A randomised trial of the effect and cost-effectiveness of early intensive multifactorial therapy on 5-year cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes: the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care (ADDITION-Europe) study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive treatment (IT) of cardiovascular risk factors can halve mortality among people with established type 2 diabetes but the effects of treatment earlier in the disease trajectory are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of intensive multifactorial treatment of screen-detected diabetes. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial. SETTING: Three hundred and forty-three general practices in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Cambridge and Leicester, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 40-69 years with screen-detected diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: Screening plus routine care (RC) according to national guidelines or IT comprising screening and promotion of target-driven intensive management (medication and promotion of healthy lifestyles) of hyperglycaemia, blood pressure and cholesterol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of first cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality/morbidity, revascularisation and non-traumatic amputation) during a mean [standard deviation (SD)] follow-up of 5.3 (1.6) years. Secondary end points were (1) all-cause mortality; (2) microvascular outcomes (kidney function, retinopathy and peripheral neuropathy); and (3) patient-reported outcomes (health status, well-being, quality of life, treatment satisfaction). Economic analyses estimated mean costs (UK 2009/10 prices) and quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS perspective. We extrapolated data to 30 years using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study outcomes model [version 1.3; (©) Isis Innovation Ltd 2010; see www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel (accessed 27 January 2016)]. RESULTS: We included 3055 (RC, n = 1377; IT, n = 1678) of the 3057 recruited patients [mean (SD) age 60.3 (6.9) years] in intention-to-treat analyses. Prescription of glucose-lowering, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medication increased in both groups, more so in the IT group than in the RC group. There were clinically important improvements in cardiovascular risk factors in both study groups. Modest but statistically significant differences between groups in reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure and cholesterol favoured the IT group. The incidence of first cardiovascular event [IT 7.2%, 13.5 per 1000 person-years; RC 8.5%, 15.9 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.05] and all-cause mortality (IT 6.2%, 11.6 per 1000 person-years; RC 6.7%, 12.5 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21) did not differ between groups. At 5 years, albuminuria was present in 22.7% and 24.4% of participants in the IT and RC groups, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07), retinopathy in 10.2% and 12.1%, respectively (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10), and neuropathy in 4.9% and 5.9% (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34), respectively. The estimated glomerular filtration rate increased between baseline and follow-up in both groups (IT 4.31 ml/minute; RC 6.44 ml/minute). Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the groups. The intervention cost £981 per patient and was not cost-effective at costs ≥ £631 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with RC, IT was associated with modest increases in prescribed treatment, reduced levels of risk factors and non-significant reductions in cardiovascular events, microvascular complications and death over 5 years. IT did not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes. IT was not cost-effective but might be if delivered at a reduced cost. The lower than expected event rate, heterogeneity of intervention delivery between centres and improvements in general practice diabetes care limited the achievable differences in treatment between groups. Further follow-up to assess the legacy effects of early IT is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Towards a more efficient diabetes control in primary care: six-monthly monitoring compared with three-monthly monitoring in type 2 diabetes - The EFFIMODI trial. Design of a randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence for the frequency of monitoring of type 2 diabetes patients is lacking. If three-monthly control in general practice could be reduced to six-monthly control in some patients, this would on the one hand reduce the use of medical services including involvement of practice nurses, and thus reduce costs, and on the other hand alleviate the burden of people with type 2 diabetes. The goal of this study is to make primary diabetes care as efficient as possible for patients and health care providers. Therefore, we want to determine whether six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care leads to equivalent cardiometabolic control compared to the generally recommended three-monthly monitoring. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study is a randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial. Participants are asked if they prefer three-monthly (usual care) or six-monthly diabetes monitoring. If they do not have a preference, they are randomised to a three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring group. Patients are eligible for the study if they are between 40 and 80 years old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes more than one year ago, treated by a general practitioner, not on insulin treatment, and with HbA1c < or = 7.5%, systolic blood pressure < or = 145 mmHg and total cholesterol < or = 5.2 mmol/l. The intervention group (six-monthly monitoring) will receive the same treatment with the same treatment targets as the control group (three-monthly monitoring). The intervention period will last one and a half year. After the intervention, the three-monthly and six-monthly monitoring groups are compared on equivalence of cardiometabolic control. Secondary outcome measures are HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol level, Body Mass Index, smoking behaviour, physical activity, loss of work due to illness, health status, diabetes-specific distress, satisfaction with treatment and adherence to medications. We will use intention-to-treat analysis with repeated measures. For outcomes that have only baseline and final measurements, we will use ANCOVA. Depending on the results, a cost-minimisation analysis or an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be done. DISCUSSION: This study will provide valuable information on the most efficient control frequency of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care.