the gap where needs of service users are not fully met. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the pilot programme demonstrated that it was workable when supported by effective primary care engagement, comprehensive training, and effective internal and external communication. However, limitations were identified in relation to programme specifications e.g. eligibility criteria, service specification and local commissioning decisions e.g. pattern of roll out, incentivisation of general practice. A person-centred approach to care is fundamental and should include cultural adaptation(s), and the assessment and signposting to additional support and services where required.

Care processes in people in remission from type 2 diabetes: A cohort study using the National Diabetes Audit.

AIMS: People with type 2 diabetes can enter remission but may relapse or develop legacy complications. This analysis assesses whether people with remission from type 2 diabetes continue receiving annual care processes recommended in national guidelines and the potential impacts of formal recognition of remission. METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes with and without formal recognition (diagnostic code) of remission, and with and without evidence of remission (HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol without prescription for glucose-lowering drugs in preceding 26 weeks), included in the 2018/19 National Diabetes Audit (NDA) for England and Wales were followed up to identify care processes received between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2020. RESULTS: Of the 2,822,145 people with type 2 diabetes in the cohort, 16,460 (0.58%) were coded with remission in the 2018/19 NDA. After adjustment for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, people coded with remission were less likely to receive each care process than those without such coding irrespective of HbA1c measurements (relative risk (RR) of receiving all 8 care processes 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.72)). For the 339,235 people with evidence of remission, irrespective of diagnostic coding compared to those without such evidence, the RR for receiving all 8 care processes was 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: People coded with remission of type 2 diabetes were less likely to receive diabetes care processes than those without such coding. People with evidence of remission had only a slightly reduced likelihood of receiving care processes. Formal recognition of remission may affect the provision or uptake of care processes.

Effectiveness of digital and remote provision of the Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: To assess weight change in the Healthier You: NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP) delivered via video conferencing (remote) sessions or delivered via specific digital interventions through apps or websites, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to group-based face-to-face interventions, pre-pandemic. METHODS: Prospectively collected national service-level data relating to individuals with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol (6.0%-6.4%) or fasting plasma glucose 5.5-6.9 mmol/L) referred to the NHS DPP from June 2016 to March 2022. RESULTS: Between March 2020 and March 2022, 335,961 people were referred to the programme and were offered a choice of remote or digital intervention. This was preceded by 556,793 people referred to the face-to-face programme between June 2016 and February 2022. Uptakes to intervention sessions were 47% for those offered a choice and 39% for face-to-face. Remote and digital participants were significantly younger (60 and 56 vs. 65 years) and heavier (86.1 kg and 91.0 kg vs. 84.1 kg) compared to face-to-face. Weight change was assessed for 42,407 remote, 7699 digital and 97,205 face-to-face participants with sufficient time to have finished the programme and no missing data. Mean weight losses for participants attending at least one intervention session were: 2.40 (2.36-2.44) kg, 2.59 (2.49-2.68) kg and 2.01 (1.98-2.04) kg for remote, digital and face-to-face participants respectively. Corresponding mean weight losses for those who completed the programme were: 3.24 (3.19-3.30) kg, 4.76 (4.60-4.92) kg and 3.04 (3.00-3.07) kg. There were no significant differences in weight change between interventions by ethnicity and deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Weight losses achieved through remote and digital interventions were greater than those previously achieved through face-to-face interventions, without evidence of exacerbation of health inequalities.

Prediabetes, participation in the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme, and associations with COVID-19-related mortality: A whole population study.

AIMS: To assess the effects of non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH, also known as pre-diabetes), including the impact of the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP), on COVID-19-related mortality during the pandemic. METHODS: This study included all 61,438,225 individuals registered with General Practices in England and alive on 1st March 2020. We assessed COVID-19-related mortality in the 2,290,280(3.7 %) individuals with diagnosed NDH between March 2020 and February 2022 compared to those without diagnosed NDH or diabetes using Cox regression to adjust for demographic factors and cardiovascular comorbidities. Individuals with diagnosed NDH were further sub-categorised based on their contact with the NHS DPP (N = 376,590). Analyses were stratified by age (years) (<50, 50-69 and ≥ 70). RESULTS: There were 158,070 COVID-19 deaths; 17,280(11 %) for people with diagnosed NDH. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.95(0.93-0.96),p < 0.001 for those with diagnosed NDH compared to those without diagnosed diabetes or NDH. By age (years), HRs were, 2.53(2.23-2.88),p < 0.001 for < 50, 1.29(1.24-1.35),p < 0.001 for 50-69 and 0.87(0.85-0.89),p < 0.001 for ≥ 70. NHS DPP attendance was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality with a dose-response relationship with engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Younger people with diagnosed NDH were at higher relative risk of COVID-19 mortality. Attendance at the NHS DPP was associated with significantly lower COVID-19-related mortality.

A Qualitative evaluation in community settings in England exploring the experiences of coaches delivering the NHS Low Calorie Diet programme pilot to ethnically diverse participants.

BACKGROUND: The management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) within diverse ethnic populations requires a culturally tailored approach. However, little is known about the experiences of coaches delivering interventions for T2D, such as the National Health Service (NHS) Low Calorie Diet (LCD) programme, to people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of coaches delivering an NHS programme using total diet replacement approaches to individuals from diverse ethnic backgrounds, to inform the effective tailoring and equitable delivery of future interventions. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Individuals delivering the NHS LCD programme. PARTICIPANTS: One-to-one semistructured interviews were conducted with seven health coaches delivering the NHS LCD programme. Inclusion criteria included participants delivering the NHS LCD programme either from a minoritised ethnic background or delivering the programme to those from ethnic minority and white British backgrounds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted through different stages of the programme. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Key themes highlighted the following experiences of delivering the LCD programme: (1) training and support needs; (2) needing to understand culture and ethnicity; (3) the impact of language; (4) the use of resources in providing dietary advice and (5) experiences of cultural tailoring. The themes highlight the need to prioritise person-centred care, to integrate culturally tailored approaches and for provision of education and training to those delivering health programmes. CONCLUSION: These findings describe the experiences of health coaches in tailoring delivery and emphasise the role of cultural competence in ensuring equitable and effective healthcare interventions for diverse populations. This learning can inform future programmes and policies aimed at promoting inclusive healthcare practices.

Is the NHS low-calorie diet programme delivered as planned? An observational study examining adherence of intervention delivery to service specification.

Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) are chronic conditions with significant personal, societal, and economic impacts. Expanding on existing trial evidence, the NHS piloted a 52-week low-calorie diet programme for T2DM, delivered by private providers using total diet replacement products and behaviour change support. This study aimed to determine the extent to which providers and coaches adhered to the service specification outlined by NHS England. An observational qualitative study was conducted to examine the delivery of both one-to-one and group-based delivery of programme sessions. Observations of 122 sessions across eight programme delivery samples and two service providers were completed. Adherence to the service specification was stronger for those outcomes that were easily measurable, such as weight and blood glucose, while less tangible elements of the specification, such as empowering service users, and person-centred delivery were less consistently observed. One-to-one sessions were more successful in their person-centred delivery, and the skills of the coaches delivering the sessions had a strong impact on adherence to the specification. Overall, the results show that there was variability by provider and delivery mode in the extent to which sessions of the NHS Low-Calorie Diet Programme reflected the intended service specification. In subsequent programmes it is recommended that one-to-one sessions are used, with accompanying peer support, and that providers improve standardised training and quality assurance to ensure specification adherence.

Early outcomes of referrals to the English National Health Service Digital Weight Management Programme.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess participant weight change for the English National Health Service (NHS) Digital Weight Management Programme, the first such digital intervention to achieve population coverage. METHODS: A service evaluation was used to assess intervention effectiveness for adults with obesity and a diagnosis of hypertension and/or diabetes, between April 2021 and March 2022, using prospectively collected, national service-level data in England. RESULTS: Of the 63,937 referrals made from general practices, within the time period, 31,861 (50%) chose to take up the 12-week Programme. There were 31,718 participants who had time to finish the Programme; of those, 14,268 completed the Programme (defined as attending ≥60%), a 45% completion rate. The mean weight change for those who had time to finish the Programme was -2.2 kg (95% CI: -2.25 to -2.16), for those who completed it was -3.9 kg (95% CI: -3.99 to -3.84), and for those who had time to finish the Programme but did not complete it was -0.74 kg (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The NHS Digital Weight Management Programme is effective at achieving clinically meaningful weight loss. The outcomes compare favorably to web-based weight management interventions tested in randomized trials and those delivered as face-to-face interventions, and results suggest that the approach may, with increased participation, bring population-level benefits.

South Asian individuals' experiences on the NHS low-calorie diet programme: a qualitative study in community settings in England.

BACKGROUND: Existing literature examines barriers to the provision of ethnically diverse dietary advice, however, is not specific to total diet replacement (TDR). There is a lack of literature from the UK, limiting the potential applicability of existing findings and themes to the UK context. This study addresses this gap in research by interviewing participants of South Asian ethnicity who have undertaken the National Health Service (NHS) low-calorie diet programme (LCD) for people with type 2 diabetes living with overweight or obesity. This study explores factors that may affect the uptake and acceptability of its TDR, food reintroduction and weight maintenance stages. This aims to provide rich data that can inform effective tailoring of future programmes with South Asian participants. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of individuals of South Asian ethnicity on an NHS programme using TDR approaches for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Individuals in the community undertaking the NHS LCD programme. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve one-to-one interviews were conducted with individuals from a South Asian ethnicity participating in the NHS LCD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted through different stages of the programme. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Key themes highlighted positive and negative experiences of the programme: (1) more work is needed in the programme for person centeredness; (2) it is not the same taste; (3) needing motivation to make changes and feel better; (4) a mixed relationship with the coach; (5) social experiences; (6) culture-related experiences. CONCLUSION: This study provides important experience-based evidence of the need for culturally tailored T2D programmes. Action to address these findings and improve the tailoring of the NHS LCD may improve experience, retention and outcomes on the programme for people of South Asian ethnicity and thereby reduce inequalities.

Prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (multimorbidity) in England: a whole population study of over 60 million people.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) at whole English population level, stratifying by age, sex, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. DESIGN: A whole population study. SETTING: Individuals registered with a general practice in England and alive on 31 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 60,004,883 individuals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: MLTC prevalence, defined as two or more of 35 conditions derived from a number of national patient-level datasets. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the independent associations of age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation decile with odds of MLTC. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of MLTC was 14.8% (8,878,231), varying from 0.9% (125,159) in those aged 0-19 years to 68.2% (1,905,979) in those aged 80 years and over. In multivariable regression analyses, compared with the 50-59 reference group, the odds ratio was 0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.04; p < 0.001) for those aged 0-19 years and 10.21 (10.18-10.24; p < 0.001) for those aged 80 years and over. Odds were higher for men compared with women, 1.02 (1.02-1.02; p < 0.001), for the most deprived decile compared with the least deprived, 2.26 (2.25-2.27; p < 0.001), and for Asian ethnicity compared with those of white ethnicity, 1.05 (1.04-1.05; p < 0.001). Odds were lower for black, mixed and other ethnicities (0.94 (0.94-0.95) p < 0.001, 0.87 (0.87-0.88) p < 0.001 and 0.57 (0.56-0.57) p < 0.001, respectively). MLTC for persons aged 0-19 years were dominated by asthma, autism and epilepsy, for persons aged 20-49 years by depression and asthma, for persons aged 50-59 years by hypertension and depression and for those aged 60 years and older, by cardiometabolic factors and osteoarthritis. There were large numbers of combinations of conditions in each age group ranging from 5936 in those aged 0-19 years to 205,534 in those aged 80 years and over. CONCLUSIONS: While this study provides useful insight into the burden across the English population to assist health service delivery planning, the heterogeneity of MLTC presents challenges for delivery optimisation.

Associations between reductions in routine care delivery and non-COVID-19-related mortality in people with diabetes in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based parallel cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, part of the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, highlighted an emerging signal of increased non-COVID-19-related deaths in England between July and October, 2021, with a potentially disproportionate higher increase in people with diabetes. We aimed to substantiate and quantify this apparent excess mortality, and to investigate the association between diabetes routine care delivery and non-COVID-19-related-mortality in people with diabetes before and after the onset of the pandemic. METHODS: In this population-based parallel cohort study, we used the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) to identify people with diabetes in England. The primary outcome was non-COVID-19-related deaths between July 3, 2021, and Oct 15, 2021, in participants in the 2021 COVID-19 cohort (registered in the NDA in the periods Jan 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, and Jan 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021) compared with deaths between June 29, 2019, and Oct 11, 2019 (the equivalent 15-week period in 2019) in the 2019 pre-COVID-19 comparator cohort (people registered in the NDA in the periods Jan 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, and Jan 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019). In each cohort, multivariable logistic regression examined whether completion of eight diabetes care processes in each of the two years before the index mortality year was associated with non-COVID-19-related death, adjusting for diabetes type, age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic deprivation. FINDINGS: There were 3 218 570 people in the 2021 cohort and 2 973 645 people in the 2019 comparator cohort. In the 2021 cohort, there were 30 118 non-COVID-19-related deaths in people with diabetes, compared with 27 132 in the comparator cohort, representing an 11% increase (95% CI 9-13). The unadjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for mortality in the 2021 cohort compared to the 2019 cohort was 1·026 (1·009-1·043; p=0·003), which was unchanged after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and diabetes type (IRR 1·023 (1·006-1·040); p=0·007). In the 2021 cohort, 853 660 (26·5%) people received all eight care processes in 2020-21 compared with 1 547 240 (48·1%) people in 2019-20; a 44·8% (95% CI 44·7-45·0) relative reduction. In the pre-COVID-19 comparator cohort, 1 370 315 (46·1%) people with diabetes received all eight care processes in 2018-19 compared with 1 437 740 (48·3%) in 2017-18; a 4·7% (95% CI 4·5-4·9) relative decrease. Non-COVID-19-related mortality in the 2021 cohort was highest in people who did not receive all eight care processes in either of the two previous years (OR 2·67 [95% CI 2·56-2·77]; p<0·001) compared with those who received all eight care processes in both previous years. Mortality was also significantly higher in those who received all eight care processes in 2019-20 but not in 2020-21 (OR 1·66 [95% CI 1·59-1·73]; p<0·001) or not in 2019-20 but in 2020-21 (OR 1·27 [1·20-1·35]; p<0·001). This pattern of association was similar in the 2019 pre-COVID-19 cohort. INTERPRETATION: Our results show an increased risk of mortality in those who did not receive all eight care processes in one or both of the previous two years. Our results provide evidence that the increased rate of non-COVID-19-related mortality in people with diabetes in England observed between July 3, and Oct 15 of 2021 is associated with a reduction in completion of routine diabetes care processes following the pandemic onset in 2020. FUNDING: None.

Incidence and Characteristics of Remission of Type 2 Diabetes in England: A Cohort Study Using the National Diabetes Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of remission of type 2 diabetes in routine care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol [6.5%] or <48 mmol/mol [6.5%] with a prescription for glucose-lowering medications) alive on 1 April 2018 were identified from a national collation of health records in England and followed until 31 December 2019. Remission was defined as two HbA1c measurements of <48 mmol/mol (6.5%) at least 182 days apart, with no prescription for glucose-lowering medications 90 days before these measurements. RESULTS: In 2,297,700 people with type 2 diabetes, the overall incidence of remission per 1,000 person-years was 9.7 (95% CI 9.6-9.8) and 44.9 (95% CI 44.0-45.7) in 75,610 (3.3%) people who were diagnosed <1 year. In addition to shorter duration of diagnosis, baseline factors associated with higher odds of remission were no prescription for glucose-lowering medication, lower HbA1c and BMI, BMI reduction, White ethnicity, female sex, and lower socioeconomic deprivation. Among 8,940 (0.4%) with characteristics associated with remission (diagnosed <2 years, HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [7.0%], prescribed metformin alone or no glucose-lowering medications, BMI reduction of ≥10%), incidence of remission per 1,000 person-years was 83.2 (95% CI 78.7-87.9). CONCLUSIONS: Remission of type 2 diabetes was generally infrequent in routine care settings but may be a reasonable goal for a subset of people who lose a significant amount of weight shortly after diagnosis. Policies that encourage intentional remission of type 2 diabetes should seek to reduce the ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities identified.

Prescription of glucose-lowering therapies and risk of COVID-19 mortality in people with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide observational study in England.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, hyperglycaemia is an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Associations between pre-infection prescription for glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes have been postulated but only investigated in small studies and limited to a few agents. We investigated whether there are associations between prescription of different classes of glucose-lowering drugs and risk of COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a nationwide observational cohort study done with data from the National Diabetes Audit for people with type 2 diabetes and registered with a general practice in England since 2003. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of COVID-19-related mortality in people prescribed each class of glucose-lowering drug, with covariate adjustment with a propensity score to address confounding by demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors. FINDINGS: Among the 2 851 465 people with type 2 diabetes included in our analyses, 13 479 (0·5%) COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period (Feb 16 to Aug 31, 2020), corresponding to a rate of 8·9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 8·7-9·0). The adjusted HR associated with recorded versus no recorded prescription was 0·77 (95% CI 0·73-0·81) for metformin and 1·42 (1·35-1·49) for insulin. Adjusted HRs for prescription of other individual classes of glucose-lowering treatment were as follows: 0·75 (0·48-1·17) for meglitinides, 0·82 (0·74-0·91) for SGLT2 inhibitors, 0·94 (0·82-1·07) for thiazolidinediones, 0·94 (0·89-0·99) for sulfonylureas, 0·94 (0·83-1·07) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, 1·07 (1·01-1·13) for DPP-4 inhibitors, and 1·26 (0·76-2·09) for α-glucosidase inhibitors. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence of associations between prescription of some glucose-lowering drugs and COVID-19-related mortality, although the differences in risk are small and these findings are likely to be due to confounding by indication, in view of the use of different drug classes at different stages of type 2 diabetes disease progression. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no clear indication to change prescribing of glucose-lowering drugs in people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: None.

Risk factors for COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in England: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has been associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality, but the association between modifiable risk factors, including hyperglycaemia and obesity, and COVID-19-related mortality among people with diabetes is unclear. We assessed associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a population-based cohort study of people with diagnosed diabetes who were registered with a general practice in England. National population data on people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes collated by the National Diabetes Audit were linked to mortality records collated by the Office for National Statistics from Jan 2, 2017, to May 11, 2020. We identified the weekly number of deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes during the first 19 weeks of 2020 and calculated the percentage change from the mean number of deaths for the corresponding weeks in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The associations between risk factors (including sex, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, HbA1c, renal impairment [from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)], BMI, tobacco smoking status, and cardiovascular comorbidities) and COVID-19-related mortality (defined as International Classification of Diseases, version 10, code U07.1 or U07.2 as a primary or secondary cause of death) between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, were investigated by use of Cox proportional hazards models. FINDINGS: Weekly death registrations in the first 19 weeks of 2020 exceeded the corresponding 3-year weekly averages for 2017-19 by 672 (50·9%) in people with type 1 diabetes and 16 071 (64·3%) in people with type 2 diabetes. Between Feb 16 and May 11, 2020, among 264 390 people with type 1 diabetes and 2 874 020 people with type 2 diabetes, 1604 people with type 1 diabetes and 36 291 people with type 2 diabetes died from all causes. Of these total deaths, 464 in people with type 1 diabetes and 10 525 in people with type 2 diabetes were defined as COVID-19 related, of which 289 (62·3%) and 5833 (55·4%), respectively, occurred in people with a history of cardiovascular disease or with renal impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2). Male sex, older age, renal impairment, non-white ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and previous stroke and heart failure were associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Compared with people with an HbA1c of 48-53 mmol/mol (6·5-7·0%), people with an HbA1c of 86 mmol/mol (10·0%) or higher had increased COVID-19-related mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 2·23 [95% CI 1·50-3·30, p<0·0001] in type 1 diabetes and 1·61 [1·47-1·77, p<0·0001] in type 2 diabetes). In addition, in people with type 2 diabetes, COVID-19-related mortality was significantly higher in those with an HbA1c of 59 mmol/mol (7·6%) or higher than in those with an HbA1c of 48-53 mmol/mol (HR 1·22 [95% CI 1·15-1·30, p<0·0001] for 59-74 mmol/mol [7·6-8·9%] and 1·36 [1·24-1·50, p<0·0001] for 75-85 mmol/mol [9·0-9·9%]). The association between BMI and COVID-19-related mortality was U-shaped: in type 1 diabetes, compared with a BMI of 25·0-29·9 kg/m2, a BMI of less than 20·0 kg/m2 had an HR of 2·45 (95% CI 1·60-3·75, p<0·0001) and a BMI of 40·0 kg/m2 or higher had an HR of 2·33 (1·53-3·56, p<0·0001); the corresponding HRs for type 2 diabetes were 2·33 (2·11-2·56, p<0·0001) and 1·60 (1·47-1·75, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes rose sharply during the initial COVID-19 pandemic in England. Increased COVID-19-related mortality was associated not only with cardiovascular and renal complications of diabetes but, independently, also with glycaemic control and BMI. FUNDING: None.

Associations of type 1 and type 2 diabetes with COVID-19-related mortality in England: a whole-population study.

BACKGROUND: Although diabetes has been associated with COVID-19-related mortality, the absolute and relative risks for type 1 and type 2 diabetes are unknown. We assessed the independent effects of diabetes status, by type, on in-hospital death in England in patients with COVID-19 during the period from March 1 to May 11, 2020. METHODS: We did a whole-population study assessing risks of in-hospital death with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 11, 2020. We included all individuals registered with a general practice in England who were alive on Feb 16, 2020. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the effect of diabetes status, by type, on in-hospital death with COVID-19, adjusting for demographic factors and cardiovascular comorbidities. Because of the absence of data on total numbers of people infected with COVID-19 during the observation period, we calculated mortality rates for the population as a whole, rather than the population who were infected. FINDINGS: Of the 61 414 470 individuals who were alive and registered with a general practice on Feb 16, 2020, 263 830 (0·4%) had a recorded diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, 2 864 670 (4·7%) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, 41 750 (0·1%) had other types of diabetes, and 58 244 220 (94·8%) had no diabetes. 23 698 in-hospital COVID-19-related deaths occurred during the study period. A third occurred in people with diabetes: 7434 (31·4%) in people with type 2 diabetes, 364 (1·5%) in those with type 1 diabetes, and 69 (0·3%) in people with other types of diabetes. Unadjusted mortality rates per 100 000 people over the 72-day period were 27 (95% CI 27-28) for those without diabetes, 138 (124-153) for those with type 1 diabetes, and 260 (254-265) for those with type 2 diabetes. Adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, and geographical region, compared with people without diabetes, the odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital COVID-19-related death were 3·51 (95% CI 3·16-3·90) in people with type 1 diabetes and 2·03 (1·97-2·09) in people with type 2 diabetes. These effects were attenuated to ORs of 2·86 (2·58-3·18) for type 1 diabetes and 1·80 (1·75-1·86) for type 2 diabetes when also adjusted for previous hospital admissions with coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, or heart failure. INTERPRETATION: The results of this nationwide analysis in England show that type 1 and type 2 diabetes were both independently associated with a significant increased odds of in-hospital death with COVID-19. FUNDING: None.

Early Outcomes From the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme.

OBJECTIVE: To assess weight and HbA1c changes in the Healthier You: National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP), the largest DPP globally to achieve universal population coverage. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A service evaluation assessed intervention effectiveness for adults with nondiabetic hyperglycemia (HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol [6.0-6.4%] or fasting plasma glucose 5.5-6.9 mmol/L) between program launch in June 2016 and December 2018, using prospectively collected, national service-level data in England. RESULTS: By December 2018, 324,699 people had been referred, 152,294 had attended the initial assessment, and 96,442 had attended at least 1 of 13 group-based intervention sessions. Allowing sufficient time to elapse, 53% attended an initial assessment, 36% attended at least one group-based session, and 19% completed the intervention (attended >60% of sessions). Of the 32,665 who attended at least one intervention session and had sufficient time to finish, 17,252 (53%) completed: intention-to-treat analyses demonstrated a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg (95% CI 2.2, 2.3) and an HbA1c reduction of 1.26 mmol/mol (1.20, 1.31) (0.12% [0.11, 0.12]); completer analysis demonstrated a mean weight loss of 3.3 kg (3.2, 3.4) and an HbA1c reduction of 2.04 mmol/mol (1.96, 2.12) (0.19% [0.18, 0.19]). Younger age, female sex, Asian and black ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and normal baseline BMI were associated with less weight loss. Older age, female sex, black ethnicity, lower socioeconomic status, and baseline overweight and obesity were associated with a smaller HbA1c reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in weight and HbA1c compare favorably with those reported in recent meta-analyses of pragmatic studies and suggest likely future reductions in participant type 2 diabetes incidence.

Experience of point-of-care HbA1c testing in the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: To report the observations of point-of-care (POC) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) testing in people with non-diabetic hyperglycemia (NDH; HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol (6.0%-6.4%)), applied in community settings, within the English National Health Service Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS DPP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A service evaluation assessing prospectively collected national service-level data from the NHS DPP, using data from the first referral received in June 2016-October 2018. Individuals were referred to the NHS DPP with a laboratory-measured HbA1c in the NDH range and had a repeat HbA1c measured at first attendance of the program using one of three POC devices: DCA Vantage, Afinion or A1C Now+. Differences between the referral and POC HbA1c and the SD of the POC HbA1c were calculated. The factors associated with the difference in HbA1c and the association between POC HbA1c result and subsequent attendance of the NHS DPP were also evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 73 703 participants demonstrated a significant mean difference between the referral and POC HbA1c of -2.48 mmol/mol (-0.23%) (t=157, p<0.001) with significant differences in the mean difference between devices (F(2, 73 700)=738, p<0.001). The SD of POC HbA1c was 4.46 mmol/mol (0.41%) with significant differences in SDs between devices (F(2, 73 700)=1542, p<0.001). Participants who were older, from more deprived areas and from Asian, black and mixed ethnic groups were associated with smaller HbA1c differences. Normoglycemic POC HbA1c versus NDH POC HbA1c values were associated with lower subsequent attendance at behavioral interventions (58% vs 67%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: POC HbA1c testing in community settings was associated with significantly lower HbA1c values when compared with laboratory-measured referrals. Acknowledging effects of regression to the mean, we found that these differences were also associated with POC method, location, individual patient factors and time between measurements. Compared with POC HbA1c values in the NDH range, normoglycemic POC HbA1c values were associated with lower subsequent intervention attendance.