The impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life and related patient-reported outcomes in Type 2 diabetes : a narrative review

As a common side effect of insulin treatment for diabetes, hypoglycaemia is a constant threat and can have far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences, including immediate physical injury as well as more pervasive cognitive, behavioural and emotional effects. Moreover, as a significant limiting factor in achieving optimal glycaemic control, exposure to hypoglycaemia can influence diabetes self-management.

Although hypoglycaemia is known to occur in Type 2 diabetes, its morbidity and impact on the individual are not well recognized. The aim of the current review is to examine published evidence to achieve a synthesis of the scope and significance of the potential detriment caused by hypoglycaemia to individuals with Type 2 diabetes. The implications of these observations for treatment and research have also been considered.

A narrative review was performed of empirical papers published in English since 1966, reporting the effect of hypoglycaemia on quality of life and related outcomes (including generic and diabetes specificquality of life, emotional well-being and health utilities) in Type 2 diabetes.

Research demonstrates the potential impact of hypoglycaemia on the lives of people with Type 2 diabetes, from an association with depressive symptoms and heightened anxiety, to impairment of the ability to drive, work and function in ways that are important for quality of life. Few studies consider hypoglycaemia as an explanatory variable in combination with quality of life or related primary endpoints. As a consequence, there is a pressing need for high-quality research into the overall impact of hypoglycaemia on the lives of people with Type 2 diabetes.

Consumer health ICT and the patient in the middle : adopter and/or influencer?

ICT can play a vital role in facilitating quality care and support for people living with chronic illness. Recently, there has been a proliferation of ICT-enabled consumer health devices. These devices can enable individual patients more precise monitoring and control of chronic conditions, and can generate information and statistics for analysis by health professionals. The adoption of the ICT-enabled consumer technologies by patients often relies on the co-adoption of related innovations, work practices, analytical tools and information systems by their health professionals. In healthcare, adoption is influenced by other stakeholders such as health insurers, the patient's family, chronic disease support groups, etc. This paper addresses the individual adoption of ICT-enabled innovations when multiple stakeholders are involved. We report on a case study of the adoption of ICT-enabled “smartpumps” by pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes. We find that the patient should be theorised as adopter, but also as influencer under certain conditions. We develop propositions to explain adoptive behaviour as the adopter/influencer seeks to achieve congruence of interests in a stakeholder network. Our findings help explain why the adoption of ICT-enabled health innovations can occur swiftly in some situations, yet proceed slowly in others.

Patient perspective : choosing or developing instruments

Previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meetings recognized that patients view outcomes of intervention from a different perspective. This preconference position paper briefly sets out 2 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument approaches, the PROMISE computer adaptive testing (CAT) system and development of a rheumatoid arthritis-specific questionnaire to measure fatigue; a tentative proposal for a PRO instrument development pathway is also made.

Patient perspective workshop : moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes

The workshop Choosing or Developing Instruments held at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting was designed to help participants think about the underlying methods of instrument development. Conference pre-reading material and 3 brief introductory presentations elaborated the issues, and participants broke into discussion groups before reconvening to share insights, engage in a more general discussion of the issues, and vote on recommendations. Trade offs between using current imperfect measures and the long and complex process of developing new instruments were considered, together with the need for rigor in patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The main considerations for PRO instrument development were listed and a research agenda for action produced. As part of the agenda for action, it is recommended that researchers and patient partners work together to tackle these issues, and that OMERACT bring forward proposals for acceptable instrument development protocols that would meet an enhanced “Truth” statement in the OMERACT Filter.

Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from two randomised placebo controlled trials : meta-analysis

Objective To determine whether vertebroplasty is more effective than placebo for patients with pain of recent onset (≤6 weeks) or severe pain (score ≥8 on 0-10 numerical rating scale).

Design Meta-analysis of combined individual patient level data.

Setting Two multicentred randomised controlled trials of vertebroplasty; one based in Australia, the other in the United States.

Participants 209 participants (Australian trial n=78, US trial n=131) with at least one radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fracture. 57 (27%) participants had pain of recent onset (vertebroplasty n=25, placebo n=32) and 99 (47%) had severe pain at baseline (vertebroplasty n=50, placebo n=49).

Intervention Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus a placebo procedure.

Main outcome measure Scores for pain (0-10 scale) and function (modified, 23 item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire) at one month.

Results For participants with pain of recent onset, between group differences in mean change scores at one month for pain and disability were 0.1 (95% confidence interval −1.4 to 1.6) and 0.2 (−3.0 to 3.4), respectively. For participants with severe pain at baseline, between group differences for pain and disability scores at one month were 0.3 (−0.8 to 1.5) and 1.4 (−1.2 to 3.9), respectively. At one month those in the vertebroplasty group were more likely to be using opioids.

Conclusions Individual patient data meta-analysis from two blinded trials of vertebroplasty, powered for subgroup analyses, failed to show an advantage of vertebroplasty over placebo for participants with recent onset fracture or severe pain. These results do not support the hypothesis that selected subgroups would benefit from vertebroplasty.