IntroductionSevere asthma is associated with a serious disease burden, partially caused by limitations in activity and work impairment.Aims and objectivesThis study aims to relate treatment with... Show moreIntroductionSevere asthma is associated with a serious disease burden, partially caused by limitations in activity and work impairment.Aims and objectivesThis study aims to relate treatment with biologics targeting IL-5/5Ra to work productivity and activity in the long term in a real-world context.Material and methodsThis is a registry-based multi-center cohort study evaluating data from adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch Register of Adult Patients with Severe Asthma for Optimal DIsease management (RAPSODI). Patients that started with anti-IL-5/5Ra biologics and completed the work productivity and activity improvement questionnaire, were included. Study and patient characteristics were compared between the employed and unemployed patients. Work productivity and activity impairment are related to accompanying improvements in clinical outcomes.ResultsAt baseline, 91 of 137 patients (66%) were employed which remained stable throughout the follow-up period. Patients in the working age category were younger and had significantly better asthma control (p = 0.02). Mean overall work impairment due to health decreased significantly from 25.5% (SD2.6) to 17.6% (SD 2.8) during 12 months anti-IL-5/5Ra biologics treatment (P = 0.010). There was a significant association between ACQ6 and overall work improvement after targeted therapy (beta = 8.7, CI 2.1-15.4, P = 0.01). The improvement of asthma control of 0.5 points on the asthma Control Questionnaire was associated with an overall work impairment of -9%.ConclusionsWork productivity and activity in severe eosinophilic asthma improved after starting anti-IL-5/5Ra biologics. Clinically relevant improvement in asthma control was associated with an overall work impairment score of -9% in this study. Show less
Grondelle, S.E. van; Bruggen, S. van; Rauh, S.P.; Zwan, M. van der; Cebrian, A.; Seidu, S.; ... ; Vos, R.C. 2023
AimsCovid-19 caused changes on the delivery of diabetes care. This study aimed to explore perceptions of healthcare providers across Europe concerning 1) the impact of covid-19 on delivery of... Show moreAimsCovid-19 caused changes on the delivery of diabetes care. This study aimed to explore perceptions of healthcare providers across Europe concerning 1) the impact of covid-19 on delivery of diabetes care; 2) impact of changes in diabetes care on experienced workload; 3) experiences with video consultation in diabetes care.MethodsCross-sectional survey among healthcare providers in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Turkey, Ukraine and Sweden, with a focus on primary care.ResultsThe survey was completed by 180 healthcare providers. During the COVID-19 pandemic 57.1% of respondents provided less diabetes care and 72.8% observed a negative impact on people with diabetes. More than half of respondents (61.9%) expressed worries to some extent about getting overloaded by work. Although the vast majority considered their work meaningful (85.6%). Almost half of healthcare providers (49.4%) thought that after the pandemic video-consultation could be blended with face-to-face contact.ConclusionsLess diabetes care was delivered and a negative impact on people with diabetes was observed by healthcare providers. Despite healthcare providers’ feeling overloaded, mental wellbeing seemed unaffected. Video consultations were seen as having potential. Given the remaining covid-19 risks and from the interest of proactive management of people with diabetes, these findings urge for further exploration of incorporating video consultation in diabetes care. Show less
BackgroundStructured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators among people with type... Show moreBackgroundStructured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators among people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, 1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; 2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c.MethodsObservational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. 'Monitoring as recommended' by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning 1) recommended monitoring; 2) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c.ResultsAim 1 (n=13,601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95%CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous-urban (OR 1.27 (95%CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous- suburban (OR 2.32 (95%CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n=11,164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely-monitored people (-2.4 (95%CI -2.9;-1.8)mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95%CI -4.3;-2.4)mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95%CI -2.2;-0.4)mmol/mol). Conclusions Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs. Show less
Background Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management,... Show moreBackground Dutch standard diabetes care is generally protocol-driven. However, considering that general practices wish to tailor diabetes care to individual patients and encourage self-management, particularly in light of current COVID-19 related constraints, protocols and other barriers may hinder implementation. The impact of dispensing with protocol and implementation of self-management interventions on patient monitoring and experiences are not known. This study aims to evaluate tailoring of care by understanding experiences of well-organised practices 1) when dispensing with protocol; 2) determining the key conditions for successful implementation of self-management interventions; and furthermore exploring patients' experiences regarding dispensing with protocol and self-management interventions. Methods in this mixed-methods prospective study, practices (n = 49) were invited to participate if they met protocol-related quality targets, and their adult patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes were invited if they had received protocol-based diabetes care for a minimum of 1 year. For practices, study participation consisted of the opportunity to deliver protocol-free diabetes care, with selection and implementation of self-management interventions. For patients, study participation provided exposure to protocol-free diabetes care and self-management interventions. Qualitative outcomes (practices: 5 focus groups, 2 individual interviews) included experiences of dispensing with protocol and the implementation process of self-management interventions, operationalised as implementation fidelity. Quantitative outcomes (patients: routine registry data, surveys) consisted of diabetes monitoring completeness, satisfaction, wellbeing and health status at baseline and follow-up (24 months). Results Qualitative: In participating practices ( = 4), dispensing with protocol encouraged reflection on tailored care and selection of various self-management interventions nA focus on patient preferences, team collaboration and intervention feasibility was associated with high implementation fidelity Quantitative: In patients ( = 126), likelihood of complete monitoring decreased significantly after two years (OR 0.2 (95% CI 0.1-0.5), < 0.001) npSatisfaction decreased slightly (- 1.6 (95% CI -2.6;-0.6), = 0.001) pNon-significant declines were found in wellbeing (- 1.3 (95% CI -5.4; 2.9), p = 0.55) and health status (- 3.0 (95% CI -7.1; 1.2), p = 0.16). Conclusions To tailor diabetes care to individual patients within well-organised practices, we recommend dispensing with protocol while maintaining one structural annual monitoring consultation, combined with the well-supported implementation of feasible self-management interventions. Interventions should be selected and delivered with the involvement of patients and should involve population preferences and solid team collaborations. Show less
Background Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with... Show moreBackground Structured primary diabetes care within a collectively supported setting is associated with better monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators amongst people with type 2 diabetes and with better HbA1c levels. Whether socioeconomic status affects the delivery of care in terms of monitoring and its association with HbA1c levels within this approach, is unclear. This study aims to understand whether, within a structured care approach, (1) socioeconomic categories differ concerning diabetes monitoring as recommended; (2) socioeconomic status modifies the association between monitoring as recommended and HbA1c.Methods Observational real-life cohort study with primary care registry data from general practitioners within diverse socioeconomic areas, who are supported with the implementation of structured diabetes care. People with type 2 diabetes mellitus were offered quarterly diabetes consultations. "Monitoring as recommended" by professional guidelines implied minimally one annual registration of HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical activity. Regarding socioeconomic status, deprived, advantageous urban and advantageous suburban categories were compared to the intermediate category concerning (a) recommended monitoring; (b) association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c.Results Aim 1 (n = 13 601 people): Compared to the intermediate socioeconomic category, no significant differences in odds of being monitored as recommended were found in the deprived (OR 0.45 (95% CI 0.19-1.08)), advantageous urban (OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.46-3.54)) and advantageous suburban (OR 2.32 (95% CI 0.88-6.08)) categories. Aim 2 (n = 11 164 people): People with recommended monitoring had significantly lower HbA1c levels than incompletely monitored people (-2.4 (95% CI -2.9; -1.8) mmol/mol). SES modified monitoring-related HbA1c differences, which were significantly higher in the deprived (-3.3 (95% CI -4.3; -2.4) mmol/mol) than the intermediate category (-1.3 (95% CI -2.2; -0.4) mmol/mol).Conclusions Within a structured diabetes care setting, socioeconomic status is not associated with recommended monitoring. Socioeconomic differences in the association between recommended monitoring and HbA1c levels advocate further exploration of practice and patient-related factors contributing to appropriate monitoring and for care adjustment to population needs. Show less
Background: Most risk assessment models for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been developed in Caucasians and Asians; little is known about their performance in other ethnic groups.Objective(s): We... Show moreBackground: Most risk assessment models for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have been developed in Caucasians and Asians; little is known about their performance in other ethnic groups.Objective(s): We aimed to identify existing models for the risk of prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM and externally validate them in a multi-ethnic population currently living in the Netherlands.Methods: A literature search to identify risk assessment models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM was performed in PubMed until December 2017. We validated these models in 4,547 Dutch, 3,035 South Asian Surinamese, 4,119 African Surinamese, 2,326 Ghanaian, 3,598 Turkish, and 3,894 Moroccan origin participants from the HELIUS (Healthy Life in an Urban Setting) cohort study performed in Amsterdam. Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test). We identified 25 studies containing 29 models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM. C-statistics varied between 0.77-0.92 in Dutch, 0.66-0.83 in South Asian Surinamese, 0.70-0.82 in African Surinamese, 0.61-0.81 in Ghanaian, 0.69-0.86 in Turkish, and 0.69-0.87 in the Moroccan populations. The C-statistics were generally lower among the South Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, and Ghanaian populations and highest among the Dutch. Calibration was poor (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.05) for all models except one.Conclusions: Generally, risk models for prevalent or undiagnosed T2DM show moderate to good discriminatory ability in different ethnic populations living in the Netherlands, but poor calibration. Therefore, these models should be recalibrated before use in clinical practice and should be adapted to the situation of the population they are intended to be used in. Show less
Objective Whether care group participation by general practitioners improves delivery of diabetes care is unknown. Using 'monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators as recommended by... Show moreObjective Whether care group participation by general practitioners improves delivery of diabetes care is unknown. Using 'monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators as recommended by professional guidelines' as an operationalisation for quality of care, we explored whether (1) in new practices monitoring as recommended improved a year after initial care group participation (aim 1); (2) new practices and experienced practices differed regarding monitoring (aim 2).Design Observational, real-life cohort study.Setting Primary care registry data from Eerstelijns Zorggroep Haaglanden (ELZHA) care group.Participants Aim 1: From six new practices (n=538 people with diabetes) that joined care group ELZHA in January 2014, two practices (n=211 people) were excluded because of missing baseline data; four practices (n=182 people) were included. Aim 2: From all six new practices (n=538 people), 295 individuals were included. From 145 experienced practices (n=21 465 people), 13 744 individuals were included.Exposure Care group participation includes support by staff nurses on protocolised diabetes care implementation and availability of a system providing individual monitoring information. 'Monitoring as recommended' represented minimally one annual registration of each biomedical (HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein) and lifestyle-related target indicator (body mass index, smoking behaviour, physical exercise).Primary outcome measures Aim 1: In new practices, odds of people being monitored as recommended in 2014 were compared with baseline (2013). Aim 2: Odds of monitoring as recommended in new and experienced practices in 2014 were compared.Results Aim 1: After 1-year care group participation, odds of being monitored as recommended increased threefold (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.88, p<0.001). Aim 2: Compared with new practices, no significant differences in the odds of monitoring as recommended were found in experienced practices (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.18 to 8.37, p=0.844).Conclusions We observed a sharp increase concerning biomedical and lifestyle monitoring as recommended after 1-year care group participation, and subsequently no significant difference between new and experienced practices-indicating that providing diabetes care within a collective approach rapidly improves registration of care. Show less
OBJECTIVEGastrointestinal adverse effects occur in 20-30% of patients with metformin-treated type 2 diabetes, leading to premature discontinuation in 5-10% of the cases. Gastrointestinal... Show moreOBJECTIVEGastrointestinal adverse effects occur in 20-30% of patients with metformin-treated type 2 diabetes, leading to premature discontinuation in 5-10% of the cases. Gastrointestinal intolerance may reflect localized high concentrations of metformin in the gut. We hypothesized that reduced transport of metformin via the plasma membrane monoamine transporter (PMAT) and organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1) could increase the risk of severe gastrointestinal adverse effects.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe study included 286 severe metformin-intolerant and 1,128 metformin-tolerant individuals from the IMI DIRECT (Innovative Medicines Initiative: DIabetes REsearCh on patient straTification) consortium. We assessed the association of patient characteristics, concomitant medication, and the burden of mutations in the SLC29A4 and SLC22A1 genes on odds of intolerance.RESULTSWomen (P < 0.001) and older people (P < 0.001) were more likely to develop metformin intolerance. Concomitant use of transporter-inhibiting drugs increased the odds of intolerance (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, P < 0.001). In an adjusted logistic regression model, the G allele at rs3889348 (SLC29A4) was associated with gastrointestinal intolerance (OR 1.34, P = 0.005). rs3889348 is the top cis-expression quantitative trait locus for SLC29A4 in gut tissue where carriers of the G allele had reduced expression. Homozygous carriers of the G allele treated with transporter-inhibiting drugs had more than three times higher odds of intolerance compared with carriers of no G allele and not treated with inhibiting drugs (OR 3.23, P < 0.001). Use of a genetic risk score derived from rs3889348 and SLC22A1 variants found that the odds of intolerance were more than twice as high in individuals who carry three or more risk alleles compared with those carrying none (OR 2.15, P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONSThese results suggest that intestinal metformin transporters and concomitant medications play an important role in the gastrointestinal adverse effects of metformin. Show less
Objective Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires frequent patient monitoring. Within a collective care group setting, doubts on the clinical effects of registration are a barrier... Show more Objective Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires frequent patient monitoring. Within a collective care group setting, doubts on the clinical effects of registration are a barrier for full adoption of T2DM registration in general practice. We explored whether full monitoring of physiological, biomedical and lifestyle-related target indicators within a care group approach is associated with lower HbA1c levels. Design Observational, real-life cohort study Setting Primary care data registry from the EerstelijnsZorggroepHaaglanden care group. Exposure The care group provides general practitioners collectively with organisational support to facilitate structured T2DM primary care. Patients are offered quarterly medical and lifestyle-related consultation. Main outcome measure Full monitoring of each target indicator in patients with T2DM, which includes minimally one measure of HbA1c level, systolic blood pressure, LDL, BMI, smoking behaviour and physical exercise between January and December 2014; otherwise, patients were defined as ´incompletely monitored´. HbA1c levels of 8,137 fully-monitored and 3,958 incompletely-monitored patients were compared, adjusted for the confounders diabetes duration, age and gender. Since recommended HbA1c values depend on age, medication use and diabetes duration, analyses were stratified into three HbA1c profile groups. Linear multilevel analyses enabled adjustment for general practice. Results Compared to incompletely-monitored patients, fully-monitored patients had significantly lower HbA1c levels [95%CI] in the first (-2.03 [-2.53;-1.52]mmol/mol) (-0.19% [-0.23%;-0.14%]), second (-3.36 [-5.28;-1.43]mmol/mol) (-0.31% [-0.48%;-0.13%]) and third HbA1c profile group (-1.89 [-3.76;-0.01]mmol/mol) (-0.17% [-0.34%;0.00%]). Conclusions/interpretation This study shows that in a care group setting, fully-monitored patients had significantly lower HbA1c levels compared with incompletely-monitored patients. Since this difference might have considerable clinical impact in terms of T2DM-related risks, this might help general practices in care group settings to overcome barriers on adequate registration and thus improve structured T2DM primary care. From population health management perspective, we recommend a systematic approach to adjust the structured care protocol for incompletely-monitored subgroups. Show less
