addition-cambridge five year results...28 practices screening and intensive target driven management...

ADDITION-Cambridge Five year results

Simon Griffin Nick Wareham

Outline

1. The diabetes epidemic 2. Why screen for diabetes? 3. ADDITION-Cambridge 4. Study results 5. Conclusions 6. Ten-year follow-up

1. The diabetes epidemic

Prevalence (%) estimates of diabetes (20-79 years), 2010

IDF Diabetes Atlas 2009

Prevalence (%) estimates of diabetes (20-79 years), 2030

IDF Diabetes Atlas 2009

7% to 8% Under 7%

8% to 9% 9% to 10% 10% and over

Holman et al. Diab Med 2011;28:575-82

England, 2010

7% to 8% Under 7%

8% to 9% 9% to 10% 10% and over


England, 2020

7% to 8% Under 7%

8% to 9% 9% to 10% 10% and over


England, 2030

Global Diabetes Plan, IDF 2011

• Prevention

• Screening

• Better treatment

2. Why screen for diabetes?

Screening criteria

1.Important health problem

2.Simple and safe test available

3.Potential harms investigated

4.Effective treatment for individuals identified early

1.Important health problem

2. Simple and safe test available

Self-reported health - baseline Self-reported health - 3-6 months

Self-reported health - 12-15 months

Anxiety - baseline Anxiety - 3-6 months Anxiety - 12-15 months

Depression - baseline Depression - 3-6 months Depression - 12-15 months

Worry about diabetes - baseline Worry about diabetes - 3-6 months Worry about diabetes - 12-15 months

Favours screening Favours control

0 -.75 -.5 -.25 0 .25 .5 .75

Between group differences

3. Potential harms

BMJ 2007;335:486-489 BMJ 2007;335:490-493

0

Diabetes detectable in the blood

Diabetes detected clinically

0 years ~8 years

4. Effective treatment for individuals detected early



0 years ~8 years

Diabetes detected by screening

~4 years



0 years ~8 years

Diabetes detected by screening

~4 years

If we find and treat people earlier, can we reduce the chance of them dying early

and/or suffering from heart attacks and strokes?

Mortality by Attendance at Screening in the Ely cohort 1990-1999

0.0

0

0.0

5

0.1

0

0.1

5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pro

por

tion

dec

ease

d

Follow-up (years)

Invited but did not attend - 36% increased mortality

Invited and attended - 46% decreased mortality

Not invited

Diabetologia 2010;54:312-319

3. ADDITION-Cambridge

Aims • To evaluate the feasibility of stepwise screening

programs to identify individuals with undiagnosed diabetes

• To assess the feasibility of the delivery of intensive treatment of risk factors in people with screen detected diabetes

• To evaluate the effectiveness in primary care of early intensive treatment compared to routine care on cardiovascular outcomes

55 practices in the Eastern Region

28 practices screening and intensive

target driven management of risk factors

27 practices screening and routine care

Assessment of CVD risk among screen-detected diabetic patients

1 year

Assessment of CVD events and mortality among screen-detected diabetic patients

5 years

aged 40-69 yrs

risk score ≥ 0.17

patients with risk score ≥ 0.17 ( – Control)

invited for initial RBG test

24 654 attended RBG tests

264

8 885

15 302

RBG ≥ 11.1

RBG ≥ 5.5 and < 11.1

RBG < 5.5

8 321 attended FBG tests

810

FBG ≥ 6.1

1 116

FBG ≥ 5.5 and < 6.1

6 285

FBG < 5.5

613

500

HbA1c ≥ 6.1

HbA1c < 6.1

1687 eligible OGTT

1435 OGTT

867

151 464

39 434

135 825

35 297

33 539

patients aged 40-69 yrs ( – Control)

patients with screen-detected diabetes

Screening programme

Intervention

4. Study results

Average

Age (years) 60

Current smoker (%) 28

HbA1c (%) 6.8

BMI (kg/m2) 33.6

Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 142

Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81

Cholesterol (mmol/l) 5.4

Patient baseline characteristics

26 practices provided intensive treatment

Participants: 452

23 practices provided routine care

Participants: 415

Follow-up 452 (100%) endpoint data 417 (96.8%) measured at CRF

Follow-up 413 (99.5%) endpoint data 359 (94.2%) measured at CRF

Five-year data collection

Study coordination

More than 1,100 phone calls!!

Collecting endpoints

Sorting through questionnaires

Prescribed treatment at baseline and 5yr follow-up

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f pa

rtic

ipan

ts p

resc

ribe

d m

edic

atio

n

Routine care Intensive treatment

Baseline Follow up

Baseline Follow up

Baseline Follow up

Baseline Follow up

Baseline Follow up

Baseline Follow up

Lipid-lowering BP-lowering Glucose-lowering


Results in context

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

All-

cau

se m

orta

lity

(%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Years of follow-up

People with diabetes


Results in context

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

All-

cau

se m

orta

lity

(%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Years of follow-up

People with diabetes

General population without diabetes

ADDITION participants

Chance of having a heart attack or stroke

p=0.40

Routine Care

0

2

4

6

8

10

Prim

ary

com

posi

te e

ndpo

int

(%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 Years of follow-up

413 406 397 389 370 213 Group=RC Group=IT 452 444 440 428 406 216

Number at risk

Intensive Treatment

ADDITION-Plus study

• Does extra support given by lifestyle facilitators improves outcomes in individuals with diabetes?

• Results suggested that the facilitators did not appear to add to what patients and practitioners were already doing

• However, ADDITION-Plus participants reported that they appreciated the extra support

5. Conclusions

Conclusions

• The health status of ADDITION participants was improved five years after diagnosis e.g. there were important reductions in levels of blood pressure, cholesterol and blood glucose.

• Earlier diagnosis and treatment of diabetes

has contributed to lower than expected rates of heart attack and premature death, which is now similar to those in the general population.

Public health implications

ADDITION-Cambridge study team Gisela Baker, Daniel Barnes, Mark Betts, Clare Boothby, Sandra Bovan, Parinya Chamnan, Adam Dickinson, Sue Emms, Francis Finucane, Susie Hennings, Muriel Hood, Iain Morrison, Garry King, Christine May Hall, Joanna Mitchell, Kim Mwanza, Paul Roberts, Emanuella De Lucia Rolfe, Stephen Sharp, Rebecca Simmons, Matt Sims, James Sylvester, Liz White (MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge) Amanda Adler, Sean Dinneen, Mark Evans (Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge) Rebecca Abbott, Judith Argles, Rebecca Bale, Roslyn Barling, Sue Boase, Ryan Butler, Pesheya Doubleday, Tom Fanshawe, Philippa Gash, Julie Grant, Wendy Hardeman, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Richard Parker, Nicola Popplewell, A Toby Prevost, Megan Smith, Stephen Sutton, Fiona Whittle, Kate Williams, Georgina Lewis, Lincoln Sargeant (Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge) Robert Henderson (Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon)

Thank you for your participation!

6. Ten-year follow-up

addition-cambridge five year results...28 practices screening and intensive target driven management...

Documents