Enhanced diabetes care to patients of south Asian ethnic origin (the United Kingdom Asian Diabetes Study):a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background - Delivery of high-quality, evidence-based health care to deprived sectors of the community is a major goal for society. We investigated the effectiveness of a culturally sensitive, enhanced care package in UK general practices for improvement of cardiovascular risk factors in patients of south Asian origin with type 2 diabetes. Methods - In this cluster randomised controlled trial, 21 inner-city practices in the UK were assigned by simple randomisation to intervention (enhanced care including additional time with practice nurse and support from a link worker and diabetes-specialist nurse [nine practices; n=868]) or control (standard care [12 practices; n=618]) groups. All adult patients of south Asian origin with type 2 diabetes were eligible. Prescribing algorithms with clearly defined targets were provided for all practices. Primary outcomes were changes in blood pressure, total cholesterol, and glycaemic control (haemoglobin A1c) after 2 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 38297969. Findings - We recorded significant differences between treatment groups in diastolic blood pressure (1·91 [95% CI -2·88 to -0·94] mm?Hg, p=0·0001) and mean arterial pressure (1·36 [-2·49 to -0·23] mm?Hg, p=0·0180), after adjustment for confounders and clustering. We noted no significant differences between groups for total cholesterol (0·03 [-0·04 to 0·11] mmol/L), systolic blood pressure (-0·33 [-2·41 to 1·75] mm?Hg), or HbA1c (-0·15% [-0·33 to 0·03]). Economic analysis suggests that the nurse-led intervention was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28?933 per QALY gained). Across the whole study population over the 2 years of the trial, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and cholesterol decreased significantly by 4·9 (95% CI 4·0–5·9) mm?Hg, 3·8 (3·2–4·4) mm?Hg, and 0·45 (0·40–0·51) mmol/L, respectively, and we recorded a small and non-significant increase for haemoglobin A1c (0·04% [-0·04 to 0·13]), p=0·290). Interpretation - We recorded additional, although small, benefits from our culturally tailored care package that were greater than the secular changes achieved in the UK in recent years. Stricter targets in general practice and further measures to motivate patients are needed to achieve best possible health-care outcomes in south Asian patients with diabetes. Funding - Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier Laboratories UK, Merck Sharp & Dohme/Schering-Plough, Takeda UK, Roche, Merck Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo UK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Solvay Health Care, and Assurance Medical Society UK.

Improving the cost-effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema:a prospective, multi-centre, UK study

Background/aims: Retinal screening programmes in England and Scotland have similar photographic grading schemes for background (non-proliferative) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, but diverge over maculopathy. We looked for the most cost-effective method of identifying diabetic macular oedema from retinal photographs including the role of automated grading and optical coherence tomography, a technology that directly visualises oedema. Methods: Patients from seven UK centres were recruited. The following features in at least one eye were required for enrolment: microaneurysms/dot haemorrhages or blot haemorrhages within one disc diameter, or exudates within one or two disc diameters of the centre of the macula. Subjects had optical coherence tomography and digital photography. Manual and automated grading schemes were evaluated. Costs and QALYs were modelled using microsimulation techniques. Results: 3540 patients were recruited, 3170 were analysed. For diabetic macular oedema, England's scheme had a sensitivity of 72.6% and specificity of 66.8%; Scotland 's had a sensitivity of 59.5% and specificity of 79.0%. When applying a ceiling ratio of £30 000 per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, Scotland's scheme was preferred. Assuming automated grading could be implemented without increasing grading costs, automation produced a greater number of QALYS for a lower cost than England's scheme, but was not cost effective, at the study's operating point, compared with Scotland's. The addition of optical coherence tomography, to each scheme, resulted in cost savings without reducing health benefits. Conclusions: Retinal screening programmes in the UK should reconsider the screening pathway to make best use of existing and new technologies.

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia:the ECLIPSE trial

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about initial medical treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) (Mirena(®), Bayer) compared with usual medical treatment, with exploration of women's perspectives on treatment. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial with an economic evaluation and a longitudinal qualitative study. SETTING: Women who presented in primary care. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 women with HMB. A purposeful sample of 27 women who were randomised or ineligible owing to treatment preference participated in semistructured face-to-face interviews around 2 and 12 months after commencing treatment. INTERVENTIONS: LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen-progestogen or progesterone alone). Women could subsequently swap or cease their allocated treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period and then again at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included general quality of life (QoL), sexual activity, surgical intervention and safety. Data were analysed using iterative constant comparison. A state transition model-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside the randomised trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived from the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions (SF-6D). The intention-to-treat analyses were reported as cost per QALY gained. Uncertainty was explored by conducting both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The MMAS total scores improved significantly in both groups at all time points, but were significantly greater for the LNG-IUS than for usual treatment [mean difference over 2 years was 13.4 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.9 to 16.9 points; p < 0.001]. However, this difference between groups was reduced and no longer significant by 5 years (mean difference in scores 3.9 points, 95% CI -0.6 to 8.3 points; p = 0.09). By 5 years, only 47% of women had a LNG-IUS in place and 15% were still taking usual medical treatment. Five-year surgery rates were low, at 20%, and were similar, irrespective of initial treatments. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Using the EQ-5D, at 2 years, the relative cost-effectiveness of the LNG-IUS compared with usual medical treatment was £1600 per QALY, which by 5 years was reduced to £114 per QALY. Using the SF-6D, usual medical treatment dominates the LNG-IUS. The qualitative findings show that women's experiences and expectations of medical treatments for HMB vary considerably and change over time. Women had high expectations of a prompt effect from medical treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The LNG-IUS, compared with usual medical therapies, resulted in greater improvement over 2 years in women's assessments of the effect of HMB on their daily routine, including work, social and family life, and psychological and physical well-being. At 5 years, the differences were no longer significant. A similar low proportion of women required surgical intervention in both groups. The LNG-IUS is cost-effective in both the short and medium term, using the method generally recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Using the alternative measures to value QoL will have a considerable impact on cost-effectiveness decisions. It will be important to explore the clinical and health-care trajectories of the ECLIPSE (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia) trial participants to 10 years, by which time half of the cohort will have reached menopause. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86566246. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.