A H Heald1,2, M Livingston3, A Fryer4, G Y C Moreno5, N Malipatil1, R Gadsby6, W Ollier1, M Lunt1, M Stedman7, R J Young8. 1. School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, UK. 3. Department of Blood Sciences, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, UK. 4. Institute for Applied Clinical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK. 5. Co-ordinator of the Obesity Clinic in the Medicine School of Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City, Mexico. 6. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 7. RES Consortium, Andover, Wiltshire, UK. 8. National Diabetes Audit, Central Office Diabetes UK, London, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To use general practice-level data for England, available through the National Diabetes Audit, and primary care prescribing data to identify prescription treatment factors associated with variations in achieved glucose control (HbA1c ). METHODS: General practice-level National Diabetes Audit data on Type 1 diabetes, including details of population characteristics, services, proportion of people achieving target glycaemic control [HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol (7.5%)] and proportion of people at high glycaemic risk [HbA1c >86 mmol/ml (10%)], were linked to 2013-2016 primary care diabetes prescribing data on insulin types and blood glucose monitoring for all people with diabetes. RESULTS: A wide variation was found between the 10th percentile and the 90th percentile of general practices in both target glycaemic control (15.6% to 44.8%, respectively) and high glycaemic risk (4.8% to 28.6%, respectively). Our analysis suggests that, given the extrapolated total of 280 000 people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK, there may be the potential to increase the number of those within target glycaemic control from 80 000 to 101 000; 53% of this increase (11 000 people) would result from service improvements and 47% (10 000 people) from medication and technology changes. The same improvements would also provide the opportunity to reduce the number of people at high glycaemic risk from 42 000 to 26 500. A key factor associated with practice-level target HbA1c achievement would be greater use of insulin pumps for up to an additional 56 000 people. CONCLUSION: If the HbA1c achievement rates in service provision, medication and use of technology currently seen in practices in the 90th percentile were to be matched with regard to HbA1c achievement rates in all general practices, glycaemic control might be improved for 36 500 people, with all the attendant health benefits.
AIM: To use general practice-level data for England, available through the National Diabetes Audit, and primary care prescribing data to identify prescription treatment factors associated with variations in achieved glucose control (HbA1c ). METHODS: General practice-level National Diabetes Audit data on Type 1 diabetes, including details of population characteristics, services, proportion of people achieving target glycaemic control [HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol (7.5%)] and proportion of people at high glycaemic risk [HbA1c >86 mmol/ml (10%)], were linked to 2013-2016 primary care diabetes prescribing data on insulin types and blood glucose monitoring for all people with diabetes. RESULTS: A wide variation was found between the 10th percentile and the 90th percentile of general practices in both target glycaemic control (15.6% to 44.8%, respectively) and high glycaemic risk (4.8% to 28.6%, respectively). Our analysis suggests that, given the extrapolated total of 280 000 people with Type 1 diabetes in the UK, there may be the potential to increase the number of those within target glycaemic control from 80 000 to 101 000; 53% of this increase (11 000 people) would result from service improvements and 47% (10 000 people) from medication and technology changes. The same improvements would also provide the opportunity to reduce the number of people at high glycaemic risk from 42 000 to 26 500. A key factor associated with practice-level target HbA1c achievement would be greater use of insulin pumps for up to an additional 56 000 people. CONCLUSION: If the HbA1c achievement rates in service provision, medication and use of technology currently seen in practices in the 90th percentile were to be matched with regard to HbA1c achievement rates in all general practices, glycaemic control might be improved for 36 500 people, with all the attendant health benefits.
Authors: Mike Stedman; Rustam Rea; Christopher J Duff; Mark Livingston; Stephen Brown; Katherine Grady; Katie McLoughlin; Roger Gadsby; Angela Paisley; Anthony A Fryer; Adrian H Heald Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-05
Authors: Ghasem Yadegarfar; Simon G Anderson; Zohaib Khawaja; Gabriela Cortes; Kathryn Leivesley; Ann Metters; Linda Horne; Tom Steele; Adrian H Heald Journal: Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-06-16
Authors: Anthony A Fryer; David Holland; Michael Stedman; Christopher J Duff; Lewis Green; Jonathan Scargill; Fahmy W F Hanna; Pensée Wu; R John Pemberton; Christine Bloor; Adrian H Heald Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 4.061
Authors: Michael Stedman; Rustam Rea; Christopher J Duff; Mark Livingston; Gabriela Moreno; Roger Gadsby; Helen Lunt; Anthony A Fryer; Adrian H Heald Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-03-14
Authors: Ghasem Yadegarfar; Mark Livingston; Gabriela Cortes; Ramadan Alshames; Kate Leivesley; Ann Metters; Linda Horne; Tom Steele; Adrian H Heald Journal: Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Adrian Heald; Mark Davies; Mike Stedman; Mark Livingston; Mark Lunt; Anthony Fryer; Roger Gadsby Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adrian H Heald; Mark Livingston; Anthony Fryer; Gabriela Cortes; Simon G Anderson; Roger Gadsby; Ian Laing; Mark Lunt; Robert J Young; Mike Stedman Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Mike Stedman; Mark Lunt; Mark Davies; Mark Livingston; Christopher Duff; Anthony Fryer; Simon George Anderson; Roger Gadsby; Martin Gibson; Gerry Rayman; Adrian Heald Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692