Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul;31(7):503-514.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013613. Epub 2021 Oct 12.

Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on diabetes health checks and prescribing for people with type 2 diabetes: a UK-wide cohort study involving 618 161 people in primary care

Affiliations

Impact of COVID-19 restrictions on diabetes health checks and prescribing for people with type 2 diabetes: a UK-wide cohort study involving 618 161 people in primary care

Matthew J Carr et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To compare rates of performing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended health checks and prescribing in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), before and after the first COVID-19 peak in March 2020, and to assess whether trends varied by age, sex, ethnicity and deprivation.

Methods: We studied 618 161 people with T2D followed between March and December 2020 from 1744 UK general practices registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We focused on six health checks: haemoglobin A1c, serum creatinine, cholesterol, urinary albumin excretion, blood pressure and body mass index assessment. Regression models compared observed rates in April 2020 and between March and December 2020 with trend-adjusted expected rates derived from 10-year historical data.

Results: In April 2020, in English practices, rates of performing health checks were reduced by 76%-88% when compared with 10-year historical trends, with older people from deprived areas experiencing the greatest reductions. Between May and December 2020, the reduced rates recovered gradually but overall remained 28%-47% lower, with similar findings in other UK nations. Extrapolated to the UK population, there were ~7.4 million fewer care processes undertaken March-December 2020. In England, rates for new medication fell during April with reductions varying from 10% (95% CI: 4% to 16%) for antiplatelet agents to 60% (95% CI: 58% to 62%) for antidiabetic medications. Overall, between March and December 2020, the rate of prescribing new diabetes medications fell by 19% (95% CI: 15% to 22%) and new antihypertensive medication prescribing fell by 22% (95% CI: 18% to 26%), but prescribing of new lipid-lowering or antiplatelet therapy was unchanged. Similar trends were observed across the UK, except for a reduction in new lipid-lowering therapy prescribing in the other UK nations (reduction: 16% (95% CI: 10% to 21%)). Extrapolated to the UK population, between March and December 2020, there were ~31 800 fewer people with T2D prescribed a new type of diabetes medication and ~14 600 fewer prescribed a new type of antihypertensive medication.

Conclusions: Over the coming months, healthcare services will need to manage this backlog of testing and prescribing. We recommend effective communications to ensure patient engagement with diabetes services, monitoring and opportunities for prescribing, and when appropriate use of home monitoring, remote consultations and other innovations in care.

Keywords: COVID-19; diabetes mellitus; health services research; primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: DMA reports research funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB and the Leo Foundation outside the submitted work. MKR has received consulting fees and non-promotional lecture fees from Novo Nordisk in relation to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The company has had no role in influencing the proposed study and is not expected to benefit from this work. Outside the submitted work, MKR reports receiving research funding from Novo Nordisk, consultancy fees from Novo Nordisk and Roche Diabetes Care, and modest owning of shares in GlaxoSmithKline. NM reports honorarium for presentations from Napp Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, MyLan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, Abbott, Omnia-Med, Takeda UK and AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Observed and expected care process rates in people with type 2 diabetes during 2019 and 2020, in England. (A–F) Blue lines indicate observed monthly rates (years 2019 and 2020), and green-shaded regions indicate expected rates with 95% CIs based on 10-year historical trends from January 2010; the vertical line at 1 March 2020 separates the rates in primary care before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and x-axis markers indicate mid-months. Created by the authors.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Stratified care process rates in people with type 2 diabetes during 2019 and 2020, in England. (A–F) Lines indicate observed monthly rates (years 2019 and 2020); the vertical line at 1 March 2020 separates the rates in primary care before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and x-axis markers indicate mid-months. Created by the authors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Observed and expected rates of new medication initiation in people with type 2 diabetes during 2019 and 2020, in England. (A–D) Blue lines indicate observed monthly rates (years 2019 and 2020), and green-shaded regions indicate expected rates with 95% CIs based on 10-year historical trends from January 2010; the vertical line at 1 March 2020 separates the rates in primary care before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and x-axis markers indicate mid-months. Created by the authors.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Observed and expected new and repeat medication prescribing rates in people with type 2 diabetes during 2019 and 2020, in England. (A–D) Blue lines indicate observed monthly rates (years 2019 and 2020), and green-shaded regions indicate expected rates with 95% CIs based on 10-year historical trends from January 2010; the vertical line at 1 March 2020 separates the rates in primary care before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and x-axis markers indicate mid-months. Created by the authors.

Comment in

References

    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . Type 2 diabetes clinical guidance [CG66], 2008.
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate guidelines network (sign) guideline. management of diabetes, 2017. Available: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-guidelines/management-of-diabetes/ [Accessed 6 Jul 2021].
    1. Badawi D, Saleh S, Natafgi N, et al. . Quality of type II diabetes care in primary health care centers in Kuwait: employment of a diabetes quality indicator set (DQIS). PLoS One 2015;10:e0132883. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132883 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Si D, Bailie R, Wang Z, et al. . Comparison of diabetes management in five countries for general and Indigenous populations: an Internet-based review. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:169. 10.1186/1472-6963-10-169 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tanaka H, Tomio J, Sugiyama T, et al. . Process quality of diabetes care under favorable access to healthcare: a 2-year longitudinal study using claims data in Japan. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2016;4:e000291. 10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000291 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types