Dataset Information

Trends in leading causes of hospitalisation of adults with diabetes in England from 2003 to 2018: an epidemiological analysis of linked primary care records.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diabetes leads to a wide range of established vascular and metabolic complications that has resulted in the implementation of diverse prevention programmes across high-income countries. Diabetes has also been associated with an increased risk of a broader set of conditions including cancers, liver disease, and common infections. We aimed to examine the trends in a broad set of cause-specific hospitalisations in individuals with diabetes in England from 2003 to 2018.

Methods

In this epidemiological analysis, we identified 309 874 individuals 18 years or older with diabetes (type 1 or 2) in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient data from 2003 to 2018. We generated a mixed prevalent and incident diabetes study population through serial cross sections and follow-up over time. We used a discretised Poisson regression model to estimate annual cause-specific hospitalisation rates in men and women with diabetes across 17 cause groupings. We generated a 1:1 age-matched and sex-matched population of individuals without diabetes to compare cause-specific hospitalisation rates in those with and without diabetes.

Findings

Hospitalisation rates were higher for all causes in persons with diabetes than in those without diabetes throughout the study period. Diabetes itself and ischaemic heart disease were the leading causes of excess (defined as absolute difference in the rate in the populations with and without diabetes) hospitalisation in 2003. By 2018, non-infectious and non-cancerous respiratory conditions, non-diabetes-related cancers, and ischaemic heart disease were the most common causes of excess hospitalisation across men and women. Hospitalisation rates of people with diabetes declined and causes of hospitalisation changed. Almost all traditional diabetes complication groups (vascular diseases, amputations, and diabetes) decreased, while conditions non-specific to diabetes (cancers, infections, non-infectious and non-cancerous respiratory conditions) increased. These differing trends represented a change in the cause of hospitalisation, such that the traditional diabetes complications accounted for more than 50% of hospitalisation in 2003, but only approximately 30% in 2018. In contrast, the proportion of hospitalisations due to respiratory infections between the same time period increased from 3% to 10% in men and from 4% to 12% in women.

Interpretations

Changes in the composition of excess risk and hospitalisation burden in those with diabetes means that preventative and clinical measures should evolve to reflect the diverse set of causes that are driving persistent excess hospitalisation in those with diabetes.

Funding

Wellcome Trust.

SUBMITTER: Pearson-Stuttard J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8672063 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of diabetes has increased in the UK and other high-income countries alongside a substantial decline in cardiovascular mortality. Yet data are scarce on how these trends have changed the causes of death in people with diabetes who have traditionally died primarily of vascular causes. We estimated how all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality in people with diabetes have changed over time, how the composition of the mortality burden has changed, and how this composition compared with that of the non-diabetes population.MethodsIn this epidemiological analysis of primary care records, we identified 313 907 individuals with diabetes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a well described primary care database, between 2001 to 2018, and linked these data to UK Office for National Statistics mortality data. We assembled serial cross sections with longitudinal follow-up to generate a mixed prevalence and incidence study population of patients with diabetes. We used discretised Poisson regression models to estimate annual death rates for deaths from all causes and 12 specific causes for men and women with diabetes. We also identified age-matched and sex matched (1:1) individuals without diabetes from the same dataset and estimated mortality rates in this group.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 31, 2018, total mortality declined by 32% in men and 31% in women with diagnosed diabetes. Death rates declined from 40·7 deaths per 1000 person-years to 27·8 deaths per 1000 person-years in men and from 42·7 deaths per 1000 person-years to 29·5 deaths per 1000 person-years in women with diagnosed diabetes. We found similar declines in individuals without diabetes, hence the gap in mortality between those with and without diabetes was maintained over the study period. Cause-specific death rates declined in ten of the 12 cause groups, with exceptions in dementia and liver disease, which increased in both populations. The large decline in vascular disease death rates led to a transition from vascular causes to cancers as the leading contributor to death rates in individuals with diagnosed diabetes and to the gap in death rates between those with and without diabetes.InterpretationThe decline in vascular death rates has been accompanied by a diversification of causes in individuals with diagnosed diabetes and a transition from vascular diseases to cancers as the leading contributor to diabetes-related death. Clinical and preventative approaches must reflect this trend to reduce the excess mortality risk in individuals with diabetes.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:BackgroundOur current understanding of Asian American mortality patterns has been distorted by the historical aggregation of diverse Asian subgroups on death certificates, masking important differences in the leading causes of death across subgroups. In this analysis, we aim to fill an important knowledge gap in Asian American health by reporting leading causes of mortality by disaggregated Asian American subgroups.Methods and findingsWe examined national mortality records for the six largest Asian subgroups (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese) and non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs) from 2003-2011, and ranked the leading causes of death. We calculated all-cause and cause-specific age-adjusted rates, temporal trends with annual percent changes, and rate ratios by race/ethnicity and sex. Rankings revealed that as an aggregated group, cancer was the leading cause of death for Asian Americans. When disaggregated, there was notable heterogeneity. Among women, cancer was the leading cause of death for every group except Asian Indians. In men, cancer was the leading cause of death among Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese men, while heart disease was the leading cause of death among Asian Indians, Filipino and Japanese men. The proportion of death due to heart disease for Asian Indian males was nearly double that of cancer (31% vs. 18%). Temporal trends showed increased mortality of cancer and diabetes in Asian Indians and Vietnamese; increased stroke mortality in Asian Indians; increased suicide mortality in Koreans; and increased mortality from Alzheimer's disease for all racial/ethnic groups from 2003-2011. All-cause rate ratios revealed that overall mortality is lower in Asian Americans compared to NHWs.ConclusionsOur findings show heterogeneity in the leading causes of death among Asian American subgroups. Additional research should focus on culturally competent and cost-effective approaches to prevent and treat specific diseases among these growing diverse populations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the evolution of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment patterns and seizure outcomes in England from 2003 to 2016.Design, setting and participantsRetrospective cohort study of electronic medical records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink and National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics databases. Patients newly diagnosed with epilepsy were identified and followed until end of data availability. Three eras were defined starting 1 April 2003 (first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline); 1 September 2007 (Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs publication); and 1 January 2012 (second NICE guideline).Outcome measuresTime from diagnosis to first AED; AED sequence; time from first AED to first 1-year remission period (no new AED attempts and no seizure-related healthcare events); time from first AED to refractoriness (third AED attempt regardless of reason); Kaplan-Meier analysis of time-to-event variables.Results4388 patients were included (mean follow-up: 6.8, 4.2 and 1.7 years by era). 84.6% of adults (≥16 years), 75.5% of children (<16) and 89.1% of elderly subgroup (65+) received treatment within 1 year; rates were generally stable over time. Treatment trends included reduced use of carbamazepine (adult first line, era 1: 34.9%; era 3: 10.7%) and phenytoin, earlier line and increased use of levetiracetam (adult first line, era 1: 2.6%; era 3: 26.2%) and lamotrigine (particularly in adults and elderly subgroup), and a larger number of different AEDs used. Valproate use shifted somewhat to later lines. Rates of 1-year remission within 2 years of starting treatment increased in adults (era 1: 71.9%; era 3: 81.4%) and elderly (era 1: 76.1%; era 3: 81.7%). Overall, 55.5% of patients relapsed after achieving 1-year remission. Refractoriness rates remained stable over time (~26% of adults within 5 years).ConclusionTreatment trends often were not aligned with era-relevant guidance. However, our results suggest a slight improvement in epilepsy treatment outcomes over the 13-year period.

Project description:BackgroundLow socioeconomic position is consistently associated with increased risk of premature death. The aim of this study is to measure the aggregate scale of inequality in premature mortality for the whole population of England.MethodsWe used mortality records from the UK Office for National Statistics to study all 2 465 285 premature deaths (defined as those before age 75 years) in England between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2018. Socioeconomic position was defined using deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation: a measure of neighbourhood income, employment, education levels, crime, health, availability of services, and local environment. We calculated the number of expected deaths by applying mortality in the least deprived decile to other deciles, within the strata of age, sex, and time. The mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality was defined as the difference between the observed and expected deaths. We also used life table modelling to estimate years-of-life lost attributable to socioeconomic inequality.Findings35·6% (95% CI 35·3-35·9) of premature deaths were attributable to socioeconomic inequality, equating to 877 082 deaths, or one every 10 min. The biggest contributors were ischaemic heart disease (152 171 excess deaths), respiratory cancers (111 083) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (83 593). The most unequal causes of death were tuberculosis, opioid use, HIV, psychoactive drugs use, viral hepatitis, and obesity, each with more than two-thirds attributable to inequality. Inequality was greater among men and peaked in early childhood and at age 40-49 years. The proportion of deaths attributable to inequality increased during the study period, particularly for women, because mortality rates among the most deprived women (excluding cardiovascular diseases) plateaued, and for some diseases increased. A mean of 14·4 months of life before age 75 years are lost due to socioeconomic inequality.InterpretationOne in three premature deaths are attributable to socioeconomic inequality, making this our most important public health challenge. Interventions that address upstream determinants of health should be prioritised.FundingNational Institute of Health Research; Wellcome Trust.

Project description:To investigate the performance of parent-reported data in identifying physician-confirmed asthma.Validation study using linkage between the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and electronic patient records held within the General Practice Research Database (GPRD).Participants were those eligible to participate in ALSPAC who also had a record in the GPRD; this included 765 individuals, just under 4% of ALSPAC-eligible participants. The analysis was based on 141 participants with complete parent-reported asthma data.The main GPRD outcome measure was whether a child had a diagnosis of asthma before they were nine. Parent-reported measures were doctor diagnosis of asthma (before mean age 7.5 years), various outcomes based on wheezing and breathlessness recorded longitudinally between 6 months and 8.5 years. Secondary outcomes were bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR), forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio and skin prick test responses.Among the 141 participants with complete parent-reported data, 26 (18%) had an asthma diagnosis before age nine. Using general practitioner (GP)-recorded asthma as the gold standard, the question 'Has a doctor ever diagnosed your child with asthma?' was both sensitive (88.5%) and specific (95.7%). 'Ever wheezed' had the highest sensitivity (100%) but low specificity (60%). More specific definitions were obtained by restricting to those who had wheezed on more than one occasion, experienced frequent wheeze and/or wheezed after the age of 3, but these measures had low sensitivities. BHR only identified 50% of those with a GP-recorded diagnosis.Parental reports of a doctor's diagnosis agree well with a GP-recorded diagnosis. High specificity for asthma can be achieved by using detailed wheezing questions, although these definitions are likely to exclude mild cases of asthma. Our study shows that linkage between observational studies and electronic patient records has the potential to enhance epidemiological research.

Project description:ImportanceTime trends and population disparities in nutritional quality of foods from major US sources, including grocery stores, restaurants, schools, worksites, and other sources, are not well established.ObjectiveTo investigate patterns and trends in diet quality by food sources among US children and adults overall and in sociodemographic subgroups.Design, setting, and participantsThis serial, cross-sectional survey study included respondents from 8 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles (2003-2018) with valid dietary recalls. Data were analyzed from April 16, 2020, to July 20, 2020.ExposuresSurvey cycle, food source, and key sociodemographic subgroups.Main outcomes and measuresMean diet quality of foods (meals, snacks, and beverages) consumed per person, characterized by the American Heart Association diet score (range, 0-80, with higher scores indicating healthier diets), the Healthy Eating Index 2015 (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating healthier diets), and their components. For the American Heart Association diet score, poor diet was defined as less than 40.0% adherence (score, <32.0), intermediate diet as 40.0% to 79.9% adherence (score, 32.0-63.9), and ideal as 80.0% or greater adherence (score, ≥64.0).ResultsThe study included 20 905 children 5 to 19 years of age (mean [SD] age, 12.1 [5.24] years; 51.0% male) and 39 757 adults 20 years or older (mean [SD] age, 47.3 [15.1] years; 51.9% female). Diet quality of foods consumed from grocery stores increased modestly in children (53.2% to 45.1% with poor diet quality; P = .006 for trend) and adults (40.1% to 32.9% with poor diet quality; P = .001 for trend), with smaller changes for restaurants among children (84.8% to 79.6% with poor diet quality; P = .003 for trend). Changes for restaurants among adults were not statistically significant (65.4% to 65.2% with poor diet quality; P = .07 with poor diet quality); the same was true of worksites (adults: 55.6% to 50.7% with poor diet quality; P = .25 for trend). Food quality from other sources worsened (children: 40.0% to 51.7% with poor diet quality; adults: 33.8% to 43.8% with poor diet quality; P < .001 for trend each). The largest improvement in diet quality was in schools, with the percentage with poor diet quality decreasing from 55.6% to 24.4% (P < .001 for trend), mostly after 2010, and with equitable improvements across population subgroups. Findings were similar for Healthy Eating Index 2015. Significant disparities in diet quality trends were seen by sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, and household income for food consumed from grocery stores. For example, the proportion of foods consumed from grocery stores that were of poor diet quality decreased among high-income adults (from 36.9% to 26.5%; P = .001 for trend) but not among low-income adults (from 45.8% to 41.3%; P = .09 for trend).Conclusions and relevanceBy 2017-2018, foods consumed at schools improved significantly and provided the best mean diet quality of major US food sources, without population disparities. Additional improvements are needed from all major US food sources, with particular attention on equity.