Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate whether there were important differences in uptake of NICE clinical guidelines according to diabetes mellitus type in England and Wales from 2013 to 2018, test the hypothesis that guidelines are more successfully implemented with T2DM than T1DM, and explore possible explanations for differences. DESIGN Retrospective cross-sectional analyses of aggregated patient level data from the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) dataset owned by NHS Digital and commissioned by Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. SETTING Diabetes specialist services, primary care (GP surgeries submitting NDA data) across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS 1 739 175 patients with diabetes aged ≥20 in England and Wales in 2013-14, 1 871 320 individual patients in 2014-15, 2 688 106 individual patients in 2015-16, 3 095 275 individual patients in 2016-17, and 3 357 055 individual patients in 2017-18. INTERVENTIONS Recommended care for diabetes mellitus as outlined in relevant NICE guidelines and delivered by either specialist clinicians or GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The recorded attainment of NICE treatment targets: HbA1c levels =<7.5% (58.5 mmol/mol), blood pressure <140/80mmHg, blood cholesterol <5mmol/l; and clinical processes: at least annual monitoring of HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol, albumin:creatinine ratio, smoking status, Body Mass Index. RESULTS Annual collections (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18) were individually analysed, testing associations between diabetes type and attainment of clinical targets or processes using a multivariable logistic regression model, adjusted for age and sex. Increased odds of meeting clinical targets if patients had T2DM compared with T1DM was consistent across the five years, except for cholesterol levels <5mmol/l where T2DM patients had lower odds (all associations p<.0001). Greatest differences in all five years between T1DM and T2DM was observed with patients meeting the HbA1c=<7.5% target, the largest being in 2015-16 (Odds Ratio 3.43, 95% confidence interval 3.39 to 3.47). CONCLUSIONS The differences between T1DM and T2DM in HbA1c target attainment is key and potentially reflects challenges of managing T1DM with insulin but suggests a point of focus for that patient population. Other important elements for consideration could be specific setting for delivery (primary care versus secondary care) and duration of illness.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received to conduct this research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Cardiff University School of Medicine
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Raw data were generated at NHS Digital. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author RCH on request.
