Integration of a fasting-mimicking diet programme in primary care for type 2 diabetes reduces the need for medication and improves glycaemic control: a 12-month randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on metabolic control of periodic use of a 5-day fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) programme as an adjunct to usual care in people with type 2 diabetes under regular primary care surveillance. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial, people with type 2 diabetes using metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control were randomised to receive 5-day cycles of an FMD monthly as an adjunct to regular care by their general practitioner or to receive regular care only. The primary outcomes were changes in glucose-lowering medication (as reflected by the medication effect score) and HbA1c levels after 12 months. Moreover, changes in use of glucose-lowering medication and/or HbA1c levels in individual participants were combined to yield a clinically relevant outcome measure ('glycaemic management'), which was categorised as improved, stable or deteriorated after 1 year of follow-up. Several secondary outcome measures were also examined, including changes in body weight. RESULTS: One hundred individuals with type 2 diabetes, age 18-75 years, BMI ≥27 kg/m2, were randomised to the FMD group (n=51) or the control group (n=49). Eight FMD participants and ten control participants were lost to follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses, using linear mixed models, revealed adjusted estimated treatment effects for the medication effect score (-0.3; 95% CI -0.4, -0.2; p<0.001), HbA1c (-3.2 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.2, -0.2 and -0.3%; 95% CI -0.6, -0.0; p=0.04) and body weight (-3.6 kg; 95% CI -5.2, -2.1; p<0.001) at 12 months. Glycaemic management improved in 53% of participants using FMD vs 8% of control participants, remained stable in 23% vs 33%, and deteriorated in 23% vs 59% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Integration of a monthly FMD programme in regular primary care for people with type 2 diabetes who use metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control reduces the need for glucose-lowering medication, improves HbA1c despite the reduction in medication use, and appears to be safe in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811587 FUNDING: The project was co-funded by Health~Holland, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health, the Dutch Diabetes Foundation and L-Nutra.

General practitioners' evaluations of optimal timing to initiate advance care planning for patients with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity: A health records survey study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate timing to initiate advance care planning is difficult, especially for individuals with non-malignant disease in community settings. AIM: To identify the optimal moment for, and reasons to initiate advance care planning in different illness trajectories. DESIGN AND METHODS: A health records survey study; health records were presented to 83 GPs with request to indicate and substantiate what they considered optimal advance care planning timing within the 2 years before death. We used quantitative and qualitative analyses. SETTING AND PATIENTS: We selected and anonymized 90 health records of patients who died with cancer, organ failure or multimorbidity, from a regional primary care registration database in the Netherlands. RESULTS: The median optimal advance care planning timing according to the GPs was 228 days before death (interquartile range 392). This moment was closer to death for cancer (87.5 days before death, IQR 302) than for organ failure (266 days before death, IQR 401) and multimorbidity (290 days before death, IQR 389) (p < 0.001). The most frequently mentioned reason for cancer was "receiving a diagnosis" (21.5%), for organ failure it was "after a period of illness" (14.7%), and for multimorbidity it was "age" and "patients" expressed wishes or reflections' (both 12.0%). CONCLUSION: The optimal advance care planning timing and reasons to initiate advance care planning indicated by GPs differ between patients with cancer and other illnesses, and they also differ between GPs. This suggests that "the" optimal timing for ACP should be seen as a "window of opportunity" for the different disease trajectories.

Dutch GPs' perspectives on addressing obesity: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and treatment of obesity in primary care may help to tackle the obesity pandemic. Nonetheless, GPs frequently fail to address obesity and demonstrate limited adherence to guidelines. AIM: To explore Dutch GPs' perspectives on addressing obesity regarding the following three target behaviours: discussing weight; diagnosing; and referring patients with obesity. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative focus group study with Dutch GPs. METHOD: Six focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 GPs. Thematic analysis was performed using deductive coding, according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: For discussing weight, the main barriers identified were a presented complaint unrelated to obesity (environmental context and resources), concerns about a negative response from the patient (beliefs about consequences), and worries about obesity being a sensitive subject to discuss (emotions). A long-term trustworthy relationship (social influences) facilitated discussing weight. For diagnosing patients with obesity, the main barriers were related to resources; for example, lack of (appropriate) measuring equipment and time (environmental context and resources). For referring patients with obesity, the main barriers were no referral options nearby (environmental context and resources), and doubts about the positive effects of the referral on weight change (beliefs about consequences). CONCLUSION: Different barriers for discussing weight, diagnosing, and referring patients with obesity were identified, underscoring the importance for tailored interventions to these specific behaviours. Improving knowledge and skills of GPs seems insufficient as this study showed that particular attention should be paid to establishing long-term relationships, addressing GPs' beliefs about consequences, and creating a supportive environment with sufficient time and resources.

Actual timing versus GPs' perceptions of optimal timing of advance care planning: a mixed-methods health record-based study.

BACKGROUND: Timely initiation of advance care planning (ACP) in general practice is challenging, especially in patients with non-malignant conditions. Our aim was to investigate how perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation and its triggers relate to recorded actual timing in patients with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. METHODS: In this mixed-methods study in the Netherlands, we analysed health records selected from a database with primary care routine data and with a recorded ACP conversation in the last two years before death of patients who died with cancer, organ failure, or multimorbidity. We compared actual timing of ACP initiation as recorded in health records of 51 patients with the perceived optimal timing as determined by 83 independent GPs who studied these records. Further, to identify and compare triggers for GPs to initiate ACP, we analysed the health record documentation around the moments of the recorded actual timing of ACP initiation and the perceived optimal timing of ACP initiation. We combined quantitative descriptive statistics with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The recorded actual timing of ACP initiation was significantly closer to death than the perceived optimal timing in patients with cancer (median 88 vs. 111 days before death (p = 0.049)), organ failure (227 vs. 306 days before death (p = 0.02)) and multimorbidity (113 vs. 338 days before death (p = 0.006)). Triggers for recorded actual versus perceived optimal timing were similar across the three groups, the most frequent being 'expressions of patients' reflections or wishes' (14% and 14% respectively) and 'appropriate setting' (10% and 13% respectively). CONCLUSION: ACP in general practice was initiated and recorded later in the illness trajectory than considered optimal, especially in patients with organ failure or multimorbidity. As triggers were similar for recorded actual and perceived optimal timing, we recommend that GPs initiate ACP shortly after a trigger is noticed the first time, rather than wait for additional or more evident triggers when the illness is in an advanced stage.

Prescribing and deprescribing antihypertensive medication in older people by Dutch general practitioners: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore general practitioners' (GPs) routines and considerations on (de)prescribing antihypertensive medication (AHM) in older patients, their judgement on usability of the current guideline and needs for future support. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews. SETTING: Dutch general practice. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen GPs were purposively sampled based on level of experience and practice characteristics until saturation was reached. RESULTS: GPs appeared reluctant to start AHM, especially in patient >80 years. High systolic blood pressure and history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes were enablers to start or intensify treatment. Reasons to refrain from this were frailty and patient preference. GPs described a tendency to continue AHM regimens unchanged, influenced by daily time constraints, automated prescription routines and anticipating discomfort when disturbing patients' delicate balance. GPs were only inclined to deprescribe AHM in terminally ill patients or after prolonged achievement of target levels in combination with side effects or patient preference. Deprescription was facilitated when GPs had experience with patients showing increased quality of life after deprescription and was withheld by anticipated regret (ie, GPs' fear of a stroke after deprescribing). GPs felt insufficient guidance from current guidelines, especially on deprescription. CONCLUSIONS: GPs are reluctant to start or deprescribe AHM in older people and have a propensity to continue AHM within a daily routine that insufficiently supports critical medication review. (De)prescription is influenced by patient preferences and anticipated regret and current guidelines provide insufficient guidance.