November 2013, Volume 56, Issue 11, pp 2367-2377,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 20 Aug 2013
Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy compared with routine care on self-reported health status, general well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction in screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial
The study aimed to examine the effects of intensive treatment (IT) vs routine care (RC) on patient-reported outcomes after 5 years in screen-detected diabetic patients.
In a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial, 343 general practices in Denmark, Cambridge and Leicester (UK) and the Netherlands were randomised to screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus plus IT of multiple risk factors in people 40–69 years without known diabetes (n = 1,678 patients) or screening plus RC (n = 1,379 patients). Practices were randomised in a 1:1 ratio according to a computer-generated list. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed according to WHO criteria. Exclusions were: life expectancy <1 year, housebound, pregnant or lactating, or psychological or psychiatric problems. Treatment targets for IT were: HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), BP ≤135/85 mmHg, cholesterol <5 mmol/l in the absence of a history of coronary heart disease and <4.5 mmol/l in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease; prescription of aspirin to people taking antihypertensive medication and, in cases of CV disease or BP >120/80 mmHg, ACE inhibitors were recommended. After 2003, the treatment algorithm recommended statins to all patients with cholesterol of ≥3.5 mmol/l. Outcome measures were: health status (Euroqol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]) at baseline and at follow-up; and health status (36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] and Euroquol Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-VAS]), well-being (12-item Short Form of the Well-Being Questionnaire), diabetes-specific quality of life (Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life) and satisfaction with diabetes treatment (Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at follow-up. At baseline, standardised self-report questionnaires were used to collect information. Questionnaires were completed at the same health assessment visit as the anthropometric and biochemical measurements. The patients and the staff assessing the outcomes were unaware of the group assignments. Participants were followed for a mean of 5.7 years. Outcome data were available for 1,250 participants in the intensive treatment group (74%) and 967 participants in the routine care group (70%). The estimated differences in means from the four centres were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Baseline EQ-5D level was used as a covariate in all analyses.
EQ-5D values did not change between diagnosis and follow-up, with a median (interquartile range) of 0.85 (0.73–1.00) at baseline and 0.85 (0.73–1.00) at 5 year follow-up. Health status, well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction did not differ between the intensive treatment and routine care groups. There was some heterogeneity between centres (I 2 being between 13% [SF-36 physical functioning] and 73% [EQ-VAS]).
There were no differences in health status, well-being, quality of life and treatment satisfaction between screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving intensive treatment and those receiving routine care. These results suggest that intensive treatment does not adversely affect patient-reported outcomes.
Trial registration number
ADDITION-Denmark was supported by the National Health Services, the Danish Council for Strategic Research, the Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, the Diabetes Fund of the National Board of Health, the Danish Medical Research Council and the Aarhus University Research Foundation. In addition, unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies were received. ADDITION-Cambridge was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, National Health Service R&D support funding and the National Institute for Health Research. SJG received support from the Department of Health NIHR grant funding scheme. ADDITION-Leicester was supported by Department of Health, the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, National Health Service R&D support funding and the National Institute for Health Research. ADDITION-Netherlands was supported by unrestricted grants from Novo Nordisk, Glaxo Smith Kline and Merck, and by the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, Utrecht.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group (1999) Quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients is affected by complications but not by intensive policies to improve blood glucose or blood pressure control (UKPDS 37). Diabetes Care 22:1125–1136CrossRef
Lauritzen T, Griffin S, Borch-Johnsen K, Wareham NJ, Wolffenbuttel BH, Rutten G (2000) The ADDITION study: proposed trial of the cost-effectiveness of an intensive multifactorial intervention on morbidity and mortality among people with type 2 diabetes detected by screening. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24(Suppl 3):S6–S11PubMedCrossRef
Webb DR, Khunti K, Srinivasan B et al (2010) Rationale and design of the ADDITION-Leicester study, a systematic screening programme and randomised controlled trial of multi-factorial cardiovascular risk intervention in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus detected by screening. Trials 11:16PubMedCrossRef
Alberti KGMM, Zimmet PZ (1999) Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. World Health Organization, Geneva
McIntosh A, Hutchinson A, Home PD et al (2001) Royal College of General Practitioners. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for type 2 diabetes: management of blood glucose. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Royal College of General Practitioners in Denmark (1999) Type 2-diabetes in general practice—diagnosis and treatment. Royal College of General Practitioners, Copenhagen, Denmark
Rutten GEHM, Verhoeven S, Heine RJ et al (1999) Dutch College of General Practitioners. Practice guidelines: diabetes mellitus type 2. Huisarts Wetenschap 42:67–84
Bradley C (1994) Diabetes treatment satisfaction questionnaire. In: Bradley C (ed) Handbook of psychology and diabetes: a guide to psychological measurement in diabetes research and practice. Harwood Academic, Chur, pp 111–132
Van den Donk M, Gorter KJ, Rutten GE (2010) No negative effects of a multi-factorial, intensified treatment on self-reported health status, treatment satisfaction, and diabetes-related distress in screen-detected type 2 diabetes patients. The ADDITION-Netherlands study. Qual Life Res 19:509–513PubMedCrossRef
- Effect of early intensive multifactorial therapy compared with routine care on self-reported health status, general well-being, diabetes-specific quality of life and treatment satisfaction in screen-detected type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (ADDITION-Europe): a cluster-randomised trial
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Volume 56, Issue 11 , pp 2367-2377
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Additional Links
- Diabetes screening
- Health status
- Intensive treatment
- Patient-reported outcome measures
- Primary care
- Quality of life
- Treatment satisfaction
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands
- 2. MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- 3. Department of Public Health, Section of General Practice, University of Århus, Århus, Denmark
- 4. Diabetes Research Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- 5. Holbaek Hospital, Holbaek, Denmark