Real-world study of the multimorbidity and health service utilisation among individuals with non-diabetic hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus in North West London.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of non-diabetic hyperglycemia (NDH) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing. While T2DM is recognised to be associated with multimorbidity and early mortality, people with NDH are frequently thought to be devoid of such complications, potentially exposing individuals with NDH to suboptimal care. We therefore used the Discover London Secure Data Environment (SDE) dataset to appreciate the relationship of NDH/T2DM with multimorbidity, healthcare usage, and clinical outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The dataset was retrospectively analysed between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020 to understand the relationship between NDH/T2DM and multimorbidity primary/secondary healthcare usage and clinical outcomes. This was compared with a cohort of individuals with thyroid disease but no NDH/T2DM. RESULTS: The dataset identified 152,384 and 124,190 adults with NDH and T2DM compared with 11,626 individuals with thyroid disease (control group). Individuals with NDH and individuals with T2DM had a high burden of disease, with only 13.1% of individuals with either NDH or T2DM not found to be suffering from at least one of the disease states of interest. The three most common comorbidities experienced by individuals with NDH were hypertension (41.4%), hypercholesterolemia (37.5%), and obesity (29.8%) compared with retinopathy (68.7%), hypertension (59.4%), and obesity (45.8%) in individuals with T2DM. Comparatively, the most common comorbidities in the control group were depression (30.8%), hypercholesterolemia (24.4%), and hypertension (17.1%). 28 (control group), 12 (NDH), and 16 (T2DM) primary care contacts per individual per year were identified, with 27,881, 282,371, and 314,880 inpatient admissions for the control, NDH, and T2DM cohorts, respectively. Prescription of drugs used to treat T2DM in individuals with NDH and T2DM was 27,772 (18.2%) and 109,361 (88.1%), respectively, accounting for approximately one in five individuals with NDH developing T2DM. CONCLUSION: Both NDH and T2DM were associated with significant multimorbidity alongside primary and secondary care utilisation. Given the morbidity highlighted with NDH, we highlight the need for earlier detection of NDH, recognition of multimorbidity associated with both NDH and T2DM, as well as the need for the further implementation of interventions to prevent progression to T2DM/multimorbidity.

Care pathways, prescribing practices and treatment outcomes in major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression: retrospective, population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective therapies, many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) develop treatment-resistant depression (TRD). AIMS: To evaluate and compare prescribing patterns, contact with specialist services and treatment outcomes in patients with MDD and TRD. METHOD: This was a retrospective analysis of linked primary and secondary care National Health Service data in the north-west London Discover-NOW data-set. Eligible patients were adults who had diagnostic codes for depression and had been prescribed at least one antidepressant between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 110 406 patients were included, comprising 101 333 (92%) with MDD and 9073 (8%) with TRD. Patients with TRD had significantly higher risks of suicidal behaviour and comorbidities such as anxiety, asthma, and alcohol or substance misuse (all P < 0.0001). Citalopram, sertraline, fluoxetine and mirtazapine accounted for 83% of MDD and 71% of TRD prescriptions. Use of antidepressant switching (1% MDD, 7% TRD) and combination therapy (1%, 5%) was rare, whereas augmentation occurred more frequently in the TRD group (4%, 35%). Remission was recorded in 42 348 (42%) patients with MDD and 1188 (13%) with TRD (P < 0.0001), whereas relapse was seen in 20 970 (21%) and 4923 (54%), respectively (P < 0.0001). Mean times from diagnosis to first contact with mental health services were 38.9 (s.d. 33.6) months for MDD and 41.5 (s.d. 32.0) months for TRD (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a considerable difference between treatment guidelines for depression and TRD and the reality of clinical practice. Long-term treatment with single antidepressants, poor remission, and high relapse rates among patients in primary care highlight the need to optimise treatment pathways and access to newer therapies.

Use of real-world data to assess the effectiveness of ustekinumab in treating IBD patients: a retrospective linked database study in northwest London.

BACKGROUND: Data on the optimum positioning of biologics in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a longitudinal retrospective study of linked health-care data from northwest London, UK, for adults who started ustekinumab for IBD from 1 April 20161 April 2016 to 1 April 20211 April 2021. We compared outcomes by line of therapy (1 vs. 2 or 3+) and age group (18‒59 years or ≥ 60 years). In an analysis of CD patients, we calculated risks of IBD-related hospitalization, IBD-related abdominal surgery, ustekinumab persistence, and switching by line of therapy. RESULTS: Of 163 patients screened, 149 were eligible. Age had no effect on outcomes. Elective all-cause hospital admissions were significantly higher when ustekinumab was used as second-line or third-line therapy compared with first-line treatment (p = 0.0048 and p = 0.001, respectively). In CD patients the numbers of hospital admissions were also higher with second-line or third-line therapy (p = 0.040 and p = 0.018, respectively). Use of ustekinumab as third-line therapy significantly increased the risk of IBD-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.1‒5.6, p = 0.029), IBD-related abdominal surgery (9.45, 1.2‒75.7, p = 0.03), and switching (14.6, 1.6‒131.0, p = 0.02). Drug persistence risks did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of ustekinumab as first-line therapy.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) refers to two long-term conditions, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. In both types, various areas in the digestive system (most often the intestines) become inflamed. Several treatments are available to control inflammation. However, there is no cure, not all drugs work in all patients and sometimes they lose effectiveness over time. Traditionally, treatments have been given in a set order, so for some patients it might take a long time to find a drug that works for them. Biologics are a group of drugs used to treat IBD. There are several different biologics and Ustekinumab is one of the relatively newly introduced ones. The effectiveness of Ustekinumab is established in clinical studies. A team of researchers in Northwest London, organized a project to assess the performance of Ustekinumab in real life. They used anonymous data from the health-care records of patients who had Crohn's disease and had been given ustekinumab as a first, second, or third choice of drug. The study found that the earlier ustekinumab was used, the lower the rates were for disease-related hospital admissions and need for surgery and for having to change to another drug. These findings challenge the traditional order of drug prescribing and suggest that some patients could benefit from changing the drug sequence. More research into the field will allow better understanding of the optimum patient selection and allocation to different types of treatment.

Association and progression of multi-morbidity with Chronic Kidney Disease stage 3a secondary to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, grouped by albuminuria status in the multi-ethnic population of Northwest London: A real-world study.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD) secondary to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is rising worldwide. However, real-world data linking glomerular function and albuminuria to the degree of multi-morbidity is lacking. We thus utilised the Discover dataset, to determine this association. METHOD: Patients with T2DM diagnosed prior to 1st January 2015 with no available biochemical evidence of CKD were included. Patients subsequently diagnosed and coded for CKD3a in 2015, were grouped by the degree of albuminuria. Baseline and 5-year co-morbidity was determined, as were prescribing practices with regards to prognostically beneficial medication. RESULTS: We identified 56,261 patients with T2DM, of which 1082 had CKD stage 3a diagnosed in 2015 (224-CKD3aA1,154-CKD3aA2,93-CKD3aA1; 611 patients with CKD3a but no uACR available in 2015 were excluded from follow up). No statistically significant difference was observed in the degree of co-morbidities at baseline. A significant difference in the degree of hypertension, retinopathy, ischaemic heart disease and vascular disease from baseline compared to study end point was observed for all 3 study groups. Comparing co-morbidities developed at study end point, highlighted a statistical difference between CKD3aA1 Vs CKD3aA3 for retinopathy alone and for hypertension and heart failure between CKD3aA2 Vs CKD3aA3. 40.8% of patients with CKD3aA2 or A3 were prescribed Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone inhibitors (RAASi) therapy between June-December 2021. Survival analysis showed 15% of patients with CKD3aA3 developed CKD stage 5 within 5 years of diagnosis. DISCUSSION: CKD3a secondary to DKD is associated with significant multimorbidity at baseline and 5 years post diagnosis, with CKD3aA3 most strongly associated with CKD progression to CKD 5, heart failure, hypertension and retinopathy compared to CKD3aA1 or CKD3aA2 at 5 years post diagnosis. The lack of uACR testing upon diagnosis and poor prescribing of RAASi, in those with CKD3aA2/A3, raises significant cause for concern. CONCLUSION: DKD is associated with significant multimorbidity. Significant work is needed to be done to ensure patients undergo testing for uACR, to allow for future risk stratification and ability to be started on prognostically beneficial medication.

Smartphone-Based Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Retrospective Cohort Study of Secondary Care Use and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Despite effective therapies, the economic burden of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is driven by frequent hospitalizations. Treatment optimization and admission avoidance rely on frequent symptom reviews and monitoring of vital signs. Remote monitoring (RM) aims to prevent admissions by facilitating early intervention, but the impact of noninvasive, smartphone-based RM of vital signs on secondary health care use and costs in the months after a new diagnosis of HFrEF is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to conduct a secondary care health use and health-economic evaluation for patients with HFrEF using smartphone-based noninvasive RM and compare it with matched controls receiving usual care without RM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 2 cohorts of newly diagnosed HFrEF patients, matched 1:1 for demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and HFrEF severity. They are (1) the RM group, with patients using the RM platform for >3 months and (2) the control group, with patients referred before RM was available who received usual heart failure care without RM. Emergency department (ED) attendance, hospital admissions, outpatient use, and the associated costs of this secondary care activity were extracted from the Discover data set for a 3-month period after diagnosis. Platform costs were added for the RM group. Secondary health care use and costs were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier event analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients (mean age 63 years; 42/146, 29% female) were included (73 in each group). The groups were well-matched for all baseline characteristics except hypertension (P=.03). RM was associated with a lower hazard of ED attendance (hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; P=.02) and unplanned admissions (HR 0.26; P=.02). There were no differences in elective admissions (HR 1.03, P=.96) or outpatient use (HR 1.40; P=.18) between the 2 groups. These differences were sustained by a univariate model controlling for hypertension. Over a 3-month period, secondary health care costs were approximately 4-fold lower in the RM group than the control group, despite the additional cost of RM itself (mean cost per patient GBP £465, US $581 vs GBP £1850, US $2313, respectively; P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective cohort study shows that smartphone-based RM of vital signs is feasible for HFrEF. This type of RM was associated with an approximately 2-fold reduction in ED attendance and a 4-fold reduction in emergency admissions over just 3 months after a new diagnosis with HFrEF. Costs were significantly lower in the RM group without increasing outpatient demand. This type of RM could be adjunctive to standard care to reduce admissions, enabling other resources to help patients unable to use RM.

Survival and health economic outcomes in heart failure diagnosed at hospital admission versus community settings: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most patients with heart failure (HF) are diagnosed following a hospital admission. The clinical and health economic impacts of index HF diagnosis made on admission to hospital versus community settings are not known. METHODS: We used the North West London Discover database to examine 34 208 patients receiving an index diagnosis of HF between January 2015 and December 2020. A propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort was identified to adjust for differences in socioeconomic status, cardiovascular risk and pre-diagnosis health resource utilisation cost. Outcomes were stratified by two pathways to index HF diagnosis: a 'hospital pathway' was defined by diagnosis following hospital admission; and a 'community pathway' by diagnosis via a general practitioner or outpatient services. The primary clinical and health economic endpoints were all-cause mortality and cost-consequence differential, respectively. RESULTS: The diagnosis of HF was via hospital pathway in 68% (23 273) of patients. The PSM cohort included 17 174 patients (8582 per group) and was matched across all selected confounders (p>0.05). The ratio of deaths per person-months at 24 months comparing community versus hospital diagnosis was 0.780 (95% CI 0.722 to 0.841, p<0.0001). By 72 months, the ratio of deaths was 0.960 (0.905 to 1.020, p=0.18). Diagnosis via hospital pathway incurred an overall extra longitudinal cost of £2485 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Index diagnosis of HF through hospital admission continues to dominate and is associated with a significantly greater short-term risk of mortality and substantially increased long-term costs than if first diagnosed in the community. This study highlights the potential for community diagnosis-early, before symptoms necessitate hospitalisation-to improve both clinical and health economic outcomes.