OBJECTIVES: Primary aim: does general practitioner (GP) education on type 2 diabetes treatment improve HbA1c? Secondary aim: cardiovascular risk factors, hypoglycaemia, treatment intensification, health service utilisation, treatment barriers. METHODS: 99 Asia-Pacific GPs were cluster-randomised to be educated on regional diabetes management guidelines (intervention) or continue standard care (control). The intervention employed meetings, reminders, medical record summary sheets and patient result cards. Each GP recruited four type 2 diabetic patients, assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from 0 to 6 months in patients with baseline HbA1c≥6.5%. RESULTS:361 patients (93%) completed 6 month follow-up. The primary HbA1c outcome was -0.11% (95% CI -0.27, 0.05) with intervention and -0.22% (95% CI -0.39, -0.05) in the control group (p=0.340). The groups did not differ in control of other glycaemic indices, blood pressure or lipids after 6 or 12 months. In those with HbA1c≥9.0%, approximately 50% received intensified treatment by 6 months, and 30% in the final 6 months. GPs identified treatment costs and patient reluctance to use insulin as management barriers. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A structured GP education programme did not improve HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Primary aim: does general practitioner (GP) education on type 2 diabetes treatment improve HbA1c? Secondary aim: cardiovascular risk factors, hypoglycaemia, treatment intensification, health service utilisation, treatment barriers. METHODS: 99 Asia-Pacific GPs were cluster-randomised to be educated on regional diabetes management guidelines (intervention) or continue standard care (control). The intervention employed meetings, reminders, medical record summary sheets and patient result cards. Each GP recruited four type 2 diabeticpatients, assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from 0 to 6 months in patients with baseline HbA1c≥6.5%. RESULTS: 361 patients (93%) completed 6 month follow-up. The primary HbA1c outcome was -0.11% (95% CI -0.27, 0.05) with intervention and -0.22% (95% CI -0.39, -0.05) in the control group (p=0.340). The groups did not differ in control of other glycaemic indices, blood pressure or lipids after 6 or 12 months. In those with HbA1c≥9.0%, approximately 50% received intensified treatment by 6 months, and 30% in the final 6 months. GPs identified treatment costs and patient reluctance to use insulin as management barriers. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: A structured GP education programme did not improve HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Authors: Louise Forsetlund; Mary Ann O'Brien; Lisa Forsén; Liv Merete Reinar; Mbah P Okwen; Tanya Horsley; Christopher J Rose Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Edward S Lee; Rajesh Vedanthan; Panniyammakal Jeemon; Jemima H Kamano; Preeti Kudesia; Vikram Rajan; Michael Engelgau; Andrew E Moran Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rebecca A Jeffery; Matthew J To; Gabrielle Hayduk-Costa; Adam Cameron; Cameron Taylor; Colin Van Zoost; Jill A Hayden Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jorge César Correia; Sarah Lachat; Grégoire Lagger; François Chappuis; Alain Golay; David Beran Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David Flood; Jessica Hane; Matthew Dunn; Sarah Jane Brown; Bradley H Wagenaar; Elizabeth A Rogers; Michele Heisler; Peter Rohloff; Vineet Chopra Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 11.613