Search

Aims: To describe type 1 diabetes incidence in Scotland between 2006 and 2019. Methods: Repeated annual cross‐sectional studies of type 1 diabetes incidence were conducted. Incident cases were identified from the Scottish Care Information—Diabetes Collaboration (SCI‐DC), a population‐based register of people with diagnosed diabetes derived from primary and secondary care data. Mid‐year population estimates for Scotland were used as the denominator to calculate annual incidence with stratification by age and sex. Joinpoint regression was used to investigate whether incidence changed during the study period. Age and sex‐specific type 1 diabetes incidence over the whole time period was estimated by quintile of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), an area‐based measure, in which Q1 and Q5 denote the most and least deprived fifths of the population, respectively, with quasi‐Poisson regression used to compare incidence for Q5 compared to Q1. Results: The median (IQR) age of the study population of 14,564 individuals with incident type 1 diabetes was 24.1 (12.3–42.4) years, 56% were men, 23% were in Q1 and 16% were in Q5. Incidence of T1DM was higher in men than women overall (at around 22 and 17 per 100,000, respectively) and in under 15 year olds (approximately 40 per 100,000 in both sexes) than other age groups and was similar across the study period in all strata. There was an inverse association between socio‐economic status and type 1 diabetes incidence for 15–29, 30–49 and 50+ year olds [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for Q5 compared to Q1; IRR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.47–0.58), 0.68 (0.61–0.76) and 0.53(0.46–0.61), respectively] but not for under 15 year olds [1.02 (0.92–1.12)]. Conclusion: Incidence of type 1 diabetes varies by age, sex and socio‐economic status and has remained approximately stable from 2006 to 2019 in Scotland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assesses the value of the cervical smear test to women in Scotland. Positive and negative aspects of the cervical screening service; Relation between willingness to pay for a cervical smear test and income of women; Alternative approaches to cervical screening.

Aims: Type 1 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Numerous studies have demonstrated that outcomes for diabetes are improved by intensive glycaemic control, blood pressure control, and treatment of dyslipidaemia in addition to cessation of smoking. The aim of this study was to compare mortalities in individuals with type 1 diabetes with that in non-diabetic individuals, and to investigate the effects of age, gender, glycaemic control, socio-economic status, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (IHD), smoking status, body mass index (BMI) and dyslipidaemia., Methods: A population-based analysis in Ayrshire and Arran, Scotland included 253 304 non-diabetic individuals and 1324 individuals with type 1 diabetes who were tracked from 2009 to 2014., Results: Patients with type 1 diabetes had higher mortality rates than non-diabetic individuals (HR, 3.20; P < .01), with relative mortality in female individuals with type 1 diabetes being higher than that in males (OR, 2.38 vs 1.52; P < .01). Increasing age (HR, 2.37), smoking (HR, 1.85), IHD (HR, 1.62) and hypertension (HR, 1.21) (all P < .01) increased mortality risk. A hypertensive female with type 1 diabetes and IHD who smoked had an HR of 11.6 compared with a non-smoking, normotensive non-diabetic female without IHD. For a hypertensive male with type 1 diabetes and IHD who smoked, HR was 6.96. BMI > 30 kg/m 2 was associated with reduced mortality risk in both non-diabetic (HR, 0.61) and diabetic subjects (HR, 0.40)., Conclusions: This study confirmed that the risk of mortality in individuals with type 1 diabetes remains elevated. Further studies are required to understand how gender affects the disparity in mortality and why obesity appears to be protective., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin pumps and Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (pumps+DAFNE) compared with multiple daily insulin injections and DAFNE (MDI+DAFNE) for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK., Methods: We undertook a cost-utility analysis using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model and data from the Relative Effectiveness of Pumps over Structured Education (REPOSE) trial to estimate the lifetime incidence of diabetic complications, intervention-based resource use and associated effects on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All economic analyses took a National Health Service and personal social services perspective and discounted costs and QALYs at 3.5% per annum. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on the base case. Further uncertainties in the cost of pumps and the evidence used to inform the model were explored using scenario analyses., Setting: Eight diabetes centres in England and Scotland., Participants: Adults with T1DM who were eligible to receive a structured education course and did not have a strong clinical indication or a preference for a pump., Intervention: Pumps+DAFNE., Comparator: MDI+DAFNE., Main Outcome Measures: Incremental costs, incremental QALYs gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: Compared with MDI+DAFNE, pumps+DAFNE was associated with an incremental discounted lifetime cost of +£18 853 (95% CI £6175 to £31 645) and a gain in discounted lifetime QALYs of +0.13 (95% CI -0.70 to +0.96). The base case mean ICER was £142 195 per QALY gained. The probability of pump+DAFNE being cost-effective using a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained was 14.0%. All scenario and subgroup analyses examined indicated that the ICER was unlikely to fall below £30 000 per QALY gained., Conclusions: Our analysis of the REPOSE data suggests that routine use of pumps in adults without an immediate clinical need for a pump, as identified by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, would not be cost-effective., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN61215213., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SH reports personal fees from Sanofi Aventis and personal fees and other from NovoNordisk and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. JE reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Merck Sharpe Dohme and Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly, Novonordisk and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. NW reports receiving two days of consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk on topics including alternatives to network meta-analysis, unrelated to REPOSE., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the time and travel costs generated by women when attending for Papanicolaou (Pap) smear tests or colposcopy appointments in the United Kingdom, both absolutely and relative to the health service cost of the national cervical cancer screening programs., Methods: Data were obtained from questionnaires completed by two samples of women participating in a three-center trial of management of low-grade abnormalities detected by screening (n = 1,106 for Pap smears and n = 1,203 for colposcopy appointments). Women were 20 to 59 years of age and resident in Grampian or Tayside, Scotland, or Nottingham, England. Questionnaire data were supplemented with sociodemographic information previously collected at the time of recruitment to the trial., Results: The mean total time and travel costs per attendance at a smear test and at a colposcopy appointment were estimated to be 9.2 pounds and 27.4 pounds, respectively, averaged across the three trial areas (valued at 2002 prices). Statistically significant intercenter disparities in time and travel costs were identified, particularly with respect to colposcopy appointments. For these, time and travel costs in Nottingham were substantially less than those in Grampian and Tayside (22.9 pounds, 30.2 pounds, and 32.1 pounds, respectively). Time and travel costs amount to 26 and 33 percent, approximately, over and above the direct health service costs of the English and Scottish screening programs, respectively., Conclusions: The time and travel costs associated with participation in the UK cervical cancer screening programs are substantial and are not spatially uniform across the country.