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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a 5-year national population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes in pregnancy is associated with preterm delivery, birthweight extremes, and increased rates of congenital anomaly, stillbirth, and neonatal death. We aimed to identify and compare modifiable risk factors associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes and to identify effective maternity clinics. METHODS: In this national population-based cohort study, we used data for pregnancies among women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes collected in the first 5 years of the National Pregnancy in Diabetes audit across 172 maternity clinics in England, Wales, and the Isle of Man, UK. Data for obstetric complications (eg, preterm delivery [<37 weeks' gestation], large for gestational age [LGA] birthweight [>90th percentile]) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (congenital anomaly, stillbirth, neonatal death) were obtained for pregnancies completed between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2018. We assessed associations between modifiable (eg, HbA1c, BMI, pre-pregnancy care, maternity clinic) and non-modifiable risk factors (eg, age, ethnicity, deprivation, duration of type 1 diabetes) with pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 diabetes compared with those with type 2 diabetes. We calculated associations between maternal factors and perinatal deaths using a regression model, including diabetes type and duration, maternal age, BMI, deprivation quintile, first trimester HbA1c, preconception folic acid, potentially harmful medications, and third trimester HbA1c. FINDINGS: Our dataset included 17 375 pregnancy outcomes in 15 290 pregnant women. 8690 (50·0%) of 17 375 pregnancies were in women with type 1 diabetes (median age at delivery 30 years [10-90th percentile 22-37], median duration of diabetes 13 years [3-25]) and 8685 (50·0%) were in women with type 2 diabetes (median age at delivery 34 years [27-41], median duration of diabetes 3 years [0-10]). The rates of preterm delivery (3325 [42·5%] of 7825 pregnancies among women with type 1 diabetes, 1825 [23·4%] of 7815 with type 2 diabetes; p<0·0001), and LGA birthweight (4095 [52·2%] of 7845 with type 1 diabetes, 2065 [26·2%] of 7885 with type 2 diabetes; p<0·0001) were higher in type 1 diabetes. The prevalence of congenital anomaly (among women with type 1 diabetes: 44·8 per 1000 livebirths, terminations, and fetal losses; among women with type 2 diabetes: 40·5 per 1000 livebirths, terminations, and fetal losses; p=0·17) and stillbirth (type 1 diabetes: 10·4 per 1000 livebirths and stillbirths; type 2 diabetes: 13·5 per 1000 livebirths and stillbirths; p=0·072) did not significantly differ between diabetes types, but rates of neonatal death were higher in mothers with type 2 diabetes than in those with type 1 diabetes (type 1 diabetes: 7·4 per 1000 livebirths; type 2 diabetes 11·2 per 1000 livebirths; p=0·013). Across the whole study population, independent risk factors for perinatal death (ie, stillbirth or neonatal death) were third trimester HbA1c of 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) or higher (odds ratio 3·06 [95% CI 2·16-4·33] vs HbA1c <6·5%), being in the highest deprivation quintile (2·29 [1·16-4·52] vs the lowest quintile), and having type 2 diabetes (1·65 [1·18-2·31] vs type 1 diabetes). Variations in HbA1c and LGA birthweight were associated with maternal characteristics (age, diabetes duration, deprivation, BMI) without substantial differences between maternity clinics. INTERPRETATION: Our data highlight persistent adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Maternal glycaemia and BMI are the key modifiable risk factors. No maternity clinics were had appreciably better outcomes than any others, suggesting that health-care system changes are needed across all clinics. 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.