The use of core descriptors from the ENiGMA code study in recent literature: a systematic review.

AIM: The heterogeneity in data quality presented in studies regarding Crohn's anal fistula (CAF) limit extrapolation into clinical practice. The ENiGMA collaborators established a core descriptor set to standardize reporting of CAF. The aim of this work was to quantify the use of these descriptors in recent literature. METHOD: We completed a systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, extracting publications from the past 10 years specific to the clinical interventions and outcomes of CAF, and reported in line with PRISMA guidance. Each article was assessed for inclusion of ENiGMA descriptors. The median number of descriptors per publication was evaluated along with the overall frequency of each individual descriptor. Use of ENiGMA descriptors was compared between medical and procedural publications. RESULTS: Ninety publications were included. The median number of descriptors was 15 of 37; 16 descriptors were used in over half of the publications while 17 were used in fewer than a third. Descriptors were more frequently used in procedural (n = 16) than medical publications (n = 14) (p = 0.031). In procedural publications, eight descriptors were more frequently used including Faecal incontinence, Number of previous fistula interventions, Presence and severity of anorectal stenosis and Current proctitis. Medical publications were more likely to include Previous response to biological therapy and Duration and type of current course of biological therapy. CONCLUSION: With many descriptors being used infrequently and variations between medical and procedural literature, the colorectal community should assess the need for all 37 descriptors.

Effectiveness of Minimal Contact Interventions: An RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Around 23% of adults worldwide are insufficiently active. Wearable devices paired with virtual coaching software could increase physical activity. The effectiveness of 3 minimal contact interventions (paper-based physical activity diaries, activity trackers, and activity trackers coupled with virtual coaching) in increasing physical activity energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness were compared over 12 weeks among inactive adults. METHODS: This was an open label, parallel-group RCT. Inactive adults (aged ≥18 years, N=488) were randomized to no intervention (Control; n=121), paper-based diary (Diary; n=124), activity tracker (Activity Band; n=122), or activity tracker plus virtual coaching (Activity Band PLUS; n=121) groups. Coprimary outcomes included 12-week changes in physical activity energy expenditure and fitness (May 2012-January 2014). Analyses were conducted in 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups overall (physical activity energy expenditure: p=0.114, fitness: p=0.417). However, there was a greater increase in physical activity energy expenditure (4.21 kJ/kg/day, 95% CI=0.42, 8.00) in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group. There were also greater decreases in BMI and body fat percentage in the Activity Band PLUS group than in the Control group (BMI= -0.24 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.45, -0.03; body fat= -0.48%, 95% CI= -0.88, -0.08) and in theActivity Band PLUS group than in the Diary group (BMI= -0.30 kg/m2, 95% CI= -0.50, -0.09; body fat= -0.57%, 95% CI= -0.97, -0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Coupling activity trackers with virtual coaching may facilitate increases in physical activity energy expenditure compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention and improve some secondary outcomes compared with a traditional paper‒based physical activity diary intervention or no intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov ISRCTN31844443.

Protocol for Get Moving: a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions to promote fitness and physical activity in working adults.

BACKGROUND: Web-based interventions for physical activity offer several advantages over face-to-face, print-and telephone-based interventions and are scalable and potentially cost-effective. Recent reviews of web-based interventions in adults show that they have positive but small effects on physical activity but identify a number of limitations including a reliance on self-report measures of outcome. This trial used an objective measure of physical activity to assess the effectiveness of three minimal contact interventions: 1) A multi-component web-based intervention incorporating objective monitoring and graphical feedback of physical activity; 2) A version of the first intervention that consisted only of objective monitoring plus web-based graphical feedback; and 3) Self-monitoring of physical activity using a paper diary. METHODS/DESIGN: Get Moving is an individually randomised controlled trial with allocation of 488 participants to one of three interventions or to a no-intervention control group. Participants are physically inactive working adults aged 18-65 years. They attended a baseline assessment session at which anthropometric, biological and questionnaire measures were taken and they completed a treadmill exercise test. They then wore a combined movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before being randomised to one of the four trial arms. The baseline measures were repeated at the follow-up assessment which took place approximately 12 weeks post-randomisation, conducted by staff blind to group allocation. Participants wore the movement and heart rate monitor for six days and nights before this. The co-primary outcomes are: physical activity energy expenditure measured using individually calibrated combined heart-rate and movement data; and cardiorespiratory fitness measured using a sub-maximal treadmill exercise test. DISCUSSION: Strengths of the trial include the use of an objective measure of physical activity, a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness, relatively large sample size and the use of robust methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding to outcome assessment. Get Moving will contribute to the evidence base on minimal contact interventions for increasing physical activity. The interventions could be implemented in other settings such as primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN31844443. Registered 18 June 2010.

Long-term effect of population screening for diabetes on cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health, and health behavior.

PURPOSE: There is limited trial evidence concerning the long-term effects of screening for type 2 diabetes on population morbidity. We examined the effect of a population-based diabetes screening program on cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health, and health-related behaviors. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, parallel-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial of diabetes screening (the ADDITION-Cambridge study) including 18,875 individuals aged 40 to 69 years at high risk of diabetes in 32 general practices in eastern England (27 practices randomly allocated to screening, 5 to no-screening for control). Of those eligible for screening, 466 (2.9%) were diagnosed with diabetes. Seven years after randomization, a random sample of patients was sent a postal questionnaire: 15% from the screening group (including diabetes screening visit attenders and non-attenders) and 40% from the no-screening control group. Self-reported cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health (using the SF-8 Health Survey and EQ-5D instrument), and health behaviors were compared between trial groups using an intention-to-screen analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3,286 questionnaires mailed out, 1,995 (61%) were returned, with 1,945 included in the analysis (screening: 1,373; control: 572). At 7 years, there were no significant differences between the screening and control groups in the proportion of participants reporting heart attack or stroke (OR = 0.90, 95% CI, 0.71-1.15); SF-8 physical health summary score as an indicator of self-rated health status (ß -0.33, 95% CI, -1.80 to 1.14); EQ-5D visual analogue score (ß: 0.80, 95% CI, -1.28 to 2.87); total physical activity (ß 0.50, 95% CI, -4.08 to 5.07); current smoking (OR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.32); and alcohol consumption (ß 0.14, 95% CI, -1.07 to 1.35). CONCLUSIONS: Invitation to screening for type 2 diabetes appears to have limited impact on population levels of cardiovascular morbidity, self-rated health status, and health behavior after 7 years.

Multiple behaviour change intervention and outcomes in recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the ADDITION-Plus randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess whether or not a theory-based behaviour change intervention delivered by trained and quality-assured lifestyle facilitators can achieve and maintain improvements in physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking cessation in people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. METHODS: An explanatory randomised controlled trial was conducted in 34 general practices in Eastern England (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Plus [ADDITION-Plus]). In all, 478 patients meeting eligibility criteria (age 40 to 69 years with recently diagnosed screen or clinically detected diabetes) were individually randomised to receive either intensive treatment (n = 239) or intensive treatment plus a theory-based behaviour change intervention led by a facilitator external to the general practice team (n = 239). Randomisation was central and independent using a partial minimisation procedure to balance stratifiers between treatment arms. Facilitators taught patients skills to facilitate change in and maintenance of key health behaviours, including goal setting, self-monitoring and building habits. Primary outcomes included physical activity energy expenditure (individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured fruit and vegetable intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels) and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at 1 year. Measurements, data entry and laboratory analysis were conducted with staff unaware of participants' study group allocation. RESULTS: Of 475 participants still alive, 444 (93%; intervention group 95%, comparison group 92%) attended 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups in physical activity (difference: +1.50 kJ kg(-1) day(-1); 95% CI -1.74, 4.74), plasma vitamin C (difference: -3.84 µmol/l; 95% CI -8.07, 0.38), smoking (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.77, 2.43) and plasma drug levels (difference in metformin levels: -119.5 µmol/l; 95% CI -335.0, 95.9). Cardiovascular risk factors and self-reported behaviour improved in both groups with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: For patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes receiving intensive treatment in UK primary care, a facilitator-led individually tailored behaviour change intervention did not improve objectively measured health behaviours or cardiovascular risk factors over 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99175498 FUNDING: The trial is supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, National Health Service R&D support funding (including the Primary Care Research and Diabetes Research Networks) and National Institute of Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme. The Primary Care Unit is supported by NIHR Research funds. Bio-Rad provided equipment for HbA1c testing during the screening phase.

Screening for type 2 diabetes and population mortality over 10 years (ADDITION-Cambridge): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality. METHODS: In a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20,184 individuals aged 40-69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081. FINDINGS: Of 16,047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15,089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001-06, 11,737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184,057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9-9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75-1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90-1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75-2·10) associated with invitation to screening. INTERPRETATION: In this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

Cardiovascular risk reduction following diagnosis of diabetes by screening: 1-year results from the ADDITION-Cambridge trial cohort.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainties persist concerning the effects of early intensive management of type 2 diabetes and which patients benefit most from such an approach. AIM: To describe change in modelled cardiovascular risk in the 14 months following diagnosis, and to examine which baseline patient characteristics and treatment components are associated with risk reduction. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort of individuals from a pragmatic, single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial of 236 females and 361 males with screen-detected type 2 diabetes and without prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), from 49 GP surgeries in eastern England, examined at baseline (2002-2006) and after 14-months' follow-up. METHOD: Multiple linear regression was used to quantify the association between baseline patient characteristics, treatment components, and change in modelled 10-year cardiovascular risk (UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] [version 3] risk engine). RESULTS: There was a downward shift in the distribution of modelled CVD risk over 14 months mean 31% (standard deviation [SD] = 14%) to 26% [SD = 13%]). Older individuals, males, and those with a larger waist circumference at baseline exhibited smaller risk reductions. Individuals prescribed higher numbers of drugs over the follow-up period, and those who decreased their energy intake or reduced their weight, demonstrated larger reductions in modelled risk. CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve significant reductions in modelled CVD risk over 14 months following diagnosis of diabetes by screening. Risk reduction appeared to be driven mainly by prescription of higher numbers of drugs, decreased energy intake, and weight reduction. There was room for further risk reduction, as many patients were not prescribed recommended treatments.

Protocol for the ADDITION-Plus study: a randomised controlled trial of an individually-tailored behaviour change intervention among people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes under intensive UK general practice care.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses both clinical and public health challenges. Cost-effective approaches to prevent progression of the disease in primary care are needed. Evidence suggests that intensive multifactorial interventions including medication and behaviour change can significantly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients with established type 2 diabetes, and that patient education in self-management can improve short-term outcomes. However, existing studies cannot isolate the effects of behavioural interventions promoting self-care from other aspects of intensive primary care management. The ADDITION-Plus trial was designed to address these issues among recently diagnosed patients in primary care over one year. METHODS/DESIGN: ADDITION-Plus is an explanatory randomised controlled trial of a facilitator-led, theory-based behaviour change intervention tailored to individuals with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. 34 practices in the East Anglia region participated. 478 patients with diabetes were individually randomised to receive (i) intensive treatment alone (n = 239), or (ii) intensive treatment plus the facilitator-led individual behaviour change intervention (n = 239). Facilitators taught patients key skills to facilitate change and maintenance of key behaviours (physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking), including goal setting, action planning, self-monitoring and building habits. The intervention was delivered over one year at the participant's surgery and included a one-hour introductory meeting followed by six 30-minute meetings and four brief telephone calls. Primary endpoints are physical activity energy expenditure (assessed by individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured dietary intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels), and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at one year. We will undertake an intention-to-treat analysis of the effect of the intervention on these measures, an assessment of cost-effectiveness, and analyse predictors of behaviour change in the cohort. DISCUSSION: The ADDITION-Plus trial will establish the medium-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an externally facilitated intervention tailored to support change in multiple behaviours among intensively-treated individuals with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in primary care. Results will inform policy recommendations concerning the management of patients early in the course of diabetes. Findings will also improve understanding of the factors influencing change in multiple behaviours, and their association with health outcomes.

The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: a cluster -- randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, the benefits of such a strategy remain uncertain. METHODS AND DESIGN: The ADDITION-Cambridge study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (i) a stepwise screening strategy for type 2 diabetes; and (ii) intensive multifactorial treatment for people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care. 63 practices in the East Anglia region participated. Three undertook the pilot study, 33 were allocated to three groups: no screening (control), screening followed by intensive treatment (IT) and screening plus routine care (RC) in an unbalanced (1:3:3) randomisation. The remaining 27 practices were randomly allocated to IT and RC. A risk score incorporating routine practice data was used to identify people aged 40-69 years at high-risk of undiagnosed diabetes. In the screening practices, high-risk individuals were invited to take part in a stepwise screening programme. In the IT group, diabetes treatment is optimised through guidelines, target-led multifactorial treatment, audit, feedback, and academic detailing for practice teams, alongside provision of educational materials for newly diagnosed participants. Primary endpoints are modelled cardiovascular risk at one year, and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity at five years after diagnosis of diabetes. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, development of renal and visual impairment, peripheral neuropathy, health service costs, self-reported quality of life, functional status and health utility. Impact of the screening programme at the population level is also assessed through measures of mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health status and health service use among high-risk individuals. DISCUSSION: ADDITION-Cambridge is conducted in a defined high-risk group accessible through primary care. It addresses the feasibility of population-based screening for diabetes, as well as the benefits and costs of screening and intensive multifactorial treatment early in the disease trajectory. The intensive treatment algorithm is based on evidence from studies including individuals with clinically diagnosed diabetes and the education materials are informed by psychological theory. ADDITION-Cambridge will provide timely evidence concerning the benefits of early intensive treatment and will inform policy decisions concerning screening for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled trials ISRCTN86769081.

Efficacy of a theory-based behavioural intervention to increase physical activity in an at-risk group in primary care (ProActive UK): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Declining physical activity is associated with a rising burden of global disease. Efforts to reverse this trend have not been successful. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a facilitated behavioural intervention to increase the physical activity of sedentary individuals at familial risk of diabetes. METHODS: We enrolled 365 sedentary adults who had a parental history of type 2 diabetes. They were recruited from either diabetes or family history registers at 20 general practice clinics in the UK. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups, or to a comparison group. All participants were posted a brief advice leaflet. One intervention group was offered a 1-year behaviour-change programme, to be delivered by trained facilitators in participants' homes, and the other the same programme by telephone. The programme was designed to alter behavioural determinants, as defined by the theory of planned behaviour, and to teach behaviour-change strategies. The principal outcome at 1 year was daytime physical activity, which was objectively measured as a ratio to resting energy expenditure. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as ISRCTN61323766. FINDINGS: Of 365 patients, we analysed primary endpoints for 321 (88%) for whom we had data after 1 year of follow-up. At 1 year, the physical-activity ratio of participants who received the intervention, by either delivery route, did not differ from the ratio in those who were given a brief advice leaflet. The mean difference in daytime physical-activity ratio, adjusted for baseline, was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08). The physical-activity ratio did not differ between participants who were delivered the intervention face-to-face or by telephone (mean difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10). INTERPRETATION: A facilitated theory-based behavioural intervention was no more effective than an advice leaflet for promotion of physical activity in an at-risk group; therefore health-care providers should remain cautious about commissioning behavioural programmes into individual preventive health-care services.