Variability in Test Interval Is Linked to Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Trajectory over Time.

Aims: We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c (ΔHbA1c). Materials & Methods. HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and ΔHbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c. Results: In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0-9.0% (54-75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4-0.6% (4-6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring.

Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes (SCORE-IT): a patient and healthcare professional consensus on a core outcome set for type 2 diabetes.

Objectives: Heterogeneity in outcomes measured across trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes impacts on the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to healthcare professionals and the patients that they care for. The SCORE-IT study (Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 diabetes) has addressed this issue by establishing consensus on the most important outcomes for non-surgical interventions for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods: A comprehensive list of outcomes was developed from registered clinical trials, online patient resources, qualitative literature and long-term studies in the field. This list was then scored in a two-round online Delphi survey completed by healthcare professionals, people with type 2 diabetes, researchers in the field and healthcare policymakers. The results of this online Delphi were discussed and ratified at a face-to-face consensus meeting. Results: 173 people completed both rounds of the online survey (116 people with type 2 diabetes, 37 healthcare professionals, 14 researchers and 6 policymakers), 20 of these attended the consensus meeting (13 people with type 2 diabetes and 7 healthcare professionals). Consensus was reached on 18 core outcomes across five domains, which include outcomes related to diabetes care, quality of life and long-term diabetes-related complications. Conclusions: Implementation of the core outcome set in future trials will ensure that outcomes of importance to all stakeholders are measured and reported, enhancing the relevance of trial findings and facilitating the comparison of results across trials.

The frequency of testing for glycated haemoglobin, HbA1c, is linked to the probability of achieving target levels in patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes mellitus.

Background We previously showed, in patients with diabetes, that >50% of monitoring tests for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) are outside recommended intervals and that this is linked to diabetes control. Here, we examined the effect of tests/year on achievement of commonly utilised HbA1c targets and on HbA1c changes over time. Methods Data on 20,690 adults with diabetes with a baseline HbA1c of >53 mmol/mol (7%) were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory records at three UK hospitals. We examined the effect of HbA1c tests/year on (i) the probability of achieving targets of ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in a year using multi-state modelling and (ii) the changes in mean HbA1c using a linear mixed-effects model. Results The probabilities of achieving ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) targets within 1 year were 0.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.21) and 0.10 (0.09-0.10), respectively. Compared with four tests/year, having one test or more than four tests/year were associated with lower likelihoods of achieving either target; two to three tests/year gave similar likelihoods to four tests/year. Mean HbA1c levels were higher in patients who had one test/year compared to those with four tests/year (mean difference: 2.64 mmol/mol [0.24%], p<0.001). Conclusions We showed that ≥80% of patients with suboptimal control are not achieving commonly recommended HbA1c targets within 1 year, highlighting the major challenge facing healthcare services. We also demonstrated that, although appropriate monitoring frequency is important, testing every 6 months is as effective as quarterly testing, supporting international recommendations. We suggest that the importance HbA1c monitoring frequency is being insufficiently recognised in diabetes management.

Selecting Core Outcomes for Randomised Effectiveness trials In Type 2 Diabetes (SCORE-IT): study protocol for the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is characterised by abnormal glucose metabolism, and treatment is aimed at normalising glycaemia. Outcomes measured in clinical trials should be meaningful to patients, health care professionals and researchers, yet there is heterogeneity in the outcomes used across trials of glucose-lowering interventions. This inconsistency affects the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to health care professionals and the patients for whom they care. The SCORE-IT study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will involve three key stages in the development of a COS: (1) A list of outcomes will be identified from multiple sources, specifically registered clinical trials, online patient resources, the qualitative literature and landmark studies identified by a Study Steering Committee. (2) The list of outcomes will be scored by multiple stakeholder groups in a two-round online international Delphi survey. (3) The results of the online Delphi will be summarised and discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. DISCUSSION: The SCORE-IT study aims to develop an internationally relevant set of core outcomes for use in future trials of glucose-lowering interventions for type 2 diabetes. The use of a COS will improve the consistency of outcomes, allowing results of studies to be compared and combined and for new effective treatments to made available more quickly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The COS study, of which this is a part, is registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956 . Registered January 2017.

Reduced testing frequency for glycated hemoglobin, HbA1c, is associated with deteriorating diabetes control.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that in patients with diabetes mellitus, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) monitoring outside international guidance on testing frequency is widespread. Here we examined the relationship between testing frequency and diabetes control to test the hypothesis that retest interval is linked to change in HbA1c level. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We examined repeat HbA1c tests (400,497 tests in 79,409 patients, 2008-2011) processed by three U.K. clinical laboratories. We examined the relationship between retest interval and 1) percentage change in HbA1c and 2) proportion of cases showing a significant HbA1c rise. The effect of demographics factors on these findings was also explored. RESULTS: Our data showed that the optimal testing frequency required to maximize the downward trajectory in HbA1c was four times per year, particularly in those with an initial HbA1c of ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol), supporting international guidance. Testing 3-monthly was associated with a 3.8% reduction in HbA1c compared with a 1.5% increase observed with annual testing; testing more frequently provided no additional benefit. Compared with annual monitoring, 3-monthly testing was associated with a halving of the proportion showing a significant rise in HbA1c (7-10 vs. 15-20%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide, in a large, multicenter data set, objective evidence that testing outside guidance on HbA1c monitoring frequency is associated with a significant detrimental effect on diabetes control. To achieve the optimum downward trajectory in HbA1c, monitoring frequency should be quarterly, particularly in cases with suboptimal HbA1c. While this impact appears small, optimizing monitoring frequency across the diabetes population may have major implications for diabetes control and comorbidity risk.

Inappropriate requesting of glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c) is widespread: assessment of prevalence, impact of national guidance, and practice-to-practice variability.

BACKGROUND: Estimates suggest that approximately 25% of requests for pathology tests are unnecessary. Even in diabetes, for which international guidance provides recommended testing frequency, considerable variability in requesting practice exists. Using the diabetes marker, Hb A(1c), we examined (a) the prevalence of under- and overrequesting, (b) the impact of international guidance on prevalence, and (c) practice-to-practice variability. METHODS: We examined Hb A(1c) requests (519 664 requests from 115 730 patients, January 2001 to March 2011) processed by the Clinical Biochemistry Department, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, and prevalence of requesting outside guidance from intervals between requests was calculated. Requests were classified as "appropriate," "too soon," or "too late." We also assessed the effect of demographic factors and publication of guidance, along with between-practice variability, on prevalence. RESULTS: Only 49% of requests conformed to guidance; 21% were too soon and 30% were too late. Underrequesting was more common in primary care, in female patients, in younger patients, and in patients with generally poorer control (all P < 0.001); the reverse generally was true for overrequesting. Publication of guidance (e.g., American Diabetes Association, UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) had no significant impact on under- or overrequesting rates. Prevalence of inappropriate requests varied approximately 6-fold between general practices. CONCLUSIONS: Although overrequesting was common, underrequesting was more prevalent, potentially affecting longer-term health outcomes. National guidance appears to be an ineffective approach to changing request behavior, supporting the need for a multisystem approach to reducing variability.