The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on HbA1c Testing: Prioritization of High-Risk Cases and Impact of Social Deprivation.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people with diabetes and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. During the first 6 months of the UK lockdown, > 6.6 M glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) tests were missed. We now report variability in the recovery of HbA1c testing, and its association with diabetes control and demographic characteristics. METHODS: In a service evaluation, we examined HbA1c testing across ten UK sites (representing 9.9% of England's population) from January 2019 to December 2021. We compared monthly requests from April 2020 to those in the equivalent 2019 months. We examined effects of (i) HbA1c level, (ii) between-practice variability, and (iii) practice demographics. RESULTS: In April 2020, monthly requests dropped to 7.9-18.1% of 2019 volumes. By July 2020, testing had recovered to 61.7-86.9% of 2019 levels. During April-June 2020, we observed a 5.1-fold variation in the reduction of HbA1c testing between general practices (12.4-63.8% of 2019 levels). There was evidence of limited prioritization of testing for patients with HbA1c > 86 mmol/mol during April-June 2020 (4.6% of total tests vs. 2.6% during 2019). Testing in areas with the highest social disadvantage was lower during the first lockdown (April-June 2020; trend test p < 0.001) and two subsequent periods (July-September and October-December 2020; both p < 0.001). By February 2021, testing in the highest deprivation group had a cumulative fall in testing of 34.9% of 2019 levels versus 24.6% in those in the lowest group. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight that the pandemic response had a major impact on diabetes monitoring and screening. Despite limited test prioritization in the > 86 mmol/mol group, this failed to acknowledge that those in the 59-86 mmol/mol group require consistent monitoring to achieve the best outcomes. Our findings provide additional evidence that those from poorer backgrounds were disproportionately disadvantaged. Healthcare services should redress this health inequality.

Saving the foot: Simple orthopaedic surgical intervention demonstrates improved outcomes and reduced costs.

BACKGROUND: Forefoot ulceration in diabetes requires significant resources, with high cost and low rates of success. The authors present the results of tendon procedures (percutaneous toe tenotomy and percutaneous tendo-achilles lengthening) under local anaesthetic to adjust mechanics in patients with diabetic neuropathic forefoot ulceration. METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic patient record of 19 patients (22 feet) undergoing local anaesthetic tendon procedures between April 2019 and April 2021 with a 12 month follow up period. Size of ulcer, rate of ulcer healing, complication rates and ulcer recurrence were recorded and compared to a population of conservatively-managed patients (14 patients, 15 feet) treated prior to the introduction of tendon procedures. All clinical information obtained from electronic patient records. RESULTS: All patients undergoing tendon procedures achieved complete ulcer healing at a mean time of 3.3 weeks for toe tip ulcers (after toe tenotomy) and 4.5 weeks for metatarsal head ulcers (after Achilles lengthening). There were no admissions for diabetic foot sepsis, reduced recurrence, reduced amputation rates and no mortality. Of the conservatively managed cohort, only 3 of the 15 achieved ulcer resolution without recurrence within the 12 month study period. The cohort managed conservatively had an average cost of £ 9902 per patient, per annum. The intervention cost was £ 1211 per patient, saving an average of £ 8691 per patient, per annum with ulcer resolution (88 % reduction in costs). CONCLUSION: Significant patient benefit, reduction in resource use and cost saving was seen with this simple intervention, which merits full evaluation in a clinical trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-IV.

Assessment of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HbA1c testing: implications for diabetes management and diagnosis.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic, and the focus on mitigating its effects, has disrupted diabetes healthcare services worldwide. We aimed to quantify the effect of the pandemic on diabetes diagnosis/management, using glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as surrogate, across six UK centres. METHODS: Using routinely collected laboratory data, we estimated the number of missed HbA1c tests for 'diagnostic'/'screening'/'management' purposes during the COVID-19 impact period (CIP; 23 March 2020 to 30 September 2020). We examined potential impact in terms of: (1) diabetes control in people with diabetes and (2) detection of new diabetes and prediabetes cases. RESULTS: In April 2020, HbA1c test numbers fell by ~80%. Overall, across six centres, 369 871 tests were missed during the 6.28 months of the CIP, equivalent to >6.6 million tests nationwide. We identified 79 131 missed 'monitoring' tests in people with diabetes. In those 28 564 people with suboptimal control, this delayed monitoring was associated with a 2-3 mmol/mol HbA1c increase. Overall, 149 455 'screening' and 141 285 'diagnostic' tests were also missed. Across the UK, our findings equate to 1.41 million missed/delayed diabetes monitoring tests (including 0.51 million in people with suboptimal control), 2.67 million screening tests in high-risk groups (0.48 million within the prediabetes range) and 2.52 million tests for diagnosis (0.21 million in the pre-diabetes range; ~70 000 in the diabetes range). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the widespread collateral impact of implementing measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in people with, or being investigated for, diabetes. For people with diabetes, missed tests will result in further deterioration in diabetes control, especially in those whose HbA1c levels are already high.

Cost of hospital treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) compared to the non-diabetes population: a detailed economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Other than age, diabetes is the largest contributor to overall healthcare costs and reduced life expectancy in Europe. This paper aims to more exactly quantify the net impact of diabetes on different aspects of healthcare provision in hospitals in England, building on previous work that looked at the determinants of outcome in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). SETTING: NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England was combined with the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) to provide the total number in practice of people with T1DM/T2DM. OUTCOME MEASURES: We compared differences between T1DM/T2DM and non-diabetes individuals in relation to hospital activity and associated cost. RESULTS: The study captured 90% of hospital activity and £36 billion/year of hospital spend. The NDA Register showed that out of a total reported population of 58 million, 2.9 million (6.5%) had T2DM and 240 000 (0.6%) had T1DM. Bed-day analysis showed 17% of beds are occupied by T2DM and 3% by T1DM. The overall cost of hospital care for people with diabetes is £5.5 billion/year. Once the normally expected costs including the older age of T2DM hospital attenders are allowed for this fell to £3.0 billion/year or 8% of the total captured secondary care costs. This equates to £560/non-diabetes person compared with £3280/person with T1DM and £1686/person with T2DM. For people with diabetes, the net excess impact on non-elective/emergency work is £1.2 billion with additional estimated diabetes-related accident & emergency attendances at 440 000 costing the NHS £70 million/year. T1DM individuals required five times more secondary care support than non-diabetes individuals. T2DM individuals, even allowing for the age, require twice as much support as non-diabetes individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that additional cost of provision of hospital services due to their diabetes comorbidities is £3 billion above that for non-diabetes, and that within this, T1DM has three times as much cost impact as T2DM. We suggest that supporting patients in diabetes management may significantly reduce hospital activity.

Antidepressant Prescribing in England: Patterns and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: The number of prescriptions for antidepressants (ADs) in England and Wales has almost doubled in the past decade. The objective of this article is to describe the current prescribing rates of different antidepressants by general practice (GP) practice. METHODS: We collated the prescribing behavior in each GP practice in the year April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. The monthly GP practice prescribing data reports for medication prescribing for each British National Formulary code and practice, as well as the prescriptions, quantity, and costs were examined in relation to prescribing practice. RESULTS: The data showed that 2.1 billion doses of antidepressant were prescribed to a total population of 52 million people. That equates to 11% of individuals taking ≥ 1 antidepressants on any day. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most prescribed class of ADs, with sertraline the most prescribed SSRI. The other most prescribed ADs were citalopram, fluoxetine, and mirtazapine. Some older agents, such as trimipramine and doxepin, are prescribed at a very high tariff. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly, the findings are in keeping with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in that the bulk of prescriptions were for SSRIs. Regular audit of patient treatment at a general practice level will ensure appropriate targeted use of licensed medications as supported by the evidence base.

Analysis of English general practice level data linking medication levels, service activity and demography to levels of glycaemic control being achieved in type 2 diabetes to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate relative clinical effectiveness of treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using a statistical model of real-world evidence within UK general practitioner practices (GPP), to quantify the opportunities for diabetes care performance improvement. METHOD: From the National Diabetes Audit in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, GPP target glycaemic control (TGC-%HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol) and higher glycaemic risk (HGR -%HbA1c results >86 mmol/mol) outcomes were linked using multivariate linear regression to prescribing, demographics and practice service indicators. This was carried out both cross-sectionally (XS) (within year) and longitudinally (Lo) (across years) on 35 indicators. Standardised ß coefficients were used to show relative level of impact of each factor. Improvement opportunity was calculated as impact on TGC & HGR numbers. RESULTS: Values from 6525 GPP with 2.7 million T2DM individuals were included. The cross-sectional model accounted for up to 28% TGC variance and 35% HGR variance, and the longitudinal model accounted for up to 9% TGC and 17% HGR variance. Practice service indicators including % achieving routine checks/blood pressure/cholesterol control targets were positively correlated, while demographic indicators including % younger age/social deprivation/white ethnicity were negatively correlated. The ß values for selected molecules are shown as (increased TGC; decreased HGR), canagliflozin (XS 0.07;0.145/Lo 0.04;0.07), metformin (XS 0.12;0.04/Lo -;-), sitagliptin (XS 0.06;0.02/Lo 0.10;0.06), empagliflozin (XS-;0.07/Lo 0.09;0.07), dapagliflozin (XS -;0.04/Lo -;0.4), sulphonylurea (XS -0.18;-0.12/Lo-;-) and insulin (XS-0.14;0.02/ Lo-0.09;-). Moving all GPP prescribing and interventions to the equivalent of the top performing decile of GPP could result in total patients in TGC increasing from 1.90 million to 2.14 million, and total HGR falling from 191 000 to 123 000. CONCLUSIONS: GPP using more legacy therapies such as sulphonylurea/insulin demonstrate poorer outcomes, while those applying holistic patient management/use of newer molecules demonstrate improved glycaemic outcomes. If all GPP moved service levels/prescribing to those of the top decile, both TGC/HGR could be substantially improved.

The pattern of prescribing of glucose modulating agents for type 2 diabetes in general practices in England 2016/17.

BACKGROUND: In the financial year 2016/17 there were 52.0 million items prescribed for diabetes at a total net ingredient cost of £983.7 million - up from 28.9 million prescription items and £572.4 million in 2006/07. Anti-diabetes drugs (British National Formulary section 6.1.2) make up 45.1 per cent of the total £983.7 million net ingredient cost of drugs used in diabetes and account for 72.0 per cent of prescription items for all diabetes prescribing. METHODS: We examined the way that agents licensed to treat type 2 diabetes were used across GP practices in England in the year 2016/2017. Analysis was at a GP practice level not at the level of patient data. RESULTS: Annual prescribing costs / patient / medication type for monotherapy varied considerable from £11/year for gliclazide and glimepiride to £885/year for Liraglutide. The use of SGLT-2i agents grew strongly at 70% per annum to around 100,000 DDD with prescriptions seen in 95% of GP practices. Liraglutide expenditure (11% of total) was high for a relatively small number of patients (1.3% of Defined Daily Doses), with still significant spend on exenatide. Liraglutide use significantly exceeded that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates the significant cost of medication to modulate tissue glucose levels in type 2 diabetes and the dominance of some non-generic preparations in terms of number of prescriptions and overall spend. There are some older sulphonylureas in use, which should not generally be prescribed. Regular audit of patient treatment at a general practice level will ensure appropriate targeted use of licensed medications and of their cost effectiveness.

Improving type 2 diabetes mellitus glycaemic outcomes is possible without spending more on medication: Lessons from the UK National Diabetes Audit.

AIMS: To determine the factors at general practice level that relate to glycaemic control outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Data were accessed from 4050 general practices (50% of total) covering 1.6 million patients with T2DM in the UK National Diabetes Audit 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015. This audit reported characteristics, services and outcomes in the T2DM population, including percentage of patients who had total glycaemic control (TGC), defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and the percentage who were at higher glycaemic risk (HGR), defined as HbA1c >10% (86 mmol/mol); the respective figures were 67.2% and 6.2%. The medication data were examined in terms of annual defined daily doses (DDDs). Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to identify associations between DDD and patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Over the period 2012/2013 to 2015/2016, patient numbers grew 4% annually and annual medication expenditure by 8%, but glycaemic control outcomes did not improve. The main findings were that practices with better outcomes: had a higher percentage of patients aged >65 years; provided more effective diabetes services (including case identification, care checks, patient education, percentage of patients with blood pressure and cholesterol under control and more patients with type 1 diabetes achieving target HbA1c levels); spent less overall on prescribing per patient with T2DM; and on average, prescribed fewer sulphonylureas, less insulin (for patients with T2DM), fewer glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, more metformin, more dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and more blood glucose monitoring strips. Ethnicity and social disadvantage and levels of thiazolidinedione (glitazone) prescribing had no significant impact on outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor use was too low for an effect to be observed in the period examined. CONCLUSIONS: If all practices brought their service and medication to the level of the top decile practices, they could achieve 74.7% compared with the median of 67.3% of patients achieving TGC, showing an increase of 213 000 in patients achieving TGC, while reducing the number at HGR to 3.8% compared with 6.1%, benefiting 62 000 patients. This could have a major impact on the overall consequent healthcare costs of managing diabetes complications with their attendant mortality risks.