INTEGRA study protocol: primary care intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycaemic control

Effectiveness of a multicomponent healthcare intervention on blood pressure and lipids among subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: Findings from the INTEGRA study

AIM

We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multicomponent healthcare intervention, primarily designed to improve glycemic control, on blood pressure and lipids in individuals with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the Catalonian primary care setting METHODS: A cluster, non-randomized, controlled pragmatic trial was conducted across 11 primary care centers. The intervention group (N=225) received a comprehensive, patient-centered approach, including a dedicated monographic consultation to address therapeutic inertia. The control group (N=181) mirrored the intervention group but lacked the monographic consultation. Secondary endpoints included lipid and blood pressure control assessed at baseline and after a 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

245 participants completed the study over 12 months. We found no differences in the reduction of lipid laboratory parameters between the groups at the final visit. However, no significant differences were found between the groups for other lipids or the proportion of participants achieving lipid target values. Likewise, no differences were noted between the groups for blood pressure, its target control, and treatment at the final visit. Various clinical factors such as age, sex, diabetes duration, HbA1c levels, BMI, and macrovascular complications among the participants were associated with achieving lipid and blood pressure targets at the final visit.

CONCLUSION

The pragmatic multicomponent intervention proposed in the INTEGRA study, showed that including a component designed to reduce clinical inertia in the management of glycemia did not demonstrate benefits in improving lipids and blood pressure in patients with poorly controlled T2DM.

A multicomponent health care intervention is associated with improved glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes compared with routine care: The INTEGRA study

AIM

The INTEGRA study evaluated whether a specially designed multicomponent health care intervention improved glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes compared with standard of care practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Pragmatic study in subjects from primary care centres with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >9% (75 mmol/mol). The multifaceted intervention (N = 225 subjects) included a diabetes-focused visit encouraging therapeutic intensification by health care professionals. Retrospective data from matched controls (N = 675) were obtained from electronic medical records of a primary care database. The primary outcome was to compare the change in HbA1c values between the groups at 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean HbA1c decreased substantially in both groups after 3 months, and the mean reduction was significantly greater in the intervention group than in the usual care group after 12 months [mean difference -0.66% (-7 mmol/mol), 95% CI -0.4, -1.0; p < .001]. A larger percentage of participants in the intervention group achieved HbA1c <7% and <8% goals (15.5% vs. 5.3% and 29.3% vs. 13.5%, respectively; p < .001). The improvement in HbA1c levels was sustained throughout the study only in the intervention arm. Glucose-lowering therapy was more frequently intensified in patients in the intervention group at the initial and final time points of the study (between 0-3 and 6-12 months; p < .001), with a significant increase in the number of patients prescribed ≥2 antidiabetic therapies (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted intervention oriented at reducing therapeutic inertia by primary care physicians was associated with greater improvement in glycaemic control compared with patients treated as per usual care.

Impact of a multicomponent healthcare intervention on glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes: The INTEGRA study

AIM

To evaluate whether a specially designed multicomponent healthcare intervention improves glycaemic control in subjects with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cluster, non-randomized, controlled, pragmatic trial in subjects from 11 primary care centres with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c of more than 9% (> 75 mmol/mol) was conducted. The intervention (N = 225 subjects) was professional and patient-centred, including a dedicated monographic visit that encouraged therapeutic intensification by physicians. The sham control (N = 181) was identical to that of the intervention group except that the dedicated visit was omitted. The primary outcome was to compare the reductions in HbA1c values between the groups at 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age at baseline was 59.5 years, mean diabetes duration was 10.7 years and mean HbA1c was 10.3% (89.0 mmol/mol). Patients in the intervention arm achieved significantly greater HbA1c reduction than those in the sham control group at 12 months (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI = -0.2%, -1.04%; P = .002). A larger percentage of intervention participants achieved an HbA1c of less than 8% (44.8% vs. 25.5%; P = .003) and were more frequently treated with more than three antidiabetic therapies (14.4% vs. 3.5%; P = .0008). Intervention was the only variable associated with higher odds of HbA1c less than 8% (odds ratio = 2.52; 95% CI = 1.54-4.12; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multicomponent intervention including a dedicated visit oriented at reducing therapeutic inertia by primary care physicians can improve glycaemic control in poorly controlled patients with type 2 diabetes.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.