Can the introduction of a 12-lead ECG help reduce mortality in those presenting with foot ulceration to multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinics? An observational evaluation of a real-world implementation pilot in England.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The risk of dying within 2 years of presentation with diabetic foot ulceration is over six times the risk of amputation, with CVD the major contributor. Using an observational evaluation of a real-world implementation pilot, we aimed to assess whether for those presenting with diabetic foot ulceration in England, introducing a 12-lead ECG into routine care followed by appropriate clinical action was associated with reduced mortality. METHODS: Between July 2014 and December 2017, ten multidisciplinary diabetic foot services in England participated in a pilot project introducing 12-lead ECGs for new attendees with foot ulceration. Inception coincided with launch of the National Diabetes Footcare Audit (NDFA), whereby all diabetic footcare services in England were invited to enter data on new attendees with foot ulceration. Poisson regression models assessed the mortality RR at 2 and 5 years following first assessment of those receiving care in a participating pilot unit vs those receiving care in any other unit in England, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, type and duration of diabetes, ulcer severity, and morbidity in the year prior to first assessment. RESULTS: Of the 3110 people recorded in the NDFA at a participating unit during the pilot, 33% (1015) were recorded as having received an ECG. A further 25,195 people recorded in the NDFA had attended another English footcare service. Unadjusted mortality in the pilot units was 16.3% (165) at 2 years and 37.4% (380) at 5 years for those who received an ECG, and 20.5% (430) and 45.2% (950), respectively, for those who did not receive an ECG. For people included in the NDFA at other units, unadjusted mortality was 20.1% (5075) and 42.6% (10,745), respectively. In the fully adjusted model, mortality was not significantly lower for those attending participating units at 2 (RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.85, 1.01]) or 5 years (RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.90, 1.01]). At participating units, mortality in those who received an ECG vs those who did not was lower at 5 years (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.76, 0.97]), but not at 2 years (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.72, 1.04]). Comparing just those that received an ECG with attendees at all other centres in England, mortality was lower at 5 years (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.78, 0.96]), but not at 2 years (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.74, 1.01]). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The evaluation confirms the high mortality seen in those presenting with diabetic foot ulceration. Overall mortality at the participating units was not significantly reduced at 2 or 5 years, with confidence intervals just crossing parity. Implementation of the 12-lead ECG into the routine care pathway proved challenging for clinical teams-overall a third of attendees had one, although some units delivered the intervention to over 60% of attendees-and the evaluation was therefore underpowered. Nonetheless, the signals of potential mortality benefit among those who had an ECG suggest that units in a position to operationalise implementation may wish to consider this. DATA AVAILABILITY: Data from the National Diabetes Audit can be requested through the National Health Service Digital Data Access Request Service process at: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/data-access-request-service-dars/dars-products-and-services/data-set-catalogue/national-diabetes-audit-nda.

A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous 'insulin pump' therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority. Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback. METHODS: We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams' engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out. DISCUSSION: Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

National Trends in Hyperglycemia and Diabetic Ketoacidosis in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Challenge Due to Age or Stage of Development, or Is New Thinking About Service Provision Needed?

OBJECTIVE: Adolescence is associated with high-risk hyperglycemia. This study examines the phenomenon in a life course context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 93,125 people with type 1 diabetes aged 5 to 30 years were identified from the National Diabetes Audit and/or the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit for England and Wales for 2017/2018-2019/2020. For each audit year, the latest HbA1c and hospital admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) were identified. Data were analyzed in sequential cohorts by year of age. RESULTS: In childhood, unreported HbA1c measurement is uncommon; however, for 19-year-olds, it increases to 22.3% for men and 17.3% for women, and then reduces to 17.9% and 13.1%, respectively, for 30-year-olds. Median HbA1c for 9-year-olds is 7.6% (60 mmol/mol) (interquartile range 7.1-8.4%, 54-68 mmol/mol) in boys and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol) (8.0-8.4%, 64-68 mmol/mol) in girls, increasing to 8.7% (72 mmol/mol) (7.5-10.3%, 59-89 mmol/mol) and 8.9% (74 mmol/mol) (7.7-10.6%, 61-92 mmol/mol), respectively, for 19-year-olds before falling to 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) (7.4-9.7%, 57-83 mmol/mol) and 8.2% (66 mmol/mol) (7.3-9.7%, 56-82 mmol/mol), respectively, for 30-year-olds. Annual hospitalization for DKA rose steadily in age from 6 years (2.0% for boys, 1.4% for girls) and peaked at 19 years for men (7.9%) and 18 years for women (12.7%), reducing to 4.3% for men and 5.4% for women at age 30 years. For all ages over 9 years, the prevalence of DKA was higher in female individuals. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c and the prevalence of DKA increase through adolescence and then decline. Measurement of HbA1c, a marker of clinical review, falls abruptly in the late teenage years. Age-appropriate services are needed to overcome these issues.

Comparative Incidence of Diabetes Following Hospital Admission for COVID-19 and Pneumonia: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of diabetes may be elevated following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but it is unclear whether this is specific to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, associated with shared risk factors for severe COVID-19 and diabetes, and/or a generic risk following illness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: People admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 and/or pneumonia between 1 April 2020 and 31 August 2020 in England were linked with the National Diabetes Audit to identify incident diabetes after discharge up to 31 March 2021. Comparator cohorts admitted with pneumonia over the same dates in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were followed until 31 March 2018, 31 March 2019, and 31 March 2020, respectively. Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted diabetes incidence rates. RESULTS: Using the cohort of people discharged from the hospital following a diagnosis of COVID-19 without pneumonia in 2020 as the standard population (incidence rate 16.4 [95% CI 12.8-20.7] per 1,000 person-years), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and deprivation, gave incidence rates of 19.0 (95% CI 13.8-25.6) and 16.6 (95% CI 13.3-20.4) per 1,000 person-years for those admitted for COVID-19 with pneumonia and pneumonia without COVID-19, respectively, in 2020. These rates are not significantly different from those found after hospital admission for pneumonia in 2019, 2018, and 2017, at 13.7 (95% CI 10.8-17.3), 13.8 (95% CI 10.9-17.4), and 14.2 (95% CI 10.9-18.3) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support a clear impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of diabetes compared with risks in several comparator groups, including contemporaneously assessed risks in people hospitalized with pneumonia.

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.

Characteristics and care of young people with type 2 diabetes included in the national diabetes audit datasets for England.

INTRODUCTION: We report contemporary age-related prevalence, characteristics and care of children and young people with type 2 diabetes in England. METHODS: Individuals with a recorded diagnosis of type 2 diabetes between January 2019 and March 2020 were identified from a whole population register. Age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation quintile, weight, HbA1c and receipt of the nine National Institute for Health & Care Excellence (NICE) recommended annual care processes were extracted from electronic clinical records and analysed by pre-specified age bands. RESULTS: In total, 122,780 (4.6%) of 2,642,435 individuals in England with type 2 diabetes were aged under 40 years, comprising; 650 (0.5%) under 16 years, 910 (0.7%) aged 16-18 years, 8245 (6.7%) aged 19-25 and 112,975 (92%) aged 26-39 years. Compared to people with type 2 diabetes aged above 40 years, young people were significantly more likely to be from minority ethnic groups: 51% under 16 years, 41% 16-18 years, 38% 19-25 years, 38% 26-39 years, 27% 40-59 years and 15% 60-79 years were of Black or Asian ethnicity. In addition, those aged under 40 years were more likely to be obese, women, to live in the most-deprived socioeconomic areas and less likely to receive the NICE recommended annual care processes or achieve target HbA1c . INTERPRETATION: The substantial number of people under 40 years of age with type 2 diabetes, are more likely to have characteristics associated with inequalities and are less likely to achieve HbA1c targets and receive recommended care processes. These findings highlight the need to consider novel approaches to service provision for this high-risk group.

Impact of case-mix adjustment on observed variation in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers at 12 weeks using data from the National Diabetes Foot Care Audit of England and Wales: A cohort study.

AIM: This cohort study investigates the extent to which variation in ulcer healing between services can be explained by demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: The National Diabetes Foot Care Audit collated data on people with diabetic foot ulcers presenting to specialist services in England and Wales between July 2014 and March 2018. Logistic regression models were created to describe associations between risk factors and a person being alive and ulcer-free 12 weeks from presentation, and to investigate whether variation between 120 participating services persisted after risk factor adjustment. RESULTS: Of 27,030 people with valid outcome data, 12,925 (47.8%) were alive and ulcer-free at 12 weeks, 13,745 (50.9%) had an unhealed ulcer and 360 had died (1.3%). Factors associated with worse outcome were male sex, more severe ulcers, history of cardiac or renal disease and a longer time between first presentation to a non-specialist healthcare professional and first expert assessment. After adjustment for these factors, four services (3.3%) were more than 3SD above and seven services (5.8%) were more than 3SD below the national mean for proportions that were alive and ulcer-free at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: Variation in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers between specialist services in England and Wales persisted after adjusting for demographic characteristics, ulcer severity, smoking, body mass index and co-morbidities. We conclude that other factors contribute to variation in healing of diabetic foot ulcers and include the time to specialist assessment.

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.

Completion of annual diabetes care processes and mortality: A cohort study using the National Diabetes Audit for England and Wales.

AIM: To conduct an analysis to assess whether the completion of recommended diabetes care processes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], creatinine, cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index [BMI], smoking habit, urinary albumin, retinal and foot examinations) at least annually is associated with mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort from the National Diabetes Audit of England and Wales comprising 179 105 people with type 1 and 1 397 790 people with type 2 diabetes, aged 17 to 99 years on January 1, 2009, diagnosed before January 1, 2009 and alive on April 1, 2013 was followed to December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for demographic characteristics, smoking, HbA1c, blood pressure, serum cholesterol, BMI, duration of diagnosis, estimated glomerular filtration rate, prior myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, respiratory disease and cancer, were used to investigate whether care processes recorded January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 were associated with subsequent mortality. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 7.5 and 7.0 years there were 26 915 and 388 093 deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Completion of five or fewer, compared to eight, care processes (retinal screening not included as data were not reliable) had a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-1.46) in people with type 1 and 1.32 (95% CI 1.30-1.35) in people with type 2 diabetes. The HR was higher for respiratory disease deaths and lower in South Asian ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes who have fewer routine care processes have higher mortality. Further research is required into whether different approaches to care might improve outcomes for this high-risk group.

Cohort profile: National Diabetes Audit for England and Wales.

The National Diabetes Audit (NDA) collates and analyses data on the quality and variation in clinical care and outcomes for people with diabetes. It also provides opportunities to assess trends, determinants, and outcomes of diabetes to help guide clinical and public health priorities. COHORT: Between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2020, a total of 5,280,885 people diagnosed with diabetes were included in at least one NDA data collection. To this date, median follow-up was 12 and 8 years for people with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes respectively. Comparisons with the 2019/20 Quality and Outcomes Framework show it included 98% of adults in England and Wales with diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Data include demographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, deprivation), risk factors (HbA1c , blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, smoking status) diabetic and cardiovascular complications and deaths. SECONDARY ANALYSIS: Secondary analyses have included comparisons of HbA1c and blood pressure measurements in cohorts with similar characteristics to the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study and the UK Prospective Diabetes Study; COVID-19 related mortality in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and incidence of type 2 diabetes following admission to intensive care units. FUTURE PLANS: Commissioned NDA reports will continue to inform service development in England and Wales. The same data, with or without linkages to other external datasets, are also a rich resource for clinically orientated research.

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.

Prevalence of Celiac Disease in 52,721 Youth With Type 1 Diabetes: International Comparison Across Three Continents.

OBJECTIVE: Celiac disease (CD) has a recognized association with type 1 diabetes. We examined international differences in CD prevalence and clinical characteristics of youth with coexisting type 1 diabetes and CD versus type 1 diabetes only. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data sources were as follows: the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) (Germany/Austria); the T1D Exchange Clinic Network (T1DX) (U.S.); the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA) (U.K. [England/Wales]); and the Australasian Diabetes Data Network (ADDN) (Australia). The analysis included 52,721 youths <18 years of age with a clinic visit between April 2013 and March 2014. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were constructed to analyze the relationship between outcomes (HbA1c, height SD score [SDS], overweight/obesity) and type 1 diabetes/CD versus type 1 diabetes, adjusting for sex, age, and diabetes duration. RESULTS: Biopsy-confirmed CD was present in 1,835 youths (3.5%) and was diagnosed at a median age of 8.1 years (interquartile range 5.3-11.2 years). Diabetes duration at CD diagnosis was <1 year in 37% of youths, >1-2 years in 18% of youths, >3-5 years in 23% of youths, and >5 years in 17% of youths. CD prevalence ranged from 1.9% in the T1DX to 7.7% in the ADDN and was higher in girls than boys (4.3% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001). Children with coexisting CD were younger at diabetes diagnosis compared with those with type 1 diabetes only (5.4 vs. 7.0 years of age, P < 0.001) and fewer were nonwhite (15 vs. 18%, P < 0.001). Height SDS was lower in those with CD (0.36 vs. 0.48, adjusted P < 0.001) and fewer were overweight/obese (34 vs. 37%, adjusted P < 0.001), whereas mean HbA1c values were comparable: 8.3 ± 1.5% (67 ± 17 mmol/mol) versus 8.4 ± 1.6% (68 ± 17 mmol/mol). CONCLUSIONS: CD is a common comorbidity in youth with type 1 diabetes. Differences in CD prevalence may reflect international variation in screening and diagnostic practices, and/or CD risk. Although glycemic control was not different, the lower height SDS supports close monitoring of growth and nutrition in this population.

Use of insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and its impact on metabolic control: comparison of results from three large, transatlantic paediatric registries.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: While the use of insulin pumps in paediatrics has expanded dramatically, there is still considerable variability among countries in the use of pump technology. The present study sought to describe differences in metabolic control and pump use in young people with type 1 diabetes using data collected in three multicentre registries. METHODS: Data for the years 2011 and 2012 from 54,410 children and adolescents were collected from the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV; n = 26,198), T1D Exchange (T1DX; n = 13,755) and the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA; n = 14,457). The modality of insulin delivery, based on age, sex and ethnic minority status, and the impact of pump use on HbA1c levels were compared. RESULTS: The overall mean HbA1c level was higher in the NPDA (8.9 ± 1.6% [74 ± 17.5 mmol/mol]) than in the DPV (8.0 ± 1.6% [64 ± 17.0 mmol/mol], p < 0.001) and T1DX (8.3 ± 1.4% [68 ± 15.4 mmol/mol], p < 0.001). Conversely, pump use was much lower in the NPDA (14%) than in the DPV (41%, p < 0.001) and T1DX (47%, p < 0.001). In a pooled analysis, pump use was associated with a lower mean HbA1c (pump: 8.0 ± 1.2% [64 ± 13.3 mmol/mol] vs injection: 8.5 ± 1.7% [69 ± 18.7 mmol/mol], p < 0.001). In all three registries, those with an ethnic minority status were less likely to be treated with a pump (p < 0.001) and boys were treated with a pump less often compared with girls (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Despite similar clinical characteristics and proportion of minority participants, substantial differences in metabolic control exist across the three large transatlantic registries of paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, which appears to be due in part to the frequency of insulin pump therapy.

Rates of diabetic ketoacidosis: international comparison with 49,859 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes from England, Wales, the U.S., Austria, and Germany.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in children and adolescents with established type 1 diabetes is a major problem with considerable morbidity, mortality, and associated costs to patients, families, and health care systems. We analyzed data from three multinational type 1 diabetes registries/audits with similarly advanced, yet differing, health care systems with an aim to identify factors associated with DKA admissions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 49,859 individuals <18 years with type 1 diabetes duration ≥1 year from the Prospective Diabetes Follow-up Registry (DPV) initiative (n = 22,397, Austria and Germany), the National Paediatric Diabetes Audit (NPDA; n = 16,314, England and Wales), and the T1D Exchange (T1DX; n = 11,148, U.S.) were included. DKA was defined as ≥1 hospitalization for hyperglycemia with a pH <7.3 during the prior year. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The frequency of DKA was 5.0% in DPV, 6.4% in NPDA, and 7.1% in T1DX, with differences persisting after demographic adjustment (P < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, higher odds of DKA were found in females (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 99% CI 1.10-1.37), ethnic minorities (OR 1.27, 99% CI 1.11-1.44), and HbA1c ≥7.5% (≥58 mmol/mol) (OR 2.54, 99% CI 2.09-3.09 for HbA1c from 7.5 to <9% [58 to <75 mmol/mol] and OR 8.74, 99% CI 7.18-10.63 for HbA1c ≥9.0% [≥75 mmol/mol]). CONCLUSIONS: These multinational data demonstrate high rates of DKA in childhood type 1 diabetes across three registries/audits and five nations. Females, ethnic minorities, and HbA1c above target were all associated with an increased risk of DKA. Targeted DKA prevention programs could result in substantial health care cost reduction and reduced patient morbidity and mortality.