BACKGROUND: The aim of this research was to determine whether an intensive, nurse-led clinic could achieve recommended vascular risk reduction targets in patients with type 2 diabetes as compared to standard diabetes management. METHOD: Two hundred patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited to receive either intensive nurse-led or standard diabetes care in a 1-year open study. RESULTS: In each group 94 patients completed the study. The groups were matched for age and baseline HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid profiles. More patients in the intensive group achieved vascular risk targets than in the standard group: SBP (<130 mmHg) 33 versus 12.1%, (P < 0.001); DBP (<80 mmHg) 75.5 versus 40.2%, (P < 0.001); cholesterol (<4.8 mmol/L) 84.8 versus 63.6% (P = 0.003); LDL (<2.6 mmol/L) 73.4 versus 54.5% (P = 0.007); HbA1c (<6.5%) 53.2 versus 32.9% (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: An intensive nurse-led clinic is more successful in achieving vascular risk targets than standard diabetes care.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this research was to determine whether an intensive, nurse-led clinic could achieve recommended vascular risk reduction targets in patients with type 2 diabetes as compared to standard diabetes management. METHOD: Two hundred patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited to receive either intensive nurse-led or standard diabetes care in a 1-year open study. RESULTS: In each group 94 patients completed the study. The groups were matched for age and baseline HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid profiles. More patients in the intensive group achieved vascular risk targets than in the standard group: SBP (<130 mmHg) 33 versus 12.1%, (P < 0.001); DBP (<80 mmHg) 75.5 versus 40.2%, (P < 0.001); cholesterol (<4.8 mmol/L) 84.8 versus 63.6% (P = 0.003); LDL (<2.6 mmol/L) 73.4 versus 54.5% (P = 0.007); HbA1c (<6.5%) 53.2 versus 32.9% (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: An intensive nurse-led clinic is more successful in achieving vascular risk targets than standard diabetes care.
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F M Sacks; M A Pfeffer; L A Moye; J L Rouleau; J D Rutherford; T G Cole; L Brown; J W Warnica; J M Arnold; C C Wun; B R Davis; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Helen M Colhoun; D John Betteridge; Paul N Durrington; Graham A Hitman; H Andrew W Neil; Shona J Livingstone; Margaret J Thomason; Michael I Mackness; Valentine Charlton-Menys; John H Fuller Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Shepherd; S M Cobbe; I Ford; C G Isles; A R Lorimer; P W MacFarlane; J H McKillop; C J Packard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245