AIM: To investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 6-monthly monitoring compared with 3-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients in primary care. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial was performed. From April 2009 to August 2010, 2215 patients from 233 general practitioners across the Netherlands were included. Patients were eligible if between 40- and 80-years-old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for more than a year, treated by their general practitioner, not on insulin treatment and well-controlled during the last year (HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l). Patients without a strong preference for their monitoring frequency were randomised to 3-monthly or 6-monthly monitoring. Follow-up was 18 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients remaining under: HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l. Equivalence was assumed if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was between -5 and 5%. Cost-effectiveness was determined using a cost-minimisation analysis. RESULTS: In the 3-monthly group 69.5% remained under good cardiometabolic control, versus 69.8% in the 6-monthly group (difference: 0.3%; 95%CI: -6.2-6.7%). All secondary outcomes were equivalent for 3-monthly and 6-monthly monitoring, except the systolic blood pressure target, physical activity and antihypertensive drug use. Six-monthly monitoring was €387 (£333) cheaper per patient compared to 3-monthly monitoring during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with good cardiometabolic control and without preference for their monitoring frequency can visit the primary care physician less often. The cost-savings can be considerable.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 6-monthly monitoring compared with 3-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetespatients in primary care. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial was performed. From April 2009 to August 2010, 2215 patients from 233 general practitioners across the Netherlands were included. Patients were eligible if between 40- and 80-years-old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for more than a year, treated by their general practitioner, not on insulin treatment and well-controlled during the last year (HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l). Patients without a strong preference for their monitoring frequency were randomised to 3-monthly or 6-monthly monitoring. Follow-up was 18 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients remaining under: HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤ 145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤ 5.2 mmol/l. Equivalence was assumed if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was between -5 and 5%. Cost-effectiveness was determined using a cost-minimisation analysis. RESULTS: In the 3-monthly group 69.5% remained under good cardiometabolic control, versus 69.8% in the 6-monthly group (difference: 0.3%; 95%CI: -6.2-6.7%). All secondary outcomes were equivalent for 3-monthly and 6-monthly monitoring, except the systolic blood pressure target, physical activity and antihypertensive drug use. Six-monthly monitoring was €387 (£333) cheaper per patient compared to 3-monthly monitoring during the study period. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with good cardiometabolic control and without preference for their monitoring frequency can visit the primary care physician less often. The cost-savings can be considerable.
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Jeffery Probstfield; Donald Hire; J Bruce Redmon; Gregory W Evans; Mace Coday; Cora E Lewis; Karen C Johnson; Sharon Wilmoth; Judy Bahnson; Michael F Dulin; Jennifer B Green; William C Knowler; Abbas Kitabchi; Anne L Murillo; Kwame Osei; Shakaib U Rehman; William C Cushman Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Dorijn F L Hertroijs; Arianne M J Elissen; Martijn C G J Brouwers; Nicolaas C Schaper; Sebastian Köhler; Mirela C Popa; Stylianos Asteriadis; Steven H Hendriks; Henk J Bilo; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Maaike C M Ronda; Lioe-Ting Dijkhorst-Oei; Rimke C Vos; Paul Westers; Guy E H M Rutten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dorijn F L Hertroijs; Martijn C G J Brouwers; Arianne M J Elissen; Nicolaas C Schaper; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Sytske van Bruggen; Simone P Rauh; Tobias N Bonten; Niels H Chavannes; Mattijs E Numans; Marise J Kasteleyn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: D F L Hertroijs; A M J Elissen; M C G J Brouwers; M Hiligsmann; N C Schaper; D Ruwaard Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.359