Hyperglycemia in hospital: an independent marker of infection, acute kidney injury & stroke for hospital inpatients.

CONTEXT: Hyperglycemia in hospital inpatients without pre-existing diabetes is associated with increased mortality. However, the independent contribution of hyperglycemia to healthcare-associated infection (HAI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between hyperglycemia and adverse clinical outcomes in hospital for patients with and without diabetes. DESIGN: Diabetes IN-hospital: Glucose and Outcomes (DINGO) was a 26-week (October 2019 - March 2020) prospective cohort study. Clinical and glucose data were collected up to the 14th day of admission. Primary stratification was by hyperglycemia, defined as ≥2 random capillary blood glucose (BG) measurements ≥11.1 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL). Propensity weighting for nine clinical characteristics, was performed to allow interrogation of causality. To maintain the positivity assumption, patients with HbA1c > 12.0% were excluded and pre-hospital treatment not adjusted for. SETTING: The Royal Melbourne Hospital, a quaternary referral hospital in Melbourne, Australia. PATIENTS: Admissions with at least two capillary glucose values and length of stay >24 hours were eligible, with half randomly sampled. OUTCOME MEASURES: HAI, AKI, stroke, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2,558 included admissions, 1,147 (45%) experienced hyperglycemia in hospital. Following propensity-weighting and adjustment, hyperglycemia in hospital was found to, independently of nine covariables, contribute an increased risk of in-hospital HAI (130 [11.3%] vs.100 [7.1%], adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.003), AKI (120 [10.5%] vs. 59 [4.2%], aOR 1.07, 95%CI 1.05-1.09, p < 0.001), and stroke (10 [0.9%] vs. 1 [0.1%], aOR 1.05, 95%CI 1.04-1.06, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In hospital inpatients (HbA1c ≤ 12.0%), irrespective of diabetes status and pre-hospital glycaemia, hyperglycemia increases the risk of in-hospital HAI, AKI, and stroke compared with those not experiencing hyperglycemia.

Perioperative use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for diabetes mellitus.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an increasingly common long-term condition, and suboptimal perioperative glycaemic control can lead to postoperative harms. The advent of new antidiabetic drugs, in particular glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, has enabled perioperative continuation of these medicines, thus avoiding the harms of variable rate i.v. insulin infusions whilst providing glycaemic control. There are differences between medicines regulatory agencies and organisations on how these classes that are most often used to treat diabetes mellitus, (but also in the case of SGLT2 inhibitors chronic kidney disease and heart failure in those without diabetes) should be managed in the perioperative period. In this commentary, we argue that GLP-1 receptor agonists should continue during the perioperative period and that SGLT2 inhibitors should only be omitted the day prior to a planned procedure . The reasons for the differing advice advocated between regulatory agencies and what anaesthetic practitioners should do in the face of continuing uncertainty are discussed.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: A subgroup analysis from the FLASH-UK study.

AIMS: The FLASH-UK trial showed lower HbA1c with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), as compared with self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in adults with type 1 diabetes and HbA1c ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%). Here, we present results from the pre-specified subgroup analysis for the 24-week HbA1c (primary outcome) and selected sensor-based secondary outcomes. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, parallel-design, randomised controlled trial. The difference in treatment effect between subgroups (baseline HbA1c [≤75 vs. >75 mmol/mol] [≤9.0 vs >9.0%], treatment modality [pump vs injections], prior participation in structured education, age, educational level, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, deprivation index quintile sex, ethnic group and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] detected depression category) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six participants (females 44%, mean [SD] baseline HbA1c 71 [9] mmol/mol 8.6 [0.8%], age 44 [15]) were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio to isCGM (n = 78) or SMBG (n = 78). The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c (%) was 8.7 (0.9) in the isCGM group and 8.5 (0.8) in the SMBG group, lowering to 7.9 (0.8) versus 8.3 (0.9), respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.3; p < 0.001]. For HbA1c, there was no impact of treatment modality, prior participation in structured education, deprivation index quintile, sex or baseline depression category. The between-group difference in HbA1c was larger for younger people (a reduction of 2.7 [95% CI 0.3-5.0; p = 0.028] mmol/mol for every additional 15 years of age). Those with HbA1c 76-97 mmol/mol (>9.0%-11.0%) had a marginally non-significant higher reduction in HbA1c of 8.4 mmol/mol (3.3-13.5) compared to 3.1 (0.3-6.0) in those with HbA1c 58-75 mmol/mol (p = 0.08). For 'Time in range' (% 3.9-10 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those with at least a bachelor's degree. For 'Time below range' (% <3.9 mmol/L), the difference was larger for those using injections, older people and those with less than bachelor's degree. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring is generally effective across a range of baseline characteristics.

Improving the outcomes for people with diabetes undergoing surgery: An observational study of the Improving the Peri-operative Pathway of People with Diabetes (IP3D) intervention.

AIMS: We evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention to improve the care of people with diabetes undergoing surgery when implemented across multiple organisations. METHODS: This was an observational study using routinely collected data. Eight hospitals in England implemented the Improving the Peri-operative Pathway of People with Diabetes (IP3D) intervention, with pre-implementation data collected from 1st February to 31st July 2019 and post-implementation data collection within the period 1st February to 31st October 2021. Key elements were the use of a patient empowering peri-operative passport and the employment of a peri-operative diabetes specialist nurse. The primary outcome was the change in length of stay. RESULTS: In total 1837 patients at pre-implementation and 1164 patients at post-implementation undergoing elective surgery were included. Pre- and post-implementation 23.8 % and 33.4 % of patients had day-case surgery respectively. For in-patients median length of stay decreased from 3.2 days (inter-quartile range 1.5-6.1) pre-implementation to 2.5 days (inter-quartile range 1.4-5.4) post-implementation. There were also significant improvements in patient experience, hypo- and hyper-glycaemic events, wound complications and diabetes related complications. CONCLUSIONS: The IP3D intervention has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce waiting lists for elective surgery on a nationwide basis.

Diabetes foot complications and standardized mortality rate in type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To quantify the impact of foot complications on mortality outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and how routinely measured factors might modulate that risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for individuals with T2D for 2010-2020, from the Salford Integrated Care Record (Salford, UK), were extracted for laboratory and clinical data, and deaths. Annual expected deaths were taken from Office of National Statistics mortality data. An index of multiple deprivation (IMD) adjusted the standardized mortality ratio (SMR_IMD). Life years lost per death (LYLD) was estimated from the difference between expected and actual deaths. RESULTS: A total of 11 806 T2D patients were included, with 5583 new diagnoses and 3921 deaths during 2010-2020. The number of expected deaths was 2135; after IMD adjustment, there were 2595 expected deaths. Therefore, excess deaths numbered 1326 (SMR_IMD 1.51). No foot complications were evident in n = 9857. This group had an SMR_IMD of 1.13 and 2.74 LYLD. In total, 2979 patients had any foot complication recorded. In this group, the SMD_IMR was 2.29; of these, 2555 (75%) had only one foot complication. Patients with a foot complication showed little difference in percentage HbA1c more than 58 mmol/mol. In multivariate analysis, for those with a foot complication and an albumin-to-creatinine ratio of more than 3 mg/mmol, the odds ratio (OR) for death was 1.93, and for an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2 , the OR for death was 1.92. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2D but without a foot complication have an SMR_IMD that is only slightly higher than that of the general population. Those diagnosed with a foot complication have a mortality risk that is double that of those without T2D.

Failure to control conventional cardiovascular risk factors in women with type 2 diabetes might explain worse mortality.

INTRODUCTION: The standardised mortality rate (SMR) for people with diabetes in England is 1.5-1.7, with differences in outcomes between sexes. There has been little work examining the factors that could have an impact on this or on what may determine sex differences in outcome. METHODS: Data were extracted for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Salford (England) in 2010 for the years up to 2020, including any deaths recorded. Expected deaths were calculated from annual Office of National Statistics mortality rate and life expectancy by age and gender, adjusted for the local Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). This provided the SMR deprivation (SMRd), and life expectancy years lost per death (LEYLD). The effects of treatment type, and clinical features on SMRd relative to sex were examined by univariable and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Data from n = 11,806 (F = 5184; M = 6622) patients were included. Of these, n = 5540 were newly diagnosed and n = 3921 died (F = 1841; M = 2080). In total, n = 78,930 patient years. The expected deaths numbered n = 2596 (adjusted for age, sex, and IMD). Excess deaths were n = 1325 (F = 689; M = 636). Life expectancy years lost (LEYL) 18,989 (F = 9714; M = 9275). SMRd 1.51 (F = 1.60; M = 1.44) and LEYLD 4.84 years (F = 5.28; M = 4.46). The impact of risk factors was not different by sex. However, women had higher prevalence of % diagnosed >65 years of age; % last eGFR <60 mLs/min/1.73 m2 , and lower prevalence of % prescribed ACE-inhibitor/ARB, DPP4-inhibitor and SGLT2-inhibitor. Applying the male prevalence rate to the female population and expected mortality suggested n = 437 (55%) of excess T2D female deaths were attributed to sex difference in the prevalence of these risk and protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes in women with T2DM are worse than in men, contributed to by greater prevalence of adverse factors and less prescribing of cardioprotective medication.

Frontiers in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in diabetic sensorimotor neuropathy (DSPN).

Diabetes sensory polyneuropathy (DSPN) is a significant complication of diabetes affecting up to 50% of patients in their lifetime and approximately 20% of patients suffer from painful diabetes neuropathic pain. DSPN - both painless and painful - leads to considerable morbidity including reduction of quality of life, increased lower limb amputations and is associated with worsening mortality. Significant progress has been made in the understanding of pathogenesis of DSPN and the last decade has seen newer techniques aimed at its earlier diagnosis. The management of painful DSPN remains a challenge despite advances made in the unravelling the pathogenesis of pain and its transmission. This article discusses the heterogenous clinical presentation of DSPN and the need to exclude key differential diagnoses. Furthermore, it reviews in detail the current diagnostic techniques involving both large and small neural fibres, their limitations and advantages and current place in the diagnosis of DSPN. Finally, the management of DSPN including newer pharmacotherapies are also discussed.

How Can Point-of-Care Technologies Support In-Hospital Diabetes Care?

People with diabetes admitted to hospital are at risk of diabetes related complications including hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis. Point-of-care (POC) tests undertaken at the patient bedside, for glucose, ketones, and other analytes, are a key component of monitoring people with diabetes, to ensure safety. POC tests implemented with a quality framework are critical to ensuring accuracy and veracity of results and preventing erroneous clinical decision making. POC results can be used for self-management of glucose levels in those well-enough and/or by healthcare professionals to identify unsafe levels. Connectivity of POC results to electronic health records further offers the possibility of utilising these results proactively to identify patients 'at risk' in real-time and for audit purposes. In this article, the key considerations when implementing POC tests for diabetes in-patient management are reviewed and potential to drive improvements using networked glucose and ketone measurements are discussed. In summary, new advances in POC technology should allow people with diabetes and the teams looking after them whilst in hospital to integrate to provide safe and effective care.

Variation in the Current Use of Technology to Support Diabetes Management in UK Hospitals: Results of a Survey of Health Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: There has been a significant increase in the use of wearable diabetes technologies in the outpatient setting over recent years, but this has not consistently translated into inpatient use. METHODS: An online survey was undertaken to understand the current use of technology to support inpatient diabetes care in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Responses were received from 42 different organizations representing 104 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Significant variation was found between organizations in the use of technology to support safe, effective inpatient diabetes care. Benefits of the use of technology were reported, and areas of good practice identified. CONCLUSION: Technology supports good inpatient diabetes care, but there is currently variation in its use. Guidance has been developed which should drive improvements in the use of technology and hence improvements in the safety and effectiveness of inpatient diabetes care. Key recommendations include implementation of this guidance (especially for continuous glucose monitoring), ensuring specialist support is available for the use of wearable diabetes technology in hospital, optimizing information sharing across the health care system, and making full use of data from networked glucose and ketone meters.

Rollout of Closed-Loop Technology to Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes: Healthcare Professionals' Views About Potential Challenges and Solutions.

Aims: To explore healthcare professionals' views about the training and support needed to rollout closed-loop technology to pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We interviewed (n = 19) healthcare professionals who supported pregnant women using CamAPS FX closed-loop during the Automated insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes (AiDAPT) trial. Data were analyzed descriptively. An online workshop involving (n = 15) trial team members was used to inform recommendations. Ethics approvals were obtained in conjunction with those for the wider trial. Results: Interviewees expressed enthusiasm for a national rollout of closed-loop, but anticipated various challenges, some specific to use during pregnancy. These included variations in insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring expertise and difficulties embedding and retaining key skills, due to the relatively small numbers of pregnant women using closed-loop. Inexperienced staff also highlighted difficulties interpreting data downloads. To support rollout, interviewees recommended providing expert initial advice training, delivered by device manufacturers together with online training resources and specific checklists for different systems. They also highlighted a need for 24 h technical support, especially when supporting technology naive women after first transitioning onto closed-loop in early pregnancy. They further recommended providing case-based meetings and mentorship for inexperienced colleagues, including support interpreting data downloads. Interviewees were optimistic that if healthcare professionals received training and support, their long-term workloads could be reduced because closed-loop lessened women's need for glycemic management input, especially in later pregnancy. Conclusions: Interviewees identified challenges and opportunities to rolling-out closed-loop and provided practical suggestions to upskill inexperienced staff supporting pregnant women using closed-loop. A key priority will be to determine how best to develop mentorship services to support inexperienced staff delivering closed-loop. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04938557.

Using Technology to Improve Diabetes Care in Hospital: The Challenge and the Opportunity.

The past 10 years have seen a revolution in technology improving the lives of people with diabetes. This has implications for diabetes care in hospitalized inpatients. These technological developments have the potential to significantly improve the care of people with diabetes in hospital. Combining point of care glucose monitoring, electronic prescribing, electronic observations with electronic referral, and electronic health records allow teams to daily oversee the whole hospital population. To make the most of these tools as well as developing the use of pumps and glucose sensors in hospital, the diabetes team needs to work in new ways. To date, very little work has described how these should be combined. We describe how this technology can be combined to improve diabetes care in hospital.

Insulin Pumps and Hybrid Close Loop Systems Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care.

This article is the second of a two-part series providing a scoping review and summary of the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital. The first part reviewed the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital. In this article, we focus on the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII; insulin pumps) and hybrid closed-loop systems in hospital. JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and are willing and capable of using CSII to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. CSII should be discontinued if the individual is critically ill or hemodynamically unstable. For individuals on hybrid closed-loop systems, the system should be discontinued from auto-mode, and may be used individually (as CGM only or CSII only, if criteria are met). Continuing in closed-loop mode may only be done so under specialist guidance from the Diabetes Team, where the diabetes teams are comfortable and knowledgeable about the specific devices used. Health care organizations need to have clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using these wearable technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Within Hospital: A Scoping Review and Summary of Guidelines From the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care.

Increasing numbers of people, particularly with type 1 diabetes (T1D), are using wearable technologies. That is, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) pumps, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine both these elements. Given over a quarter of all people admitted to hospital have diabetes, there is a need for clinical guidelines for when people using them are admitted to hospital. The Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) provide a scoping review and summary of guidelines on the use of diabetes technology in people with diabetes admitted to hospital.JBDS-IP advocates enabling people who can self-manage and use their own diabetes technology to continue doing so as they would do out of hospital. Whilst people with diabetes are recommended to achieve a target of 70% time within range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]), this can be very difficult to achieve whilst unwell. We therefore recommend targeting hypoglycemia prevention as a priority, keeping time below 3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) at < 1%, being aware of looming hypoglycemia if glucose is between 4.0 and 5.9 mmol/L (72-106 mg/dL), and consider intervening, particularly if there is a downward CGM trend arrow.Health care organizations need clear local policies and guidance to support individuals using diabetes technologies, and ensure the relevant workforce is capable and skilled enough to ensure their safe use within the hospital setting. The current set of guidelines is divided into two parts. Part 1, which follows below, outlines the guidance for use of CGM in hospital. The second part outlines guidance for use of CSII and hybrid closed-loop in hospital.

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In persons with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the benefits of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels are uncertain. METHODS: In a parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving participants with type 1 diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels between 7.5% and 11.0%, we investigated the efficacy of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring as compared with participant monitoring of blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing. The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 24 weeks, analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Key secondary outcomes included sensor data, participant-reported outcome measures, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 156 participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (the intervention group, 78 participants) or to monitor their own blood glucose levels with fingerstick testing (the usual-care group, 78 participants). At baseline, the mean (±SD) age of the participants was 44±15 years, and the mean duration of diabetes was 21±13 years; 44% of the participants were women. The mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.7±0.9% in the intervention group and 8.5±0.8% in the usual-care group; these levels decreased to 7.9±0.8% and 8.3±0.9%, respectively, at 24 weeks (adjusted mean between-group difference, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to -0.3; P<0.001). The time per day that the glucose level was in the target range was 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7 to 13.3) higher or 130 minutes (95% CI, 68 to 192) longer in the intervention group than in the usual-care group, and the time spent in a hypoglycemic state (blood glucose level, <70 mg per deciliter [<3.9 mmol per liter]) was 3.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.5) lower or 43 minutes (95% CI, 20 to 65) shorter in the intervention group. Two participants in the usual-care group had an episode of severe hypoglycemia, and 1 participant in the intervention group had a skin reaction to the sensor. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with type 1 diabetes and high glycated hemoglobin levels, the use of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring with optional alarms for high and low blood glucose levels resulted in significantly lower glycated hemoglobin levels than levels monitored by fingerstick testing. (Funded by Diabetes UK and others; FLASH-UK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03815006.).

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. DESIGN: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. SETTING: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)]. LIMITATIONS: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly in the UK and is predicted to rise to over 5 million by 2025. Diabetes causes nerve damage that can lead to severe painful symptoms in the feet, legs and hands. One-quarter of all people with diabetes experience these symptoms, known as 'painful diabetic neuropathy'. Current individual medications provide only partial benefit, and in only around half of patients. The individual drugs, and their combinations, have not been compared directly against each other to see which is best. We conducted a study to see which treatment pathway would be best for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The study included three treatment pathways using combinations of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin. Patients received all three treatment pathways (i.e. amitriptyline treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks, duloxetine treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks and pregabalin treatment for 6 weeks and amitriptyline added if needed for a further 10 weeks); however, the order of the treatment pathways was decided at random. We compared the level of pain that participants experienced in each treatment pathway to see which worked best. On average, people said that their pain was similar after each of the three treatments and their combinations. However, two treatments in combination helped some patients with additional pain relief if they only partially responded to one. People also reported improved quality of life and sleep with the treatments, but these were similar for all the treatments. In the health economic analysis, the value for money and quality of life were similar for each pathway, and this resulted in uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness conclusions, with no one pathway being more cost-effective than the others. The treatments had different side effects, however; pregabalin appeared to make more people feel dizzy, duloxetine made more people nauseous and amitriptyline resulted in more people having a dry mouth. The pregabalin supplemented by amitriptyline pathway had the smallest number of treatment discontinuations due to side effects and may be the safest for patients.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. METHODS: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.