[Important alteration of the Dutch treatment algorithm in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus]. / Belangrijke wijziging van behandelrichtlijn 'Diabetes mellitus type 2'.

Recent trials of two classes of glucose-lowering drugs (SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1RAs) have shown consistent cardiovascular and renal benefits that appear independent of glycaemic control. These results have prompted the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG) together with the Dutch Society of Internal Medicine (NIV) to update the treatment algorithm in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) at very high CVD risk. The use of SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1RAs is now recommended in 3 groups of people with T2D. 1. patients with established CVD; 2. Patients with chronic kidney disease and a moderately to high CVD risk according to KDIGO; 3. patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Treatment algorithms differ for drug-naïve and drug-treated patients with T2D. In both drug-naïve and drug-treated patients the use of a SGLT2 inhibitor respectively as monotherapy or add-on is recommended as first step. If HbA1c is above the individual target, metformin will be added in drug-naive patients whereas GLP1-RAs could be considered in drug-treated patients. GLP1-RAs should also be considered when SGLT2-inhibitors are contraindicated.

Patients' and partners' illness perceptions in screen-detected versus clinically diagnosed type 2 diabetes: partners matter!

BACKGROUND: In type 2 diabetes, educational interventions that target differences between patients' and partners' illness perceptions have been advocated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the route to diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (through screening versus clinical symptoms) affects illness perceptions of patients and their partners. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we enrolled patients aged 40-75 years from general practices in the Netherlands with a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (≤3 years), detected by either screening (n = 77) or clinical symptoms (n = 32). Patients and their partners each completed a postal Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Brief IPQ), and up-to-date clinical data were obtained from their GP. The Brief IPQ scores of the screening and clinical diagnosis groups were compared for both patients and partners, and multiple variable linear regression models with Brief IPQ scores as outcomes were developed. RESULTS: The route to diagnosis did not appear to have a strong influence on patients' illness perceptions but did influence illness perceptions of their partners. Partners of patients diagnosed through screening perceived greater consequences for their own life, had a stronger feeling that their patient-partners had control over their diabetes, were more concerned about their partners' diabetes, and believed that their patient-partners experienced more diabetes symptoms, compared with partners of patients who were diagnosed through clinical symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The route to diagnosis of type 2 diabetes has a greater impact on the illness perceptions of partners than that of patients. Professionals in diabetes education and treatment should consider these differences in their approach to patient care.

Vascular outcomes in patients with screen-detected or clinically diagnosed type 2 diabetes: Diabscreen study follow-up.

PURPOSE: Screening guidelines for type 2 diabetes recommend targeting high-risk individuals. Our objective was to assess whether diagnosis of type 2 diabetes based on opportunistic targeted screening results in lower vascular event rates compared with diagnosis on the basis of clinical signs or symptoms. METHODS: In a prospective, nonrandomized, observational study, we enrolled patients aged 45 to 75 years from 10 family practices in the Netherlands with a new diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, detected either by (1) opportunistic targeted screening (n = 359) or (2) clinical signs or symptoms (n = 206). Patients in both groups received the same guideline-concordant diabetes care. The main group outcome measure was a composite of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD), nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Baseline vascular disease was more prevalent in the opportunistic targeted screening group, mainly ischemic heart disease (12.3% vs 3.9%, P = .001) and nephropathy (16.9% vs 7.1%, P = .002). After a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (SD = 2.4 years) and 7.1 years (SD = 2.7 years) for the opportunistic targeted screening and clinical diagnosis groups, respectively, composite primary event rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (9.5% vs 10.2%, P = .78; adjusted hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.25; P = .21). There were also no significant differences in the separate event rates of deaths from CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal strokes. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic targeted screening for type 2 diabetes detected patients with higher CVD morbidity at baseline when compared with clinical diagnosis but showed similar CVD mortality and major CVD morbidity after 7.7 years. Opportunistic targeted screening and guided care appears to improve vascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Yield of opportunistic targeted screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care: the diabscreen study.

PURPOSE: In screening for type 2 diabetes, guidelines recommend targeting high-risk individuals. Our objectives were to assess the yield of opportunistic targeted screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care and to assess the diagnostic value of various risk factors. METHODS: In 11 family practices (total practice population = 49,229) in The Netherlands, we conducted a stepwise opportunistic screening program among patients aged 45 to 75 years by (1) identifying high-risk individuals (=1 diabetes risk factor) and low-risk individuals using the electronic medical record, (2) obtaining a capillary fasting plasma glucose measurement, repeated on a separate day if the value was greater than 110 mg/dL, and (3) obtaining a venous sample if both capillary fasting plasma glucose values were greater than 110 mg/dL and at least 1 sample was 126 mg/dL or greater. We calculated the yield (percentage of invited patients with undiagnosed diabetes), number needed to screen (NNS), and diagnostic value of the risk factors (odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve). RESULTS: We invited for a first capillary measurement 3,724 high-risk patients seen during usual care and a random sample of 465 low-risk patients contacted by mail. The response rate was 90% and 86%, respectively. Ultimately, 101 high-risk patients (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2%-3.3%; NNS = 37) and 2 low-risk patients (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.6%; NNS = 233) had undiagnosed diabetes (P <.01). The prevalence of diabetes among patients 45 to 75 years old increased from 6.1% to 6.8% as a result. Among diagnostic models containing various risk factors, a model containing obesity alone was the best predictor of undiagnosed diabetes (odds ratio = 3.2; 95% CI, 2.0-5.2; area under the curve=0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The yield of opportunistic targeted screening was fair; obesity alone was the best predictor of undiagnosed diabetes. Opportunistic screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care could target middle-aged and older adults with obesity.

Identifying people at risk for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes using the GP's electronic medical record.

BACKGROUND: Screening for type 2 diabetes is recommended in at-risk patients. The GP's electronic medical record (EMR) might be an attractive tool for identifying them. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of the GP's EMR in identifying patients at risk for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes and the feasibility to use this information in usual care to initiate screening. METHODS: In 11 Dutch general practices (25 GPs), we performed an EMR-derived risk assessment in all patients aged > or =45 and < or =75 years, without known diabetes, identifying those at risk according to the American Diabetes Association recommendations. Patients with an EMR-derived risk or risk after additional risk assessment during regular consultation were invited for capillary fasting plasma glucose (FPG) measurement. RESULTS: Of 13 581 patients, 3858 (28%) had an EMR-based risk (hypertension, cardiovascular disease, lipid metabolism disorders and/or obesity). Additional risk assessment in those without an EMR-based risk showed that in 51%, greater than one risk factor was present, mainly family history (51.2%) and obesity (59%). Ninety per cent returned for the FPG measurement. In both groups, we found patients with an FPG exceeding the cut point for diabetes (5.9% versus 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS: With additional risk assessment during consultation, the GP's EMR was valuable in identifying patients at risk for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. It was feasible to use this information to initiate screening. At-risk patients were willing to take part in screening. Better registration of family history and obesity will improve the EMR as a tool for identifying at-risk patients in opportunistic screening in general practice.

Screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care using a stepwise protocol: the Diabscreen study.

AIM: To evaluate a stepwise protocol in opportunistic screening for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: From 2000 to 2001, in 11 Dutch general practices (n=49,229) we invited at-risk patients during usual care for a capillary fasting plasma glucose (cFPG1) measurement. If >6.0 mmol/l, a second sample (cFPG2) was taken on another day, followed by a venous sample (vFPG) if cFPG2>6.0 mmol/l and cFPG1 or 2> or =7.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: Of 3724 at-risk patients invited for a cFPG1, 3335 (90%) returned for the measurement. Ultimately, in 125 (4%) of them a vFPG was measured. In 101 out of 125 patients the vFPG was > or =7.0 mmol/l, giving a positive predictive value of our protocol of 81%. CONCLUSION: A stepwise screening protocol including two subsequent capillary blood glucose measurements from a portable blood glucose meter is well applicable in screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care.