Literature DB >> 33542066

Adherence to guideline-recommended HbA1c testing frequency and better outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 5-year retrospective cohort study in Australian general practice.

Chisato Imai1, Ling Li2, Rae-Anne Hardie2, Andrew Georgiou2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines emphasise the role of regular monitoring of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) for patients with type 2 diabetes, with most recommending 6-monthly testing. Nonetheless, there are few in-depth studies evaluating the clinical impact of the recommended testing frequency for patients to underpin the significance of guideline adherence.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine associations between patient outcomes and adherence to HbA1c testing frequencies recommended by Australian guidelines (6-monthly for patients with adequate glycaemic control and 3-monthly for patients with inadequate glycaemic control). The primary and secondary outcomes of interest were longitudinal changes in HbA1c values and development of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
METHODS: This 5-year retrospective cohort study (July 2013-June 2018) evaluated HbA1c testing frequency in a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes identified within data collected from approximately 250 Australian general practices. The study included patients who were aged ≥18 in 2013 and had a record of HbA1c testing in study practices during the study period. Each patient's adherence rate was defined by the proportion of HbA1c tests performed within the testing intervals recommended by Australian guidelines. Based on the adherence rate, adherence level was categorised into low (≤33%), moderate (34%-66%) and high (>66%). Generalised additive mixed models were used to examine associations between adherence to the recommended HbA1c testing frequency and patient outcomes.
RESULTS: In the 6424 patients with diabetes, the overall median HbA1c testing frequency was 1.6 tests per year with an adherence rate of 50%. The estimated HbA1c levels among patients with low adherence gradually increased or remained inadequately controlled, while HbA1c values in patients with high adherence remained controlled or improved over time. The risk of developing CKD for patients with high adherence was significantly lower than for patients with low adherence (OR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.99). No association between IHD and adherence to the recommended HbA1c frequency was observed.
CONCLUSION: Better adherence to guideline-recommended HbA1c testing frequency was associated with better glycaemic control and lower risk of CKD. These findings may provide valuable evidence to support the use of clinical guidelines for better patient outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chronic disease management; clinical practice guidelines; compliance; diabetes mellitus; general practice

Year:  2021        PMID: 33542066     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  4 in total

1.  Association Between High-Deductible Health Plans and Engagement in Routine Medical Care for Type 2 Diabetes in a Privately Insured Population: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Authors:  You M Wu; Jie Huang; Mary E Reed
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 17.152

2.  Variability in Test Interval Is Linked to Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) Trajectory over Time.

Authors:  Anthony A Fryer; David Holland; Michael Stedman; Christopher J Duff; Lewis Green; Jonathan Scargill; Fahmy W F Hanna; Pensée Wu; R John Pemberton; Christine Bloor; Adrian H Heald
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.061

3.  Guidelines adherence in the prevention and management of chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes mellitus on the background of recent European recommendations - a registry-based analysis.

Authors:  Peter Bramlage; Stefanie Lanzinger; Sascha R Tittel; Eva Hess; Simon Fahrner; Christoph H J Heyer; Mathias Friebe; Ivo Buschmann; Thomas Danne; Jochen Seufert; Reinhard W Holl
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 2.388

4.  Medication prescribing in face-to-face versus telehealth consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australian general practice: a retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Nasir Wabe; Judith Thomas; Gorkem Sezgin; Muhammad Kashif Sheikh; Emma Gault; Andrew Georgiou
Journal:  BJGP Open       Date:  2022-03-22
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.