A method to validate the accuracy of a centralised district diabetes register

A 5-year assessment of the epidemiology and natural history of possible diabetes in remission

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes is considered a chronic and progressive disease. The term diabetes in remission has no consensus definition and the question whether diabetes "remission" or "cure" can achieve any long-term benefits in people with type 2 diabetes remains unclear. The aim of our study was a review of our district wide diabetes population to determine the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of those who had a diagnosis of diabetes but did not meet the diagnostic criteria for diabetes at the point of assessment in 2014 and then to review their diabetes outcomes over a 5-year time frame.

METHODS

In a whole population based non-interventional epidemiological study amongst 17,308 people with diabetes, we identified 991 with diet treated type 2 diabetes who met the baseline criteria for diabetes in remission (HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol (6.5%)). Over the next 5 years, 385 (39%) people had a cumulative HbA1c attainment of <48 mmol/mol (6.5%) and remained free of diabetes medication.

RESULTS

In this erstwhile remission group only 130 (13%) were free of any vasculopathy, whilst 255 (26%) had some form of micro or macrovascular disease, of which 64 people had been without micro or macrovascular vascular complications at baseline. Only 20 people had a HbA1c consistently ≤37 mmol/mol (5.7%) who were free of diabetes vascular complications and of diabetes medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of 'diabetes in remission' remains unclear most especially regarding the inclusion of baseline prevalent or incident macro or microvascular disease, the durability of potential remission is poor, and the likelihood of cure is remote.

Provision of structured diabetes information encourages activation amongst people with diabetes as measured by diabetes care process attainment: the WICKED Project

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes have better outcomes if they actively participate in their care. Patient-focused interventions can be effective in activating patients. Yet there is no known trial to evaluate the impact of the provision of individualized diabetes-specific information on patient activation and diabetes care outcomes.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial, all people (n = 14 559) with diabetes within the local health economy were recruited and cluster randomized into two groups with the active group mailed a structured personalized report containing information on all nine of their diabetes care processes, whereas the control group received standard care. Differences in their Failed Process Score (FPS) were compared at three months.

RESULTS

At three months, the FPS score (1.25 ± 1.87 vs. 1.35 ± 1.97, P < 0.01) and the change in FPS score (0.48 ± 1.55 vs. 0.42 ± 1.49, P < 0.02) were significantly better in those mailed a structured personalized report. A dichotomized FPS score [good attainment (GA) vs. poorer attainment], was significantly better in those mailed (χ2 = 10.0, P < 0.05) and using a binary logistic regression analysis adjusting for all demographic factors and the baseline FPS, the relative effect of mailing compared with non-mailing on three-month GA category was OR 1.14 (95% CI 1.04-1.25, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of structured and individualized information to people with diabetes can positively influence the level of patient activation, promote better engagement and open the potential to improve other crucial diabetes outcomes.