UK service level audit of insulin pump therapy in paediatrics.

AIM: To conduct an audit of insulin pump therapy in the UK after the issue of guidelines for the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion by NICE in 2008 (Technology Appraisal 151). METHODS: All centres in the UK, providing pump services to children and young people were invited to participate in an online audit. Audit metrics were aligned to NICE Technology Appraisal 151 and an electronic data collection tool was used. RESULTS: Of the 176 UK centres identified as providing pump services, 166 (94.3%) participated in the study. A total of 5094 children and young people were identified as using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (19% of all paediatric patients with Type 1 diabetes), with a median (range) of 16.9 (0.67-69.4)% per centre. Units had a median of 0.58 consultant sessions, 0.43 full-time equivalent diabetic specialist nurses, and 0.1 full-time equivalent dieticians delivering the pump service. The majority of this time was not formally funded. Families could access 24-h clinical and technical support (83% units), although the delivery varied between consultant, diabetic specialist nurse and company representatives. Only 53% of units ran, or accessed, structured education programmes for continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use. Most units (86%) allowed continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use for paediatric inpatients, but only 56% had written guidelines for this scenario. Nine percent of units had encountered funding refusal for a patient fulfilling NICE (Technology Appraisal 151) criteria. CONCLUSION: The number of children and young people on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy is consistent with numbers estimated by NICE. There is a worrying lack of funded healthcare professional time. The audit also identified gaps in the provision of structured education and absence of written inpatient guidelines.

The U.K. service level audit of insulin pump therapy in adults.

AIMS: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published guidelines for the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in 2008 (technology appraisal 151). The first U.K.-wide insulin pump audit took place in 2012 with the aim of determining adherence to the guidance issued in NICE technology appraisal 151. The results of the adult service level audit are reported here. METHODS: All centres providing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services to adults with diabetes in the U.K. were invited to participate. Audit metrics were aligned to technology appraisal 151. Data entry took place online using a DiabetesE formatted data collection tool. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three centres were identified as delivering adult continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services in the U.K., of which 178 (97.3%) participated in the audit. At the time of the audit, 13 428 adults were using insulin pump therapy, giving an estimated prevalence of use of 6%. Ninety-three per cent of centres did not report any barriers in obtaining funding for patients who fulfilled NICE criteria. The mean number of consultant programmed activities dedicated to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services was 0.96 (range 0-8), mean whole-time equivalent diabetes specialist nurses was 0.62 (range 0-3) and mean whole-time equivalent dietitian services was 0.3 (range 0-2), of which 39, 61 and 60%, respectively, were not formally funded. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use in the U.K. falls well below the expectation of NICE (15-20%) and that of other European countries (> 15%) and the U.S.A. (40%). This may be attributable, in part, to lack of healthcare professional time needed for identification and training of new pump therapy users.

Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, dyslipidaemia and obesity in patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with hypothalamic-pituitary disease have increased morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Therefore, the prevalence of CVD and adequacy of treatment of cardiovascular risk factors (according to current treatment guidelines) was studied in a large group of patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease. STUDY DESIGN: In 2005, 152 consecutive adult patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease attending our neuro-endocrine centre were clinically examined and blood pressure (BP), lipid profile, type 2 diabetes mellitus, body composition and smoking status were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 152 patients, 36.8% had treated hypertension and 28.2% had treated dyslipidaemia. Many of these patients had inadequate BP control (BP >140/85 mm Hg, 44.6%) and undesirable lipid levels (total cholesterol >4.0 mmol/l, 69%). Also, many of the untreated patients had BP and lipid levels which should have been considered for treatment (26 patients (27%) and 83 patients (76%), respectively). Smoking was admitted in 18% of patients. Central adiposity was present in 86% and obesity (body mass index > or =30) was present in 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular risk factors are highly prevalent and often inadequately treated in adult patients with hypothalamic-pituitary disease. Aggressive treatment of these factors is essential to reduce mortality and morbidity from CVD in these patients.

Insulin monotherapy versus combinations of insulin with oral hypoglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients with type 2 diabetes who have poor glycaemic control despite maximal oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) should be commenced on insulin as monotherapy, or insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents (insulin-OHA combination therapy). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy versus insulin-OHA combinations therapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. Date of last search: May 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 months minimum follow-up duration comparing insulin monotherapy (all schemes) with insulin-OHA combination therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of study quality were undertaken by three reviewers in pairs. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty RCTs (mean trial duration 10 months) including 1,811 participants, with mean age 59.8 years and mean known duration of diabetes 9.6 years. Overall, study methodological quality was low. Twenty-eight comparisons in 20 RCTs were ordered according to clinical considerations. No studies assessed diabetes-related morbidity, mortality or total mortality. From 13 studies (21 comparisons), sufficient data were extracted to calculate pooled effects on glycaemic control. Insulin-OHA combination therapy had statistically significant benefits on glycaemic control over insulin monotherapy only when the latter was applied as a once-daily injection of NPH insulin. Conversely, twice-daily insulin monotherapy (NPH or mixed insulin) provided superior glycaemic control to insulin-OHA combination therapy regimens where insulin was administered as a single morning injection. In more conventional comparisons, regimens utilising OHAs with bedtime NPH insulin provided comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy (administered as twice daily, or multiple daily injections). Overall, insulin-OHA combination therapy was associated with a 43% relative reduction in total daily insulin requirement compared to insulin monotherapy. Of the 14 studies (22 comparisons) reporting hypoglycaemia, 13 demonstrated no significant difference in the frequency of symptomatic or biochemical hypoglycaemia between insulin and combination therapy regimens. No significant differences in quality of life related issues were detected. Combination therapy with bedtime NPH insulin resulted in statistically significantly less weight gain compared to insulin monotherapy, provided metformin was used +/-sulphonylurea. In all other comparisons no significant differences with respect to weight gain were detected. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Bedtime NPH insulin combined with oral hypoglycaemic agents provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin monotherapy and is associated with less weight gain if metformin is used.

Comparison of repaglinide vs. gliclazide in combination with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic agents.

AIMS: This open-label randomized controlled clinical trial compared the effect on glycaemic control and weight gain of repaglinide vs. gliclazide combined with bedtime NPH insulin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral hypoglycaemic therapy [HbA1c>7.0% (DCCT aligned assay, normal range 4.6-6.2%)]. METHODS: Eighty subjects with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to 13 weeks' open-label treatment with repaglinide 4 mg t.i.d. or gliclazide 160 mg b.i.d. in combination with bedtime NPH insulin (initial dose 0.5 units/kg). The fasting blood glucose (FBG) target was < or =6.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for age, sex, weight, BMI, FBG and HbA1c. Glycaemic control improved similarly in both groups-insulin/gliclazide by (mean) 1.0%, from 9.2 to 8.2% (P=0.001) and by 0.9%, from 9.4 to 8.5% in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.005) (P=0.83 between groups). Weight gain averaged (mean +/- sem) 4.1 +/- 0.5 and 3.4 +/- 0.4 kg in the insulin/gliclazide and insulin/repaglinide groups, respectively (P<0.0001 for both groups from baseline) (P=0.29 between groups). The mean number of hypoglycaemic episodes experienced per patient was 2.95 +/- 0.82 (insulin/gliclazide) and 2.3 +/- 0.52 (insulin/repaglinide) (P=0.81 between groups). Both treatments were associated with significant improvements in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction [Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire-potential range 0 (min) to 36 (max)]; in the insulin/gliclazide group, by 4.9 +/- 1.1 points to 33.3 +/- 0.6 (P<0.0001) and by 3.0 +/- 0.9 points to 34.6 +/- 0.4 (P=0.0006) in the insulin/repaglinide group (P=0.29 between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Over 13 weeks, both repaglinide and gliclazide, when combined with bedtime NPH insulin produce similar significant improvements in glycaemic control (-1%) and similar weight gain.

Information given to patients before appointments and its effect on non-attendance rate.

PROBLEM: Wasted outpatient appointments as a result of clinic non-attendance, exacerbating outpatient waiting times. DESIGN: Single centre, prospective, non-randomised, controlled study. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: Diabetes clinic in a district general hospital run by a consultant, one or two diabetes nurse specialists, a dietitian, and a podiatrist. Clinic receives 10-15 new referrals a week in a health district with a population of 340 000. KEY MEASURE FOR IMPROVEMENT: Non-attendance rate in 325 new patients who attended after the intervention compared with 1336 historical controls from the same clinic in the three years before the scheme. STRATEGY FOR CHANGE: Two weeks before their outpatient appointment new patients were sent an information pack telling them when and where to come, where to park, what to bring, who they will see, and what to expect. One week before the appointment they received a supplementary phone call. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Telling patients what to expect reduced non-attendance rate overall from 15% (201/1336) to 4.6% (15/325), P<0.0001. Non-attendance rate was 7.3% (13/178) in those sent a pack but not phoned and 1.4% (2/147) in those sent a pack and phoned, P=0.01. LESSON LEARNT: Giving new patients detailed information reduces non-attendance to almost 1%.