Age-specific associations between the number of co-morbidities, all-cause mortality and public direct medical costs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.

AIM: To evaluate the association between the number of co-morbidities, all-cause mortality and public health system expenditure in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across different age groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study of T2D patients using electronic health records in Hong Kong was conducted. Patients were stratified by age (< 50, 50-64, 65-79, ≥ 80 years) and the number of co-morbidities (0, 1, 2, 3, ≥ 4), defined using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and prevalent chronic diseases identified in local surveys. The association between the number of co-morbidities, all-cause mortality and direct medical costs was examined using Cox proportional hazard regression and the gamma generalized linear model with log link function. RESULTS: A total of 262 212 T2D patients with a median follow-up of 10 years were included. Hypertension and dyslipidaemia were the most common co-morbidities in all age groups. After age stratification, cardiovascular diseases dominated the top pair of co-morbidities in the older age groups (65-79 and ≥ 80 years), while inflammatory and liver disease were predominant among younger individuals. Compared with co-morbidity-free T2D patients, the hazard ratios (95% CI) of death for patients aged younger than 50 and 80 years or older with two co-morbidities were 1.31 (1.08-1.59) and 1.25 (1.15-1.36), respectively, and increased to 3.08 (2.25-4.21) and 1.98 (1.82-2.16), respectively, as the number of co-morbidities increased to four or more. Similar trends were observed for medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Age-specific co-morbidity patterns were observed for patients with T2D. A greater number of co-morbidities was associated with increased mortality and healthcare costs, with stronger relationships observed among younger patients.

Ten-Year Effectiveness of the Multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM) on Macrovascular and Microvascular Complications and All-Cause Mortality: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM) is a protocol-driven, risk-stratified, and individualized management program offered by a multidisciplinary team in addition to usual care for primary care patients with diabetes. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of RAMP-DM for preventing complications and mortality over 10 years. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A population-based, prospective cohort study of adult patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Hong Kong public primary health care system between 2009 and 2010 was conducted. RAMP-DM participants and usual care patients were matched using one-to-one propensity score matching and followed for 10 years. Risks of macrovascular and microvascular complications and all-cause mortality were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 36,746 patients (18,373 in each group) were included after propensity score matching, with a median follow-up of 9.5 years and 306,802 person-years. RAMP-DM participants had significantly lower risks of macrovascular (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.50-0.54) and microvascular (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.64-0.72) complications and all-cause mortality (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.43-0.47) than patients who received usual care only. However, the effect of RAMP-DM on macrovascular and microvascular complications attenuated after the 9th and 8th year of follow-up, respectively. RAMP-DM participants also showed better control of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, triglycerides, and BMI and a slower decline in renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in diabetes-related complications and all-cause mortality were observed among RAMP-DM participants over a 10-year follow-up, yet the effect of preventing complications attenuated after 8 years.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy with different levels of financial incentive in a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To examine the impact of different levels of financial incentive in terms of fee subsidization on diabetic retinopathy screening in the private primary care setting in Hong Kong. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All general practitioners working in the private sector and registered in two electronic public databases were invited to participate. Consecutive patients with diabetes mellitus were then recruited by the participating practitioners. The recruited participants were randomly allocated to one of three screening groups with different fee levels (HK$0, HK$150 [US$19], HK$300 [US$39]) in a randomized controlled trial. Screening uptake and severity of diabetic retinopathy detected were compared. RESULTS: Out of 1,688 eligible practitioners, 105 participated and invited 402 patients, with 239 initially agreeing to participate (59.5%). After randomization, 78, 75 and 76 participants in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 fee groups, respectively, reconfirmed their participation and were offered screening at the relevant fee. The uptake of screening was 79.5% (62/78), 81.3% (61/75) and 63.2% (48/76), in the HK$0, HK$150 and HK$300 groups, respectively (P < 0.018). Being in the HK$150 fee group was associated with higher uptake of screening than being in the HK$300 fee group (odds ratio 2.31, P = 0.039). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of any diabetic retinopathy (33.9%, 27.9% and 37.5%, P = 0.378) or sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (4.8%, 8.2% and 16.7%; P = 0.092) among the groups. CONCLUSION: A screening fee of HK$150, representing approximately a half subsidy, appears to be as effective in maximizing uptake as a full subsidy (HK$0) and without deterring those at high risk of diabetic retinopathy from screening.