A diabetes registrar assisted workflow intervention in general practice for systematic initiation of cardiorenal medications for patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a weekly diabetes registrar clinic and case discussions conducted over 12 weeks in primary care improves guideline management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A registrar-led diabetes clinic was incorporated into two primary care practices in Tamaki Makaurau Auckland for 3 months. Patients with T2D and albuminuria appearing on practice dashboards as not prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB), or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (SGLT2i/GLP1RA) were booked into these clinics. Opportunistic education sessions were provided by the diabetes registrar and prescribers were surveyed to understand the challenges in management of T2D. RESULTS: Of 125 patients booked, 80 attended the registrar clinic. Of these, 68% were clinically suitable for SGLT2i/GLP1RA and 8% for ACEi/ARB. SGLT2i/GLP1RA were initiated in 92% and ACEi/ARB in 89% of eligible patients. Two patients had contraindications for SGLT2i/GLP1RA, and one patient declined both. Additional cardiorenal medications were initiated in 16% of patients. Survey responses of 12 prescribers indicated acute illness takes priority over diabetes management, and lack of time and knowledge are main barriers to optimising diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS: A visiting diabetes registrar intervention was successful in initiating guideline medications for T2D in primary care. It remains to be evaluated whether this leads to practice-wide improvements in prescribing gaps in the short or longer term.

Stratified glucose-lowering response to vildagliptin and pioglitazone by obesity and hypertriglyceridemia in a randomized crossover trial.

Background: Understanding which group of patients with type 2 diabetes will have the most glucose lowering response to certain medications (which target different aspects of glucose metabolism) is the first step in precision medicine. Aims: We hypothesized that people with type 2 diabetes who generally have high insulin resistance, such as people of Maori/Pacific ethnicity, and those with obesity and/or hypertriglyceridemia (OHTG), would have greater glucose-lowering by pioglitazone (an insulin sensitizer) versus vildagliptin (an insulin secretagogue). Methods: A randomised, open-label, two-period crossover trial was conducted in New Zealand. Adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c>58mmol/mol (>7.5%), received 16 weeks of either pioglitazone (30mg) or vildagliptin (50mg) daily, then switched to the other medication over for another 16 weeks of treatment. Differences in HbA1c were tested for interaction with ethnicity or OHTG, controlling for baseline HbA1c using linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included weight, blood pressure, side-effects and diabetes treatment satisfaction. Results: 346 participants were randomised (55% Maori/Pacific) between February 2019 to March 2020. HbA1c after pioglitazone was lower than after vildagliptin (mean difference -4.9mmol/mol [0.5%]; 95% CI -6.3, -3.5; p<0.0001). Primary intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant interaction effect by Maori/Pacific vs other ethnicity (1.5mmol/mol [0.1%], 95% CI -0.8, 3.7), and per-protocol analysis (-1.2mmol/mol [0.1%], 95% CI -4.1, 1.7). An interaction effect (-4.7mmol/mol [0.5%], 95% CI -8.1, -1.4) was found by OHTG status. Both treatments generated similar treatment satisfaction scores, although there was greater weight gain and greater improvement in lipids and liver enzymes after pioglitazone than vildagliptin. Conclusions: Comparative glucose-lowering by pioglitazone and vildagliptin is not different between Maori/Pacific people compared with other New Zealand ethnic groups. Presence of OHTG predicts greater glucose lowering by pioglitazone than vildagliptin. Clinical trial registration: www.anzctr.org.au, identifier (ACTRN12618001907235).

Randomised cross-over trial of vildagliptin and pioglitazone as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: predicting Which One is Right Here (WORTH) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is emerging evidence for stratified glucose-lowering responses to certain oral medications for type 2 diabetes (T2D) by individual characteristics. The objective of this study was to test whether glycaemic response to representative treatments of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin) and thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone) varies according to ethnicity, gender, baseline obesity, triglyceride level or genetic variation. METHODS: This is a multicentre, two-period, two-treatment, open-label, randomised cross-over trial of vildagliptin and pioglitazone as second-line or third-line therapy in patients with T2D who have suboptimal glycaemic control on metformin and/or sulfonylurea therapy. It is conducted in New Zealand with a target of 300 patients (40% with Maori or Pacific ancestry) eligible if aged ≥18 and ≤80 years, with T2D for more than 1 year, on stable doses of metformin and/or sulfonylurea for at least 3 months, with HbA1c between 59 and 110 mmol/mol inclusive. Participants are assigned to complete 4 months of vildagliptin 50 mg per day or pioglitazone 30 mg per day, followed by 4 months of the other medications in randomly allocated sequences. Participant characteristics, including ethnicity, obesity, lipid profile and candidate genotypes are collected at baseline. Primary outcome variable is on treatment HbA1c. Secondary outcomes include weight change, frequency of side effects and patient preference. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval of the trial has been obtained from the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (18/STH/242). The trial commenced in February 2019 and recruitment is expected to be completed by March 2020. Results will be reported in articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals, as well as in presentations at national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001907235.

A unified national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk generator is required to address equity in the management of CVD risk in clinical practice in New Zealand.

There is a strong body of evidence that supports identifying and managing people according to their risk of a future cardiovascular (CVD) event. Since 2012 the New Zealand public health sector has achieved 90% CVD risk assessment (CVDRA) for each eligible person across New Zealand using a modified version of an overseas risk equation, through incentivising Primary Health Organisation (PHO) performance. In 2018 the New Zealand Ministry of Health endorsed the use of a suite of four new CVDRA equations which were developed using the large NZ Predict cohort (500,000 people). These equations more accurately reflect an individual's CVD risk and incorporate both traditional CVD risk factors, such as smoking and diabetes, but also sociodemographic factors including ethnicity and a deprivation score. The new CVDRA equations are an important tool to address the major inequities in CVD incidence, prevalence and mortality in Aotearoa-New Zealand. However, while the new equations provide more accurate assessment of risk, they are more complicated and therefore more prone to error if not properly validated and systematically implemented. To take advantage of this important opportunity to address equity in heart health we need strategic vision and national leadership. In this paper we make the case that to most safely and cost effectively implement the new equations, the Ministry of Health (MOH) should support a unified national CVD risk generator. A single, electronic, national CVD risk generator would: a) ensure national consistency and quality control-a single set of validated and current equations would be available to both clinicians and patients; b) avoid substantial replication of effort and cost in both developing and validating multiple calculators; c) enable central collection of the encrypted dataset required to develop more accurate risk assessment equations in population subgroups, both now and in the future, as CVD risk evolves; d) provide a platform to facilitate systematic and consistent national CVD risk communication and management; and e) facilitate ease of updating the tool and practice in the future as changes to the algorithm are agreed.

A 'whole of system' approach to compare options for CVD interventions in Counties Manukau.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of a national and a local system dynamics model of cardiovascular disease to planning and funding decision makers. METHODS: In an iterative process, an existing national model was populated with local data and presented to stakeholders in Counties Manukau, New Zealand. They explored the model's plausibility, usefulness and implications. Data were collected from 30 people using questionnaires, and from field notes and interviews; both were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Potential users readily understood the model and actively engaged in discussing it. None disputed the overall model structure, but most wanted extensions to elaborate areas of specific interest to them. Local data made little qualitative difference to data interpretation but were nevertheless considered a necessary step to support confident local decisions. CONCLUSION: Some limitations to the model and its use were recognised, but users could allow for these and still derive use from the model to qualitatively compare decision options. IMPLICATIONS: The system dynamics modelling process is useful in complex systems and is likely to become established as part of the routinely used suite of tools used to support complex decisions in Counties Manukau District Health Board.

Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: In all countries people experience different social circumstances that result in avoidable differences in health. In New Zealand, Maori, Pacific peoples, and those with lower socioeconomic status experience higher levels of chronic illness, which is the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and inequitable health outcomes. Whilst the health system can enable a fairer distribution of good health, limited national data is available to measure health equity. Therefore, we sought to find out whether health services in New Zealand were equitable by measuring the level of development of components of chronic care management systems across district health boards. Variation in provision by geography, condition or ethnicity can be interpreted as inequitable. METHODS: A national survey of district health boards (DHBs) was undertaken on macro approaches to chronic condition management with detail on cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and diabetes. Additional data from expert informant interviews on program reach and the cultural needs of Maori and Pacific peoples was sought. Survey data were analyzed on dimensions of health equity relevant to strategic planning and program delivery. Results are presented as descriptive statistics and free text. Interviews were transcribed and NVivo 8 software supported a general inductive approach to identify common themes. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from the majority of DHBs (15/21), some PHOs (21/84) and 31 expert informants. Measuring, monitoring and targeting equity is not systematically undertaken. The Health Equity Assessment Tool is used in strategic planning but not in decisions about implementing or monitoring disease programs. Variable implementation of evidence-based practices in disease management and multiple funding streams made program implementation difficult. Equity for Maori is embedded in policy, this is not so for other ethnic groups or by geography. Populations that conventional practitioners find hard to reach, despite recognized needs, are often underserved. Nurses and community health workers carried a disproportionate burden of care. Cultural and diversity training is not a condition of employment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a struggle to put equity principles into practice, indicating will without enactment. Equity is not addressed systematically below strategic levels and equity does not shape funding decisions, program development, implementation and monitoring. Equity is not incentivized although examples of exceptional practice, driven by individuals, are evident across New Zealand.

National variability in provision of health services for major long-term conditions in New Zealand (a report from the ABCC NZ study).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic illness is the leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and inequitable health outcomes in New Zealand. The ABCCNZ Stocktake aimed to identify extent of long-term conditions management evidence-based practices in stroke, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure in New Zealand's District Health Boards (DHBs). METHODS: Eleven 'dimensions' of care for long-term conditions, identified by literature review and confirmed at workshops with long-term conditions professionals, formed the basis of the Stocktake of all 21 DHBs. It comprised two questionnaires: a generic component capturing perceptions of practice; and a disease-specific component assessing service provision. RESULTS: Fifteen DHBs completed all or parts of the questionnaires. Data accrual was completed in July 2008. Although most DHBs had developed long-term conditions management strategies to a moderate degree, there was considerable variability of practice between DHBs. DHBs thought their PHOs had developed strategies in some areas to a low to moderate level, though cardiovascular disease provision rated more highly. Regarding disease-specific services, larger DHBs had greater long-term conditions management provision not only of tertiary services, but of standard care, leadership, self-management, case-management, and audit. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in perceptions of long-term conditions management service provision across DHBs. In many instances variability in actual disease-specific service provision appears to relate to DHB size.

Chronic Care Management evolves towards Integrated Care in Counties Manukau, New Zealand.

Despite anecdotes of many chronic care management and integrated care projects around New Zealand, there is no formal process to collect and share relevant learning within (but especially between) District Health Boards (DHBs). We wish to share our experiences and hope to stimulate a productive exchange of ongoing learning. We define chronic care management and integrated care, then summarise current theory and evidence. We describe national policy development (relevant to integrated care, since 2000) including the New Zealand Health Strategy, the NZ Primary Care Strategy, the development of Primary Health Organisations (PHOs), capitation payments, Care Plus, and Services to Improve Access funding. We then describe chronic care management in Counties Manukau, which evolved both prior to and during the international refinement of theory and evidence and the national policy development and implementation. We reflect on local progress to date and opportunities for (and barriers to) future improvements, aided by comparative reflections on the United Kingdom (UK). Our most important messages are addressed as follows: To policymakers and funders--a fragile culture change towards teamwork in the health system is taking place in New Zealand; this change needs to be specifically and actively supported. To PHOs--general practices need help to align their internal (within-practice) financial signals with the new world of capitation and integrated care. To primary and secondary care doctors, nurses, and other carers - systematic chronic care management and integrated care can improve patient quality of life; and if healthcare structures and systems are properly managed to support integration, then healthcare provider professional and personal satisfaction will improve.