Search

Aims: We previously showed that the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) testing frequency links to diabetes control. Here, we examine the effect of variability in test interval, adjusted for the frequency, on change in HbA1c ( Δ HbA1c). Materials & Methods . HbA1c results were collected on 83,872 people with HbA1c results at baseline and 5 years (±3 months) later and ≥6 tests during this period. We calculated the standard deviation (SD) of test interval for each individual and examined the link between deciles of SD of the test interval and Δ HbA1c level, stratified by baseline HbA1c., Results: In general, less variability in testing frequency (more consistent monitoring) was associated with better diabetes control. This was most evident with moderately raised baseline HbA1c levels (7.0-9.0% (54-75 mmol/mol)). For example, in those with a starting HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol), the lowest SD decile was associated with little change in HbA1c over 5 years, while for those with the highest decile, HbA1c rose by 0.4-0.6% (4-6 mmol/mol; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that the association was independent of the age/sex/hospital site. Subanalysis suggested that the effect was most pronounced in those aged <65 years with baseline HbA1c of 7.0-7.5% (54-58 mmol/mol). We observed a 6.7-fold variation in the proportion of people in the top-three SD deciles across general practices., Conclusions: These findings indicate that the consistency of testing interval, not the just number of tests/year, is important in maintaining diabetes control, especially in those with moderately raised HbA1c levels. Systems to improve regularity of HbA1c testing are therefore needed, especially given the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes monitoring., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Anthony A. Fryer et al.)

Background: Finger prick blood glucose (BG) monitoring remains a mainstay of management in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who take sulphonylurea (SU) drugs or insulin. We recently examined patient experience of BG monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM). There has not been any recent comprehensive assessment of the performance of BG monitoring strips or the patient experience of BG strips in people with T2DM in the UK., Methods: An online self-reported questionnaire containing 44 questions, prepared following consultation with clinicians and patients, was circulated to people with T2DM. 186 responders provided completed responses (25.5% return rate). Fixed responses were coded numerically (eg not confident = 0 fairly confident = 1)., Results: Of responders, 84% were treated with insulin in addition to other agents. 75% reported having had an HbA1c check in the previous 6 months. For those with reported HbA1c ≥ 65 mmol/mol, a majority of people (70%) were concerned or really concerned about the shorter term consequences of running a high HbA1c This contrasted with those who did not know their recent HbA1c, of whom only 33% were concerned/really concerned and those with HbA1c <65 mmol/mol of whom 35% were concerned. Regarding BG monitoring/insulin adjustment, only 25% of responders reported having sufficient information with 13% believing that the accuracy and precision of their BG metre was being independently checked. Only 9% recalled discussing BG metre accuracy when their latest metre was provided and only 7% were aware of the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) standards for BG metres. 77% did not recall discussing BG metre performance with a healthcare professional., Conclusion: The group surveyed comprised engaged people with T2DM but even within this group there was significant variation in (a) awareness of shorter term risks, (b) confidence in their ability to implement appropriate insulin dosage (c) awareness of the limitations of BG monitoring technology. There is clearly an area where changes in education/support would benefit many., (© 2021 The Authors. Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Women with gestational diabetes (GDM) are at greatly increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The UK guidance recommends screening for T2DM at around 6-week postpartum and annually thereafter. We evaluated conformity to this guidance in two separate time periods., Methods: The proportion of tests performed within guidance was assessed using longitudinal plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin data in two cohorts (1999-2007, n = 251; 2015-2016, n = 260) from hospital records on women previously diagnosed with GDM., Results: In the 1999-2007 and 2015-2016 cohorts, 59.8% and 35.0% of women had the recommended postpartum testing, respectively (P < .001); just 13.5% and 14.2%, respectively, underwent the first annual test on time. During long-term follow-up of the 1999-2007 cohort (median follow-up: 12.3 years), the proportion of women tested in any given year averaged 34.2% over a 17-year period; there was a progressive decline in the proportion of women receiving a yearly test with time since delivery (P = .002). Over the follow-up period, 85 women from the 1999-2007 cohort developed blood test results in the diabetic range with a median time to presumed DM diagnosis of 5.2 years (range 0.11-15.95 years). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that 18.8% of women had blood test results in the diabetes range by 5-year postpartum and 37.8% by 10-year postpartum., Conclusions: Despite high profile guidelines and a clear clinical rationale to screen women with a past diagnosis of GDM, many women did not receive adequate screening for T2DM both in the short term and long term. This suggests that alternative approaches are needed to ensure effective follow-up of this high-risk group. To have an impact, interventions need to be tailored to a young, generally healthy group in which traditional approaches to follow-up may not be best suited., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: United Kingdom national guidelines do not recommend routine testing for thyroid disease in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, some studies suggest an increased risk of thyroid dysfunction in T2DM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current practice of screening for thyroid disease in patients with T2DM., Methods: Patients with pre-existing T2DM ( n  = 339) were selected from records for routine glycated haemoglobin testing performed in December 2008. Using routinely collected primary/secondary care data from 2009 to 2017, we examined longitudinal thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine requests to determine the overall proportion of patients screened for thyroid dysfunction and the time interval between thyroid tests requested., Results: Thirty-three patients (9.7%) had pre-existing thyroid disease. Of the remaining 306 patients, 96.4% had at least one thyroid test during the follow-up period. When the time interval between tests was evaluated in these patients, there was a discrete peak in thyroid function test requests at 12 months, consistent with routine annual testing. Most requests (77%) originated from a general practice setting., Conclusions: Contrary to current guidelines, we have provided evidence suggestive of regular screening for thyroid dysfunction in patients with T2DM, particularly in general practice. The appropriateness of this practice remains unclear, but may warrant further examination to assess the clinical benefits of screening, balanced against cost.

Background We previously showed, in patients with diabetes, that >50% of monitoring tests for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) are outside recommended intervals and that this is linked to diabetes control. Here, we examined the effect of tests/year on achievement of commonly utilised HbA1c targets and on HbA1c changes over time. Methods Data on 20,690 adults with diabetes with a baseline HbA1c of >53 mmol/mol (7%) were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory records at three UK hospitals. We examined the effect of HbA1c tests/year on (i) the probability of achieving targets of ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in a year using multi-state modelling and (ii) the changes in mean HbA1c using a linear mixed-effects model. Results The probabilities of achieving ≤53 mmol/mol (7%) and ≤48 mmol/mol (6.5%) targets within 1 year were 0.20 (95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.21) and 0.10 (0.09-0.10), respectively. Compared with four tests/year, having one test or more than four tests/year were associated with lower likelihoods of achieving either target; two to three tests/year gave similar likelihoods to four tests/year. Mean HbA1c levels were higher in patients who had one test/year compared to those with four tests/year (mean difference: 2.64 mmol/mol [0.24%], p<0.001). Conclusions We showed that ≥80% of patients with suboptimal control are not achieving commonly recommended HbA1c targets within 1 year, highlighting the major challenge facing healthcare services. We also demonstrated that, although appropriate monitoring frequency is important, testing every 6 months is as effective as quarterly testing, supporting international recommendations. We suggest that the importance HbA1c monitoring frequency is being insufficiently recognised in diabetes management.